It is no secret that Rudy Giuliani is relying heavily on his record as the former mayor of the United States's largest city on the campaign trail: he has cut crime, cut spending, cut red tape, increased economic growth through the magic of supply-side economics, etc. What is shameful is that many of the numbers he has been touting are greatly exaggerated.
Giuliani, for instance, is fond of taking credit for the decrease in crime in New York City under his administration, but statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice indicate that the violent crime rate peaked in 1990 -- and Giuliani was not sworn into office until four years later. In a recent radio ad attempting to prove that the American health care system is superior to government-run "socialized medicine," he compares U.S. and British prostate cancer survival rates (82 and 44 percent, respectively). The source of the data used to create this statistic, however, says that the numbers were misused: the actual five-year survival rate in Britain is much higher (74 percent). Giuliani's claim to have generated a multibillion-dollar surplus by the end of his mayoral career is also false. In the final fiscal year of his administration, government expenditures exceeded revenues, and the surplus was almost entirely used up in balancing the budget.
I suppose, then, that if your accomplishments aren't good enough, you can always make them up.
I just caught up on my wingnut television for the week. I found it entertaining enough. If you thought the Democrats were getting tough on each other check out this exchange:
While I sort of enjoy watching the Republicans alienate one of the fastest growing demographics in the country its also appalling that Republicans are bragging about not giving children money for tuition. Giuliani's tactic is interesting. Basically he's denying that New York was a sanctuary city and then justifies the City's "three exceptions". But his three exceptions are basically the components of what define a sanctuary city. I suppose that means the Giuliani camp thinks Republican voters oppose things called "sanctuary cities" but don't really know what the term means. And hey, he might be right. I'm sort of confused about the framing, though. My sense is that the term 'sanctuary' was first used by cities and immigrant rights activists. And it seems like it should be a positive frame. Sanctuaries generally connote nice, happy, places right? Like this:
But nearly every use of the term I've seen has been from conservatives. Are we gaming them or is there a better frame? I sort of like "solidarity cities".
While I sort of enjoy watching the Republicans alienate one of the fastest growing demographics in the country its also appalling that Republicans are bragging about not giving children money for tuition. Which brings me to Huckabee who *gasp* supports letting the children of immigrants have the same chance at winning a merit based scholarship as their peers.
If this had been a general election debate I could say Huckabee just school Romney here. They guy is going to win Iowa and that will probably be how Romney falls apart. I'm ambivalent about whether a Huckabee nomination would be a good thing. On the one hand, Huckabee is definitely the best Republican on domestic spending issues. The guy raised taxes so he could increase state spending by 65%- on things like health care, education and roads. The Club for Growth hates him. I mean really really hates him. Which makes me want to love him.
Unfortunately he also likes to tell women what they can do what they're bodies, tell gay people they can't get married, tell straight people they can't get unmarried, and doesn't believe in evolution. But the real reason I'm worried about a Huckabee nomination is that I think he could win. Truly, he has more political talent than any other Republican running for President. He's like Bush in 2000 except he's articulate and a real southerner. Here's more. Try to get past Tancredo's overwhelming awkwardness at the end:
Really though Mike, choosing the death penalty wasn't the only irrevocable decision you made.
It’s basketball season, which means that our campus is once again bleeding Hoya blue. Excitement ran high after we crushed Michigan 74-52 at our last home game. But while everyone else was screaming the fight song, a friend of mine was having a nationality crisis.
She is the quintessential international Hoya—half French, half Filipino, she was born in Venezuela and raised in Singapore. (And yes, she’s in the SFS). Which explains why she might not know all of the words to our national anthem. And sure, she wasn’t wild about placing her hand over her heart and staring at the American flag, waving high above our heads in the stadium rafters. What America had to do with basketball, she wasn’t sure, though she was willing to play along. But the climax of the anthem inspired in her a profound sense of isolation, as she stood surrounded by her apparently reverent American peers. It prompted a question I stumbled over, whose answer seemed at once obvious and uncomfortable. She asked me why Americans cheer at the words “the land of the free.”
