Archive for the 'Elections' category

Barackbook: Credit Where Credit Is Due…

Jul 29 2008 Published by under Barack Obama, Candidates, Elections, Politics, Republicans, The Internet

I have been a pretty harsh critic of the RNC and its Internet operations. I have argued for some time that the RNC really doesn’t foster a sense of creativity or innovation. While I still maintain that is generally true, I have to admit I really like their latest project – www.barackbook.com.

The idea is very good. Facebook captures the interconnection of people, so how better to demonstrate Obama’s connection to some really shady people than a FB parody. It’s not quite an exact rip-off of Facebook’s profile page, which would have been easy enough to do, but I suspect they were trying to make it different enough that they wouldn’t get sued (friggin’ lawyers!).

Some might argue that mocking Facebook is a bad move given that FB co-founder Chris Hughes is running my.BarackObama.com. It may call attention to the fact that Obama has attracted some big tech names to his side. I disagree.

I think the message is compelling, and I think the connection between Obama and FB really won’t get much traction.

The only real critique I have of the effort is the relative inability to spread it around. I would suggest to Cyrus and company, that they add an option in the upper right to “Add Friends”, and provide the opportunity for visitors to virally promote the site. Regular Facebook users would likely click on the link just to see what it does.

Update: Thanks to Paul Rodriguez for pointing out that I eff-ed up the link. It works now. And thanks twice for also pointing out my screwed up title… I really need to stop posting on auto-pilot.

No responses yet

The Bush Administration’s Lost Opportunity

Jul 28 2008 Published by under Barack Obama, Democrats, Elections, Government, John McCain, Politics, Republicans, War

This is a little late, but I was out on travel last week and didn’t have much time to sit and put thoughts together. As I watched Obama trek through the Middle East and Europe last week, a remarkable thing happened. The Iraqi Prime Minister gave the Bush Administration the greatest gift it could have wanted – a way out of Iraq immediately and under the Administration’s terms.

In January of 2005, President Bush was asked if we would leave if the Iraqi government indicated it wanted us out. His reply? “Absolutely. This is a sovereign government. They’re on their feet.”

Last week, when Nouri al-Maliki announced his support for Obama’s withdrawal timetable, and signaled the Iraqi people were ready for us to leave, the Administration had an opening to live up to those words. The Administration should have immediately issued the following statement:

Today, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced the desire of the Iraqi people to see a US withdrawal. We have always stated that the US is operating in Iraq only as long as the Iraqi government requests our help. We now see the Iraqi government requesting our departure and we will respect their wishes.

I have asked our military advisers to prepare a plan for the immediate withdrawal of US troops, and I expect to see 50% of our troops stateside within the next six months with a full draw down to be completed by the end of 2009.

This would have done three things. First, it would have taken withdrawal off the table as a political issue the Democrats could demagogue. Second, it would have lived up to the word of the Administration that they would leave when the Iraqis asked. Third, it would have completely deflated one of two issues that will weigh heaviest on the general election – the other being the economic turbulence.

For McCain, it would have offered a chance to shift to support withdrawal without being seen as a flip-flopper. He could simply say that he, too, agrees that the Iraqi move toward self-determination is the final condition for US withdrawal. Having met that, the US will honor its obligation and remove its troops.

Having missed this opportunity, both McCain and the Republicans have a problem in that we are now the occupying force that so many have alleged. If we insist on staying, despite clear statements from Iraqi leadership that they are ready for us to leave, the GOP is in the unfortunate position of having to justify our continued presence in a country that has said they want us out. That’s a much worse position to be in for the general election than simply supporting an unpopular war.

No responses yet

An Open Challenge to Matt Stoller

Jun 18 2008 Published by under Bloggers, Candidates, Democrats, Elections, Political Parties, Politics, Polls, Republicans, The Internet

I recently wrote a post about the fact that someone punched Matt Stoller in the face, and suggested it might have had something to do with him accusing people of being racist at every opportunity. Matt even weighed in and (correctly) pointed out that the post I had linked to was not drafted by him. He didn’t argue that charge that he likes to cry racism, he just argued the post’s authorship.

Well now he’s at it again.

In a post referring to an overtly racist pin some jackass was selling at the Texas GOP convention, Matt can’t help but make the claim that this is evidence of rampant racism in the Republican Party.

Every time I go on C-Span, and I’ve been on five times now, I get asked about race by callers on both sides. And while I try to make the point that the Republican Party is pretty racist on an institutional basis, the regular Republican activists are just so much more eloquent at expressing this point themselves.

