pageviewsTexas Republican Ron Paul’s quixotic quest for the White House has received a surprising amount of sympathetic coverage in the main stream press lately. A recent St. Anselm poll showing Paul polling 7% in New Hampshire, ahead of Thompson and Huckabee, raised a lot of eyebrows (yet the 5 other polls taken within the last month showing him in 6th place are generally ignored). Despite rarely registering above 1% in national polls, Paul raised $5 million in the 3rd quarter, almost matching the $6 million raised by the man who nearly won the GOP nomination in 2000. His campaign is driven by an internet-based cult following composed largely of young people. Even more startling is the attention and support he’s drawing from liberals.
On the surface, this following makes perfect sense. He’s against the war, favors abolishing the Patriot Act and restoring civil liberties, supports legalizing medical marijuana, funding stem cell research, while opposing torture and capital punishment. Yet this is all the main stream media seems to focus on when discussing Ron Paul, which might help to explain why so many people still take him semi-seriously.
Here’s what news stories on Paul generally neglect to mention:
Ron Paul wants to abolish Federal Reserve Bank and the income tax, which as the Politico notes are “issues widely viewed as settled since their creation in 1913”. Similarly antiquated is his support for abandoning the fiat currency system in favor of tying the value of currency to gold and silver and repealing the 17th Amendment. Yes, you read that right: Ron Paul wants to take away the right to vote for Senators directly, one of the landmark democratic achievements of the progressive era, and give it back to state legislatures.
Oh, and by the way, he also would like to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education, the Food and Drug Administration, Medicare, Veterans Administration hospitals, and welfare, while pulling out of NAFTA, the WTO, and the United Nations. But who’s going to miss any of those things?
Other parts of his platform read like they were authored by a conspiracy theorist:
“H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely.”
“NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.”
“Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins.”
“The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in order to comply with standards dictated by supra-national organizations such as the UN‘s World Food Code (CODEX), NAFTA, and CAFTA, has been assuming greater control over nutrients, vitamins and natural health care providers to restrict your right to choose the manner in which you manage your health and nutritional needs.”
It’s not that I’m seriously worried about a President Ron Paul. True libertarians cannot win national elections because Americans are inspired by candidates who promise to DO things, not restrain, cut back, and downsize. While Paul can continue to delude himself saying “the majority of Americans are with me”, the bloated federal government that he is so appalled by came about for a reason – the people demanded federal action to solve problems.
The Ron Paul ‘movement’ is based largely on ignorance of his true extremism.
Last Tuesday, FEMA Deputy Director Vice Adm. Harvey E. Johnson held a press conference regarding the agency’s response to the wildfires in California. In light of the agency’s catastrophic failures during Hurricane Katrina, the questions asked by reporters seemed to be a little too soft. For example, one of the questions was, “What lessons learned from Katrina have been applied?”
Well, it turns out, the “reporters” weren’t actually reporters.
They were FEMA employees posing as reporters.
In defense of his agency’s actions, FEMA Deputy Director of Public Affairs Mike Widomski said, “We had been getting mobbed with phone calls from reporters, and this was thrown together at the last minute." You see, the agency only gave real reporters 15 minutes’ notice of the news briefing. They allowed reporters to call in and listen to the briefing, but not to ask questions. When no reporters showed up, what was FEMA supposed to do? Give reporters more time to show up? Reschedule the briefing? Perhaps the agency was afraid of showing a weakening of resolve. FEMA showed once and for all it will never give in to the, uh, traffic. The show must go on--in fact, this time it actually was a “show”.
Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff promised “appropriate discipline” against those responsible but declined to say if any employees involved would lose their jobs. At least Chertoff is being honest with us and is not pretending that there will be real accountability for this incident. He’s clearly learned from the errors made by his boss, President Bush, who in June 2004 said he would fire anyone in his administration involved with leaking the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame. When Karl Rove was named as one of the sources behind the leak, the president showed us how much his words count for.
Since the firing of the employees who participated in this charade seems to be out of the question, I have another suggestion. If these FEMA employees were so eager to pretend to be reporters, why don’t they leave FEMA and pursue real careers in journalism? Then perhaps we could get some competent people into this farce of an agency.