It’s true—every time I’ve heard the Star Spangled Banner, the applause is loudest at our anthem’s natural climax, the word “free” striking the song’s highest note. Nowadays, the anthem is linked to the stadium crowd, to hot-dog-and-popcorn-toting fans clutching extra-large slurpees to their chests as they murmur along with the celebrity vocalist du jour. “The land of the free” is a phrase both sets of fans in the stadium can agree on; it may be the only time during the game that the two sides are cheering for the same reason. Watching my bewildered friend describe our reaction as the “American swagger,” I couldn’t help but think of the political visions for America in 2008. For me, it begs the question, which side of the political spectrum is really fighting for the land of the free?
Americans are divided on more issues than Congress can legislate in a decade. So, too, are they divided on what freedom means for America. Democrats and Republicans alike cheer along with the stadium fans when talking about America as a free nation. But the Land of the Free is a big claim to make—and a liberal opinion of our country is not without its share of censure. Truthfully, many aspects of America are not all that free. Antiquated laws prevent certain marriages on no justifiable basis, and many poor children still receive little or no medical care. And while conservatives are all vying for the best way to defend our country from an elusive enemy, a Democratic administration will be faced with the weighty task of correcting the fractured image of America abroad. A Republican administration, on the other hand, seems to envision freedom from taxes, gun control, and atheists. Many of the issues dividing the parties boil down to various “freedoms from” and “freedoms to”—gay marriage, border control, abortion, the War on Terror, tax reform, the 2nd amendment, and civil rights, to name a few. Though the Republicans are heralded as the patriot’s party, conservative campaign slogans such as Tancredo’s “It’s your culture: fight for it!” seem to fly in the face of any logical understanding of freedom.
As a liberal, I do my fair share of critiquing the current government. But I am proud to be an American, and I am proud to stand with my hand over my heart and sing our national anthem. Yet I am not fully confident when our collective voices reach that highest note. The land of the free is a vision for the future, it is about hope and about progress. A successful Democratic administration must not compromise our freedoms for power’s sake. But just like that old joke, maybe that’s why Francis Scott Key put “freedom” such a high note—because it’s so hard to reach.
As I’ve obsessively watched the race for the GOP nomination, I have noticed that despite its vicissitudes and seeming volatility, one thing has remained constant: Republican voters have consistently underestimated their best (perhaps only) chance of retaining the White House in 2008.
John McCain is not someone I like, but he’s someone I can respect. It’s not just that he’s a bona fide war hero. It’s not just that he has more governing experience than Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson combined. He’s the only Republican in the race with any semblance of integrity.
McCain didn’t just come out of nowhere or invent an identity to run for president. Look at the rest of the Republican field. Fred Thompson was undistinguished as a US Senator, and seems to have been largely drafted into the race by deceptively optimistic poll numbers; a wealthy lobbyist and Washington insider, he’s now being marketed as the simple man’s pickup-truck-and-gun-show candidate. Giuliani and Romney have been tripping over themselves downplaying and apologizing for their past liberal positions. Despite the extensive repackaging they’ve gone through, the only reason they’re still contenders is because they’ve had the good fortune of being mayor on 9/11 and rich, respectively. Ron Paul is still a joke; and –though he’s run a fine campaign—who the hell is Mike Huckabee?
In the parlance of our times, McCain is legit. Unlike the rest of the field, he’s running as himself, not McCain 2.0 (New and Improved), McCain* (A True Conservative - Since April 2002), or John! (Now With Personality). He may be a warmonger and an idiot, but at least you know his belligerence and stupidity are genuine and not the highly-polished product of a skilled marketing campaign to appeal to the jingoistic and dim-witted Republican electorate.
I’ve heard Republicans say that the very fact that liberals like me can respect John McCain suggests that he is too much of a moderate to be nominated by the modern GOP. But if you look at his opponents, Giuliani is clearly the most socially liberal and Huckabee is much farther to the left on economic issues, while Ron Paul takes that honor in the realm of foreign policy.
