Tag: 2008 elections

In an e-mail to his campaign list, the Kucinich campaign offere us a Town Hall meeting on a Constitutional Convention:

I am a Centrist. I believe the Democratic Party is a centrist Party. I wish the Democratic Party would fight for its centrist ideals. Like ending the the war in Iraq. Like not going to war in Iran. Like bringing balance to our tax system by reversing the extreme and radical Bush tax cuts. Like doing something about global warming. Like protecting equal rights for all Americans. Like protecting the right to choose. Like offering health care to all Americans. And so on. These Democratic principles stand in the center of American public opinion, held by a strong majority of Americans.

The Republican Party is an extreme party whose views are completely out of the mainstream of American thought. The views espoused by the GOP must be marginalized and beaten at every turn. It is because of this that I strongly dislike this view articulated by Sen. Hillary Clinton:

During this campaign, you're going to hear me talk a lot about the importance of balance,” she began, after acknowledging that the Bush Administration had gone too far toward deregulation in most areas. “You know, our politics can get a little imbalanced sometimes. We move off to the left or off to the right, but eventually we find our way back to the center because Americans are problem solvers. We are not ideologues. Most people are just looking for sensible, commonsense solutions.”

I think the views may be correct but it is poor politicking. Clinton needs to espouse her views on issues. Her problem solving views, not give silly buzzwords that implicitly relegate her Party to the extremes. It ignores that there is an extreme political party in the United States. The Republican Party. It ignores that there is a pragmatic, centrist problem solving party, the Democratic Party. This fight is not beyond politics. It is the CENTRAL political fight going on in this country. I wish Democrats, including Hillary Clinton would get that.

After a fascinating week where Dennis took on not only Vice President Cheney, but the Democratic leadership in the House as well, here’s Dennis’ weekly update:

These are the words of the great rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel.

And it is these words, and this man, that have inspired rabbi Dennis Shulman (D) to challenge conservative extremist Scott Garrett (R) in NJ-5 this 2008.

Like his spiritual forefather, Shulman has concluded that he can no longer speak about God and remain silent on Iraq, as well as many of the other pressing and important issues of our times.

To learn more about Dr. Shulman, who is also a practicing psychologist, check out this recent New York Sun profile: Shulman Aims To Be First Blind Rabbi in Congress

Dennis, riding high from his movement on impeachment and also for the Democracy for America Pulse Poll victory, appeared on Democracy Now this morning with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez.

“Game show format” may be the best way to describe the 2007 presidential primary debates. The networks seem determined to transform America’s political debate into entertainment and the parties and candidates seem to be playing right along.

With the writers’ strike underway, the networks may be seeking to transform American politics into the next reality television show. If so, then Americans may finally be given the “worm”.

The rationale for the doubletalk from John Edwards on drivers licenses for undocumented aliens becomes clearer. Rassmussen Reports says:

Just 19% of Democratic Primary Voters in New Hampshire believe that drivers licenses should be made available to undocumented workers. Sixty-six percent (66%) disagree. A separate survey released yesterday found that Democrats nationwide hold similar views with 68% opposing the policy.

Edwards apparent (his answer is hard to decipher and rather nonsensical) change of heart (he favored drivers licenses for undocumented aliens in 2004) is clearly a result of political expediency.

The one candidate who spoke clearly and correctly on this issue was Barack Obama. He explained very well why offering dirvers licenses to undocumented aliens is good policy. He refused to pander to the xenophobia still present in the Democratic Party. Good for Obama. I hope he sticks to it in the face of this ugly side of the Democratic Party:

Fifty-one percent (51%) of Democratic Primary voters believe that when police pull someone over for a traffic violation, they should automatically check to see if the driver is in the country illegally. Thirty-eight percent (38%) believe that illegal immigrants discovered in this manner should be deported while 31% disagree. Half (51%) believe that such a policy invites discrimination.