I like Barack Obama. I like him even though he didn’t put his hand over his heart the last time he heard the national anthem. I like him even though he doesn’t wear an American flag on his lapel. And I still like him, even though he plans to appear on stage with Donnie McClurkin, an “anti-gay” gospel singer. I like Barack Obama because Obama is trying really hard to get me to like him.
I can understand his desire for popularity—after all, isn’t that what buys a presidential victory? Still, watching his recent campaign performances, I can’t help but wonder if Obama is trying a little too hard. Take the senator’s South Carolina Gospel Tour, for example. The Gospel Tour features predominantly African-American acts, including “ex-gay” Reverend Donnie McClurkin and other gospel singers. This sensational political strategy, focused on a state where half of the democratic voters are black, was intended to be a vehicle through which this presidential hopeful could compete with Hillary’s popularity among black voters.
Yes, Obama is trying to be original. He is trying to build support from a grassroots level by taking part in a powerful cultural identity. But in his attempt to win the support of black voters, Obama has provoked the LGBT community. His on-stage companion, Reverend McClurkin, has made homophobic remarks regarding the need to “break the curse of homosexuality,” prompting the Human Rights Commission (HRC) to condemn the senator’s affiliation with the gospel singer. Instead of taking a stance either way, Obama attempts to neutralize McClurkin’s incendiary effect by tacking on an openly gay minister to the front of his tour. The situation that ensues is abominably awkward. Obama does not support McClurkin’s homophobia, nor does he want to take any chances at offending the black community by renouncing the reverend’s partnership. By catering to both sides, he seems unassured and hesitant where he should be decisive.
Barack Obama wants everyone to like him, and that’s his biggest problem. People do like Barack Obama. He seems to be a genuinely good guy. But the HRC is not asking for him to be buddies with a gay minister. They—along with the rest of America—are looking for leadership. They’re looking for a man with the backbone to stand up for real values and to make real change.
The Barack Obama I like tries to befriend everyone and offend no one. He cracks jokes, organizes concerts, and relates to voters on a personal level. But the Barack Obama I might vote for is a man with vision, passion, will, and the agency to replace ideals with actions. I believe in his message. I believe in his visions for the future, in his hopes and his fears. What’s more, I believe that he has the potential to make his dreams for our America into our reality. But when Obama favors popularity over principal, voters lose confidence in his efficacy as a leader. It is when he stands soundly behind his own opinions, and delivers his message with the confidence of a president of the United States, that Barack Obama becomes a man who voters can believe in.
I like Barack Obama, but I’m crossing my fingers.
In a sign that the media & political junkies are already taking his presidential run much more seriously than the candidate himself, Rasmussen has conducted a poll with Colbert as a third party candidate. More surprising, though, is the fact that the public seems to be taking Colbert’s candidacy more seriously than he does as well.
The nationwide poll shows that in a three-way race against Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton, Colbert gets 13% of support to Clinton’s 45% and Giuliani’s 35%. With Fred Thompson as the GOP nominee (a prospect about as likely as a 3rd party candidacy) its Clinton 46%, Thompson 34%, and Colbert 12%. To put these numbers in perspective, this is almost exactly the same level of support as Michael Bloomberg drew as a hypothetical 3rd party candidate over the summer (43-37-12).
Even more impressive, Colbert draws 28% of likely voters aged 18-29 with Giuliani and 31% with Thompson, actually beating the GOP nominee in both cases.
TPM: “Colbert seems to draw most of his support from the GOP column, indicating a real unhappiness among Republican voters — either that, or conservatives who have watched his show really don't get the joke.”
Colbert announced on his show last Tuesday that he was filing paperwork to run in both the Republican and Democratic primaries in South Carolina, stating “After nearly 15 minutes of soul-searching, I have heard the call.” While to Colbert the run may simply be an ingenious way to promote his new book and television show, he is clearly creating some excitement as evidenced by the 829,845 members of his Facebook group and the frenzy it has inspired among the media.
Personally, I think it would be a fascinating social experiment if he were to take his candidacy seriously (within the limits of his character, of course). Imagine an entire campaign premised on sarcasm and scripted by comedy writers—debates, campaign ads, rallies, all with the intent of mocking the other candidates and the American electoral process. But perhaps it makes an even better point to poll 13% —more than Ross Perot got after spending $8 million in 1996—without even trying.