Like Barack Obama, McCain has centrist appeal without actually being a centrist on policy. Despite his reputation as a ‘maverick’, for the most part McCain’s independent image is greatly exaggerated. He has taken a lot of very public, seemingly audacious stances, breaking GOP taboos by shunning the religious right, supporting campaign finance reform, opposing Bush on torture, and taking a moderate stance on illegal immigration. Although he ultimately caved to the right on all of these issues except campaign finance, he still gets a lot of the credit for it and to this day is mistakenly referred to as independent by the media.
Republican primary voters have rarely, if ever, had the opportunity to nominate somewhat as conservative as McCain who is simultaneously adored by the media and popular among independent voters.
Thank God they’re too stupid to realize it.
So you’re probably a relatively normal person, and as a result not nearly as excited as I am about the Republican CNN-YouTube debate on November 28th. But if you didn’t watch the Democratic counterpart in July, they actually asked some fairly original and even challenging questions that you’d never hear come out of Wolf Blitzer’s mouth.
That’s why I strongly encourage everyone with a video camera to submit your own questions for the Republican candidates by the November 25 deadline. This is your chance to call out Romney, bewilder Mike Huckabee, embarrass Rudy Giuliani, make Anderson Cooper blush, or simply make life awkward for everyone involved. Just imagine the possibilities. Are you imagining? Ok, fine, I’ll imagine for you:
This is for all the candidates who oppose embryonic stem cell research:
Imagine that a building is on fire- In one room is a dish containing three human embryos; in the other, a newborn baby. You only have time to save one. Which would you choose?
The genius of this question (which I sadly cannot claim credit for) is that for pro-life Republicans, there truly is no right answer. Since they purport that each embryo is a human life, the logical conclusion would be to save the embryos rather than the baby. But any politician who says they would save a Petri dish over a baby would come off as inhuman and unfeeling. On the other hand, if they say they would save the newborn they are essentially conceding that embryos aren’t the same value as human life, and by extension, the sort of ‘life’ that exists at conception is not equal to that of a living, breathing human. That’s why I love this question and suggest you use it to put Republicans on the spot whenever possible.
For Ron Paul:
On your website you warn Americans of a plan to build a NAFTA superhighway from Mexico to Canada, as part of a larger plot by powerful special interest groups to unite The United States, Mexico, and Canada into one nation by the North American Union. Why haven’t we heard more about this grave threat to US sovereignty in the main stream media?
This is actually the least condescending version of this question I could come up with. It also works in regards to the 17th Amendment, the gold standard, the United Nations- or any other radical position that he generally avoids talking about. Essentially, I would love to make the coalition of pseudo-anarchists, misguided stoners, and naïve college students aware that their man is a legitimate nut job.
For Mitt Romney:
In 1994, you claimed that you would be a better advocate for gay rights than Ted Kennedy. Now? Not so much. What has changed since ’94 to account for this shift: your principles, your target audience, or the gays?
You get the idea.
Sadly, I am stranded in the barrens of Western New York without a video camera; but for all of you with the technological means, this is your chance to give your favorite Republican candidate a proverbial bitch slap --phrased in the form of a question, of course. Good luck!
http://www.youtube.com/contest/RepublicanDebate
In a strategic move that would make Josh Lyman proud, Senate Democrats are working every third day this week in order to prevent President Bush from making controversial recess appointments. According to congressional and Constitutional rules, the Senate needs to meet on the day following three consecutive days off to remain "in session". And by keeping the Senate in session (and out of recess), Senate Dems can keep Bush from making any recess appointments.
If anyone is worried about this strategy keeping Democratic Senators away from home on this holiday weekend, you should be reassured by what these pro forma sessions actually entail. In each case, a Senator (Jim Webb D-VA, Byron Dorgan D-ND, and Jack Reed D-RI have volunteered to participate) opens a session and then closes it again. In all, the process takes less than half a minute.