His Twitter post of the same linked post said simply:

Texas Republicans, adorably racist as usual

Now this isn’t the first time Stoller has leveled this charge against Republicans. In a February 2006 post about a commenter at RedState, he claims to throw the term around sparingly.

I don’t throw around the racist word very often, because to me it is a very very serious charge. But there’s no other way to say it; this right-wing blogger ‘Blanton’ at Redstate is racist, and all the commenter freaks nodding in frothing agreement to his screed seem mighty close as well.

Yet his Twitter post, his current piece on the pin, his post on McCain’s “racist dogwhistle” in Meridian, a March 2006 post about the GOP’s “deeply racist institutional nature” and other Stoller diatribes have been pretty loose with the term and the generalization that Republicans are racist. (Granted, the McCain post was later updated to reflect his error, but how many of the people who linked initially updated their posts later to note his retraction?)

So a guy who claims to be conservative in the frequency with which he levels that particular charge uses some pretty generalized language whenever he does.

I find this interesting give the Democratic Primary voters who indicated that race was the sole or significant factor in casting their vote. Based on exit polls in a variety of states, you could easily argue that 15-20% of the Democratic base is racist. They openly declared that they voted based on that, or it was a significant factor in their decision.

So here’s my challenge to Matt…

I have $100 for him and will, on the day after the election, issue via this blog, TheNextRight, RedState, and TechPresident both a public apology for my “black eye post” as well as a formal acknowledgement that my party is more racist than the Democrats.

The conditions

On election day, if the final exit polls show Republican voters are significantly more racist, I will give Matt the hundred dollars and the apology. (By significantly, I’ll propose a 10% variation – so if Democrats report 15%, the Republicans can be no higher than 16.5%. If the Democrats are 20%, the Republicans can’t exceed 22%)

If, however, the number of Republicans who say that they voted based on race is lower than, or not significantly higher than the number of Democrats who say the same, Matt will give me $100 and post on OpenLeft, MyDD, and DailyKos a written statement that he is wrong, and Republicans are not institutionally racist, and his own party, is in fact, more so.

Pu your money where your mouth is, Matt. How sure are you about the GOP given your own party’s proclivity to declare their racism openly?

2 responses so far

Enough Of Your Warnings About Third Party Spoilers

Jun 13 2008 Published by under Congress, Democrats, Elections, Government, Political Parties, Politics, Republicans, Supreme Court

I’ve made comments on a number of occasions that I’m not sure whether I’ll end up voting for McCain or Bob Barr. When I have, I have received DMs via Twitter, e-mails, and text messages with much the same comment, “If you vote for Barr, you’re just giving the election to Obama.” True enough. That is essentially the reason I’m still undecided. I’m not sure that I want to help tip that particular scale.

Making that argument to someone like me, however, is kind of a goofy thing to do. I’ve been involved in campaign politics for almost twenty years now. I’ve worked in politics at just about every level. If I’m looking at a third party, I fully understand the implications of that.

Further, I think anyone who watched the elections in 1992 and 2000 knows full well what that means. Even if I didn’t, however, it’s still a lame argument. It assumes you know more about what I want than I do.

When I decide to vote Libertarian (and that day will come soon, I suspect, though maybe not this year), It should send a signal that on my set of issues, I have determined the GOP has completely abdicated it’s support. Yet the best argument you can offer is I should vote for the guy that’s giving me nothing because it’s a better option than the other guy who will give me nothing.

The other rejoinder is, “you should vote GOP for no other reason than the possibility that liberals will retire from the Supreme Court.” Well, neither Republican nor Democratic appointees have done a lot for me lately. I have jokingly said, “the Constitution’s not perfect, but it’s better than what we’ve got now.” By that I implicate the Supreme Court as bit players in the larger partisan manipulation of society. Yesterday’s 5-4 decision on the rights of detainees is exemplary of that.

Look at the attempt to deny habeas corpus to the detainees held at Guantanamo and the GOP’s willingness to toss that out for at least one set of people. The Constitution seems pretty clear on trials:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Now, admittedly, I’m not a legal scholar, but I don’t see any reference in the the sixth amendment that carves out military tribunals, Guantanamo Bay, and enemy combatants. That almost half the court (the conservative appointees no less) would toss out long held Constitutional protections in an overtly partisan manner is discouraging. Add to that the willing treatment of these detainees as somehow less than human and you’ve got a court that makes me more nervous than thankful.