Last Friday, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas ended his bid for the Republican presidential nomination. He is the third member of the illustrious group of ex-GOP presidential hopefuls, joining former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore and former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson. Let’s just say that Brownback’s decision didn’t exactly send shock waves through the political world.
However, Brownback’s dropout is the first significant one in the Republican field. About a year ago, when the presidential race was first getting underway, the three Republican favorites were Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. Needless to say, the Christian right wasn’t enamored with any of them. However, they did have a strong affinity for two lesser-known candidates: Brownback and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who are both firmly pro-life and anti-gay marriage. The winner who emerged was supposed to be the religious right’s answer to the three Republican frontrunners. It soon became clear that Huckabee won the battle between the two of them. Huckabee was witty and eloquent during the presidential debates, while Brownback sounded stiff and uninspiring. Huckabee then finished 2nd in the Iowa straw poll, beating out Brownback, who finished 3rd. While Brownback barely registers on national polls with 1-2%, Huckabee has made a move recently and now measures in at 7-9% on Rasmussen Reports daily tracking polls. And a recent Rasmusssen Reports poll in Iowa found Huckabee with 18% in a virtual tie for 2nd, while Brownback lagged toward the back of the field with a measly 3%.
Now that Brownback is done, the religious right is faced with a stark choice: back Huckabee or support one of the frontrunners. Well, pro-choice Giuliani is completely out of the question, as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council threatened that he and other evangelical leaders will back a pro-life third party candidate if Giuliani wins the nomination. McCain is still unpopular for calling Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson “agents of intolerance”, even though McCain and Falwell have made up. Romney has gotten some support from evangelical leaders, but the extent of that support is probably limited by his Mormon religion and his liberal positions on social issues prior to his presidential campaign. Thompson may have the most conservative record on social issues, but he has not made his faith a central issue in his campaign, unlike Huckabee. There is evidence that the religious right is beginning to take a serious look at Huckabee’s candidacy. In Sunday’s Family Research Council Values Voters straw poll, Huckabee finished with 27.2%, second only to Romney’s 27.6%. Among the voters who attended the event and heard the candidates speak, Huckabee received an astonishing 51%, while Romney placed second with 10%.
Many of Brownback’s staffers can be expected to flock to the Huckabee’s campaign, as the two are ideologically in step. With Brownback’s departure, Mike Huckabee is the only one candidate left who the religious right truly believes in, and thus has to be considered a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination.
As for Brownback, he is expected to run for Governor of Kansas in 2010 when his U.S. Senate term expires. He is only 51 years old, so he can continue to dream of reaching the White House someday.
Amidst a heated political debate pitting pragmatism against principle, House Democratic leaders seem to be backing off their previous commitment to vote on a resolution officially classifying the killings of 1.5 million Armenians as genocide.
The bill, which addresses the killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire (modern day Turkey) between 1915-1923, passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee by a 27-21 vote on October 10. Although the bill has 218 cosponsors (over half the House), Pelosi now says it "remains to be seen" whether the bill will come to a vote before the November recess, noting that "other matters on the agenda that have to be dealt with first".
Despite the consensus among historians that the slaughter of Armenians constitutes genocide, the Turkish government adamantly denies the genocide label. Though it admits that many Armenians died around the time of World War I, Turkey contends that the casualty figures are inflated, and that the Armenians were victims of civil war and unrest which killed many Turks as well. The century-old event remains a volatile political issue in Turkey, where a law requires that schools deny the massacre, and journalists and historians have been jailed or killed in recent years for publicizing the event. The Turkish government even spent $300,000 a month lobbying against the resolution.
The resolution has provoked strong opposition from the Bush administration, which has carefully avoided the ‘G’ word in recent weeks, instead referring to the “mass killings”, “forced deportations”, “atrocities”, and “horrendous suffering” of the Armenian people.
As if we needed further proof that we are selling our soul for ‘victory’ in Iraq, the administration refuses to condemn a clear act of genocide because it fears provoking a backlash from a key ally, whose airspace is used to transport 70 percent of the air cargo intended for U.S. forces in Iraq and 30 percent of the fuel consumed by those forces.
While I understand the need to maintain good relations with an Islamic democracy, NATO member, and strategic ally, we cannot play along with Turkey’s policy of whitewashing history and suppressing dissent. The United States cannot be a moral leader in the world if we only stand up for human rights issues when economic and strategic interests aren’t at stake.As the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Adam Schiff (CA-29) asks:
“How can we take effective action against the genocide in Darfur if we lack the will to condemn genocide whenever and wherever it occurs?"