It is interestng that Senator Clinton took heat on this as her initial answer was rather vacillating. She later clarified her support for the policy. My candidate, Chris Dodd, gave a clear, and atrocious, answer.

For me personally, the clear winner on this issue is Barack Obama. The clear losers are my candidate Chris Dodd and especially the doubletalking John Edwards.

In a party desprately in need of a hero, we now know who that hero is.  Of course, some of us knew who that hero was all along.  Some of us have paid attention to what the man has been saying, what he has stood for and what he means to do in the future.

Over at the Big Orange Satan, our good friend ClammyC writes one of those “why do you want to be President” things. As a general rule, I dislike those types of diaries, as it buys into the whole idea of pols as something more than they are. Why does anyone run for President or for elected office period? To get elected. What values will they stand for? The ones that get them elected. Folks, that is what pols are. They are vessels for the political views that prevail in elections.

I have no doubt that each of the persons running believe they will do what is best for the country and be the best President ever. But they run to win. Asking them why they are running is silly in my opinion.

It’s funny that the most famous and damaging moment the “why do you want to be President?” question was asked was to Ted Kennedy by Roger Mudd in 1980. Kennedy fumbled the question and did great damage to his candidacy. But I ask you, did anyone have any doubt what Ted Kennedy would have tried to do as President? Ted Kennedy of all people?

I think Ted Kennedy is now the most honest, committed and, dare I say it, best representative of HIS OWN VIEWS in Congress. Heck, in politics. Why? Because Ted Kennedy will NEVER run for President and Ted Kennedy will never be beaten in an election. He is free. Of accountability with the voters. And of personal political ambition.

Every other politician, Russ Feingold not excluded, still feels the sway of the voters and personal political ambition. Pols are vessels of the politics of our country. They are the vehicles for the voices of the powers that decide elections. They do what they can and must to win elections.

Some call this pandering. Pandering, to me, is good. The question is who do you pander to. And why. Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner in the Presidential race. She is behaving in ways that she believes will enable her to win. To be frank, Hillary will not be the primary vehicle for making our voices heard on the issues. She must feel pressure from her rivals.

That is why I focus my attention on her rivals. That is why I support Chris Dodd. He has paid attention to the issues that matter to me. He has brought them to the fore. He has made his rivals move on those issues. Barack Obama, on the other hand, has moved NO ONE on any issue since he became a Senator. From my perspective, his candidacy has been an utter failure. I think from his perspective, he wants to win, it has been as well.

I deplore this focus on “doubletalk” (as if all them do not engage in it.) Press Clinton on the issues. Indeed, press Clinton’s RIVALS on the issues. Asking them why they want to be President is not only a waste of time, it distracts from what I think most of us want – attention to the issues we care about.

I know this admonition will fall on deaf ears when it comes to the rabid supporters of particular politicians. It seems clear to me that they have decided to put issues on the backburner. But for the rest of us, I hope we can focus in on what matters and pressure those who can put the issues on the front burner.

We have a choice.  We can live with our current doctrine of Peace Through Strength, which has much of the world hating the actions of our government.  We can live with our government fighting a war where 3500+ of our servicemembers have died, and over 1000000 Iraqi civilians have died.  We can live in a world where our troops are spread out over the world to protect our ‘national interests.’  Or, we can live in a world where we are a nation amongst many.  A world where we sit down and figure out what our interests are and how we can help them coincide with the intests of the people of the world.  We can live in a world where we don’t go to war at the drop of a hat.  We can live in a world where our doctrine is Strength Through Peace, where we work with the world, not dictate to it.

Think about it. The Democratic Party now sits at Point “A”, second fiddle. The Party is hopeful that it can move to Point “B”, the Conductor, head of the orchestra. What might the strategy be that would accomplish that goal.

If you will allow me to use a ship and its crew resting at its home port, Point A with an agenda to get underway and move to Point B as an analogy, then I will proceed…. Thanks, I proceed.