With that precedent set, what would stop another Congress from deciding that Republicans did not deserve such rights if we protest? Based on the anti-militia group fever that ran rampant in the mid 1990s, I could see a Democrat political machine rounding up the most activist Republicans and holding them without trial as enemy combatants because “they might belong to militias.”

That also argues that the five liberal members of the court were not exactly acting with pure motives, either. The fact that the majority’s decision read like it was written from DailyKos talking points was not lost on me. The Supreme Court has become as partisan as Congress and now makes decisions based on prevailing partisan views, not based on the Constitution.

Why would your best argument against my third party vote be, “We’ll give you even more reactionary judges willing to set dangerous precedents for partisan reasons?”

So here’s what I’m trying to say… Don’t talk to me as if I have no idea what a third party vote means, and don’t talk to me as if you come from a position of moral authority when warning me against it. If either of the political parties stood for something beyond winning in the next election, I’d vote based on that. Unfortunately, I see no evidence that’s true.

No responses yet

The Coming Shift In The Electorate

Jun 10 2008 Published by under Democrats, Elections, Government, Political Parties, Politics, Republicans

When I was 10 years old, I discovered politics. I was glued to coverage of the 1980 Carter/Reagan race and began asking my folks a lot of questions about politics. One of the first questions I asked – and I suspect one of the first questions anyone asks about our system – was “What’s the difference between a Democrat and a Republican?”

Dad explained that Democrats believe in the power of the federal government and think that providing for the general welfare requires a large central authority with weaker subservient state governments. (Before you Democrats who are reading take issue with the definition, you should now my Dad is a life-long Democrat and that’s the way he described you then at 46, and the way he describes you today at 74).

Republicans, he said, have always believed power should begin at the state level with specific authority given to the federal government to handle issues that involve transactions between states and “common welfare” activities. Little else should be the duty of the fed, and general welfare projects especially should be undertaken by the states alone.

That response worked for me for a long time. It may not have been true in 1980, but lately I have become absolutely convinced it is no longer true today. While most within the GOP still believe a small federal government is the best route to effective government a split is clearly emerging with those in the party who increasingly look to the fed as the solution (especially to values issues.)

Take, for instance, Mike Huckabee’s recent comment that the greatest threat Republicans face is not from Democrats, but from a “new brand of libertarianism” within the party.

It amazes me that someone who sought to carry the mantle of the Republican Party in the presidential election would a) argue that government’s really not that bad, b) suggest that we need to figure out a way to pay for it (i.e. raising taxes), and c) claim anyone who opposes this view and believes that government is not the solution is somehow a great threat to Republicanism.

This is why I fundamentally believe we are on the verge of a fundamental shift in electoral politics, though I’m not sure how long it will take to come to pass. As the ‘compassionate conservative’ wing of the GOP turns more and more often to the federal government as a source of funds for their ‘conservative spending’, the libertarian wing of the party will pull away from the coalition more and more. As the pursuit of religious tenets leads to more and more constitutional amendments to implement theologically based bans, more and more of the center will sour on the GOP.

At the same time, the progressive wing of the Democratic party, as it exerts more and more control over the levers of the left, will alienate what I call the “Colorado Democrats” – the moderate Democrats that simply want to be left alone. They, too, will start to drift from the far-sided ideology of the parties. I firmly believe they were represented by a large segment of the 50% of the Democratic party that didn’t vote for Obama.

Together with the leave-me-alone wing of the GOP, they will unite in the middle and form a new, more pragmatic, socially tolerant, fiscally conservative voting bloc. You will see the emergence of a third tier in American politics – united by the simple desire to keep government off of their backs, out of their pocket, and out of their bedroom.

I still have several questions regarding how I see the final shakeup playing out. Will the social conservatives looking to the fed and the progressive community form a new coalition of big government believers? If so, will that lead us back to a simple division in politics based on the size/scope of federal powers? Or will their conflict over issues like gay marriage and abortion keep them apart? If they remain separate, and the electorate splits into three distinct groups, what sort of coalition policies will be born of the resulting mix?

I do believe that one thing is for sure – the formation of a third party will not be born of an egomaniacal billionaire or the rabid ideology of the political extremes. It will be born from the common minded ideology of those who have seen their parties abandon them and believe there is a better choice than two flavors of vanilla.

One response so far

« Newer posts Older posts »