This weekend Nomadic Theatre is putting on "The Exonerated", about the experiences of six people who were wrongfully convicted but still lost years of their lives on death row.*
Our justice system, though, is systemically unjust. It is racist, ineffective at deterring crime, often erroneous, and extremely expensive.
And yet... almost all our Democratic candidates -- including every single frontrunner -- support the death penalty. Clinton is a long-time advocate. Edwards believes "some crimes deserve the ultimate penalty". Obama, for all he is touted as a religious and moral man, and for all he believes that the death penalty "does little to deter crime", still would execute prisoners.
Perhaps I shouldn't be so surprised, but Kucinich is in the only one on the field who vocalizes what I am convinced is the only appropriate approach. "Morally," he writes, "I simply do not believe that we as human beings have the right to 'play God' and take a human life – especially since our human judgments are fallible and often wrong." Along with him comes Gravel, who has been silent on capital punishment so far in this campaign but was opposed at least back in 1972, when his book Citizen Power came out.
I'm dismayed that once again, it's only the "crazy" and "ridiculously unelectable" candidates who are talking sense. (It reminds me incredibly of that debate where it was only these two who would lower the drinking age so that young people who are called to die for our country could also buy a beer. Yeah.)
Why is that? I think Liliana Segura has it pegged: "They know that as long as no one holds them accountable, it is a political stance that costs them nothing. It’s their “soft on crime” trump card." Kucinich (and to some extent Gravel) can say these things only because he isn't considered a real candidate.
Cynical? Yes. Unfortunately, it also rings true. How crazy is Kucinich really?
*It was a wonderful performance, and one that I suggest you all look into attending before the show ends this weekend.
Yesterday, the President encouraged Congress to be more responsible with taxpayer dollars, remarking that “every program sounds like a great program, but without setting priorities, the temptation is to overspend.” Yes, President Bush certainly has got his priorities straight. After approving an additional $190 billion dollars for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he blasted Congress for their proposed $205 billion dollars of additional government spending, which he deemed excessive. No surprises here—President Bush has demonstrated, once again, his unapologetic hypocrisy. While investing hundreds of billions of dollars in an increasingly unpopular war, the President has criticized a Democratic congress that is desperately trying to pass spending bills such as SCHIP. His defense? “It’s important for our citizens to understand that we spend $35 billion dollars a year for poor children’s health care…my attitude is, let’s help the poor children.”
Yes, Mr. Bush, let’s help the poor children. Let’s start by appropriating the necessary resources to do so. The President has declared what he calls a “fiscal showdown” with Congress, in his valiant attempt to prioritize spending. The trouble is, his priorities don’t seem to be the same as our priorities. Bush’s version of fiscal responsibility involves pouring billions of dollars down the begrudging throats of our biggest foreign policy disaster, while refusing to fund significant national programs under the smug design of keeping our taxes low.
Bush is too proud of the recent improvements in the Government budget deficit. Sure, a balanced budget by 2012 would be nice, and the President is well on his way to success—by reducing domestic programs such as education and health care, while our war spending soars almost as high as the national debt.
I’m glad to see we’re really getting our priorities straight.
Congratulations to Vice President Al Gore on being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize earlier today. According to the committee who awarded Gore with the prize, he "is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted" to battle climate change.
Gore has promised to donate his monetary prize to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan non-profit organization that is devoted to changing public opinion in the U.S. and around the world about the urgency of solving the climate crisis.
One story that is likely going to be rehashed now that Gore has won this award is whether or not he will reconsider a bid for the US Presidency. The DraftGore movement, based out of San Francisco where Gore lives part-time, has reenergized lately. They've collected almost 200,000 supporter signatures, and, last week, ran an ad in the NYTimes urging Gore to make another run for office.
In the past, Gore has been somewhat evasive in answering the question, saying that he did not see himself running for President, but refusing to rule out the possibility. Now that the spotlight is on him, we'll see if that promise stands.
Again, kudos Vice President Gore, an award well deserved.
I'm not even going to waste energy typing this all out-- just watch this video. Ann Coulter's perfect world includes all Jews being "perfected" into Christians. Wow.