And with that little effort, the Senate has been able to prevent a series of controversial under-the-radar appointments. The leadership was most concerned about Bush's nominee for Surgeon General, James Holsinger Jr., who has a record of being prejudiced towards the LGBT community. What does Bush think qualifies Holsinger to be America's doctor? Well, I'm not sure, but it might have something to do with Hope Springs Community Church. Holsinger was an original founder of the Church that "ministers to people who no longer wish to be gay or lesbian." Holsinger believes that homosexuality is "an issue not of orientation but of lifestyle." I'm happy that the man who might be our next Surgeon General has such a firm grasp on these issues...
So in light of the nightmare situation that has been avoided, on this Thanksgiving I'm giving thanks for the quick-thinking Senate Dems leadership...
You know we live in a strange world when we have spent $1.3 trillion on a misguided adventure that has made us significantly less secure, and yet we have been able to significantly improve our national security with a different effort that required only $100 million (1/13,000 of the cost). But such are the life and times of the Bush administration.
The two events I am referring to are the war in Iraq and an effort to finance the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.
A new report released by Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee places the total cost of the war in Iraq at $1.3 trillion (so far). To put that in perspective, that would cost $16,500 for the average family of four. And what has the war in Iraq accomplished? It has tarnished America’s image around the world, decreasing our ability to work with foreign governments to fight terrorism and increasing anti-Americanism that directly leads to terrorism. At the same time, it has destabilized the Middle East, threatening American political and economic interests in the region.
On the other hand, since 2001, the Bush administration has commendably provided $100 million to help Pakistan secure its nuclear weapons. As Joe Biden likes to assert, the real concern about nuclear proliferation in the Islamic world is not Iran (who is years away from developing a nuclear weapon), but instead Pakistan. Many of Pakistan’s nuclear facilities are not adequately secure, and Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan was found to have sold nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea, and Libya. Due to this lack of nuclear security, there is a real risk that Islamic fundamentalists could obtain a nuclear weapon, which could then be used against the United States. In addition, Musharraf’s government is not at all stable, as he has faced three assassination attempts since 2003. If his regime were to collapse, Islamic fundamentalists could take control of the country’s nuclear arsenal. While there have been problems regarding the implementation of the nuclear security program, it is exactly the kind of effort that makes our nation more secure in a 21st-century world.
Instead of spending $1.3 trillion on a war that has made our nation less safe, we should have put the focus on financing these more mundane initiatives, such as the effort to secure Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, that actually make America safer and do it at a fraction of the cost. Unfortunately, the Bush administration’s approach with regard to Iraq was “shoot first, ask questions later."
Yesterday, a United Nations scientific panel announced that global warming is "severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action" can prevent it and its repercussions. The war over global warming has been raging for many years; in fact, I feel like it has been for my entire life. Yet, leading Republican officials and presidential candidates, like the illustrious Fred Thompson, continue to deny the existence of global warming and claim that liberals and progressives are overstating the dangers and the facts. Whether Friday’s U.N. report will help to convince some of the doubters remains to be seen, but it is another event which underscores the importance of global warming for not only American politics and American society, but the entire planet.
My question, then, is why aren’t we talking about this more? Why is this not a crucial aspect of the presidential race, and a crucial talking point in society? Why doesn’t everybody know the candidates’ views? Why are we allowing this, even after Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize, to be a secondary issue? I cannot answer these questions definitively. It may be that we are afraid to admit that the lifestyle we enjoy so much could be destroying our planet. Maybe admitting that our past and our present need to be drastically critiqued, and our behavior needs to be changed harms a view of American superiority. Perhaps people, like Mr. Thompson, really are this stupid. All I know is that I don’t know. However, regardless of our ignorance and avoidance, this reality is inexcusable.
Politicians often say that they are working to build a better, safer, stronger, more prosperous America for today. But surely, we must admit that working to ensure America’s survival, to ensure that our children, grandchildren, and everyone else down the line can attain these things is also an important goal. Thus, we cannot allow for more evidence to come in until we take action. We must start right now, right away, and work to ensure the preservation of our planet. I am, by no means, a crazed environmentalist. But even I can realize that the time has come, the writing is on the wall, and we need to do something about this. We need to make this an issue that America cares about first. And only then will the politicians truly begin to take notice.
It is an old story, the 2006 midterm elections. Buoyed by voters' opposition to the Republican status quo, the Democrats found themselves with majorities in both houses of Congress. For liberals across the country, it was like an early Christmas present: after having spent the past six years being trodden upon by uncaring, corrupt, and incompetent Republicans, the forces of progressive goodness could at last claim the powers of the legislature as their own. Though voters had much to frown at, the issue that topped them all was the War in Iraq and the management thereof. While a significant majority of the electorate disapproved of the war's handling or expressed support for some form of troop withdrawal, the position of the Left in the Democratic Party can be summarized easily: bring the troops home now.
It is with these demands that the 110th Congress have been grappling, but all attempts to end the War in Iraq or to minimize American involvement in any significant way have been met with a clear resistance from Congressional Republicans and the White House. Most recently, a Democratically sponsored $50 billion funding bill for the war, the money conditional on redeploying the troops to specific missions and completing the process by mid-December next year, failed to get the 60 votes needed in the Senate. Even if the bill had passed, President Bush would have vetoed it, just as he vetoed a spending bill in May that also had troop withdrawal conditions. The Democrats in Congress are repeatedly running into the same brick wall with the same results: nothing is getting done.
Democratic leaders, I would think, recognize that, regardless of how greatly the public might disapprove of the war, nothing will get done. President Bush has staked his political legacy on the war, and he isn't about to admit that it failed. Why, then, does the Democratic Congress continue to play this game? Naturally, it is impossible to read the minds of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, but here's a guess: Hillary Clinton & Co. are not the only ones looking for success in the upcoming 2008 elections. The entire House of Representatives, in addition to a third of the Senate, are also up for re-election, and they have to look after their own interests. Casting a vote in favor of in some way limiting the extent of the War in Iraq makes for a catchy soundbite and looks good to constituents at home, even if that vote had no actual policy impact. In a broader context, Congress as a whole could use a bit of a boost. A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll put Congress's approval rating at 19 percent (for purposes of comparison, the same poll put Bush's approval rating at 31 percent -- yes, Virginia, there is an institution more unpopular than our current head of state). Imagine how much lower it would be if Congress didn't even bother to try fulfilling its mandate.
Assuming, of course, that it is possible for that number to get any smaller.
The pro-life / pro-choice debate has long been a point of contention within American partisan politics. Simply put, democrats are pro-choice, republicans are pro-life, and the public votes along these lines. But this oversimplification is being tested now that a pro-choice Republican is running for president—and now stands as the Republican frontrunner.
Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, only two U.S. presidents have been Democrats, and nearly all of the Republican presidents have been pro-life. Furthermore, Republican administrations are responsible for 12 of the past 14 Supreme Court nominations. The issue was tested again in 1992 regarding the Casey v. Planned Parenthood decision, which overruled five provisions for abortions in the state of Pennsylvania. Abortion remains legal, despite the supremacy of pro-life administrations. But the debate persists as a key component of any candidate’s platform.
On Wednesday, Fred Thompson was officially endorsed for president by the National Right to Life Committee, the nation’s largest anti-abortion organization. He was touted as “the best candidate to beat Giuliani.” But does this matter? The coming election might test just how powerful a constituency the religious right is. The question remains, does the religious right have enough power to swing the entire primary in a more conservative direction?
A Giuliani nomination—horrifying as that may be—will stand out as a landmark for the Republican Party. Whether the religious right will endorse a third party candidate and (foolishly) split the Republican vote (handing victory to the Democrats) remains to be seen. But should they follow the Republican Party in supporting Giuliani, this might be an indicator that the religious reigns on American conservatives are loosening- or, if nothing else, that the pro-life debate is losing its sway.
