The New York Times certainly is doing its best to help John McCain’s credentials and fundraising among hard-line conservatives with its second bogus attack against the senator in less than a week. We would expect this yellow journalism from a third-rate newspaper or partisan blog or web site that circulates propaganda and smear tactics instead of facts or bona fide news. But seeing The New York Times wallow in the mud with these anti-stories is making it increasingly difficult to defend.
Today’s smear questions whether John McCain can run for president because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone (and you thought smearing Barack Obama for living in Indonesia for a year was low). According to the Constitution, anyone running for president must be 35 and a “natural-born” citizen. The latter point is generally accepted as someone who was born in the 50 states and was not born outside the country, although this is not officially declared in any laws or bylines.
When McCain was born in 1936, the United States still owned the Panama Canal and the entire Panama Canal Zone was considered sovereign U.S. territory. That alone should squash any left-wing claims to the contrary, although we’ll doubtless see reports trying to determine whether the hospital where McCain was born was in the zone or not.
The Times also lists several other candidates who were born abroad who ran for president without controversy, although none were successful. These include Mitt Romney’s father (born in Mexico), Lowell Weicker (born in France) and Barry Goldwater (born in the Arizona territory before it became a state). Interestingly, if you want to take the constitution’s language literally, then none of our first seven presidents would qualify to run for office because they were all born before July 4, 1776, meaning they were born in the British colonies and not in the true United States of America. Martin Van Buren would then be the first “natural born” president since he was born in 1782. This also may be why Alexander Hamilton never ran for president, as he was born on the island of Nevis – while other founding fathers like Washington and Jefferson were born on what was to be U.S. soil.
Personally, I think naturalized citizens should be able to run for president. I believe that new U.S. citizens are much more appreciative and understanding of the freedoms that too many of us “natural born” folks take for granted. In studying for their citizenship tests, they probably learn more about our history than most of the masses. I’ll bet they’re also more likely to vote, start a business, speak freely and work hard because many of them come from countries where none of those things were possible. They try to accomplish the American Dream so their children will have a better life, just as my great-grandparents did when they immigrated from Eastern Europe and Russia over a century ago.
Besides naturalized individuals, the Times tempest in a drop of tea also brings up other questions. What about people born in U.S. territories like Puerto Rico or Guam? Can they run for president? It’s bad enough that people who live in Washington, D.C. still have taxation without representation.
Nobody would ever question McCain’s patriotism, service to his country or ability to serve as president and commander-in-chief. It’s disgraceful that The New York Times is resorting to foul methods to discredit him. Just as Michael Moore helped Bush get re-elected, the NY Times could accomplish the same feat for McCain if it keeps this up.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Leave Ralph Nader Alone
Ralph Nader has every right to waste his time on another quixotic presidential campaign. What’s getting tiring is Democrats and liberals whining about him being a spoiler and siphoning votes away from their candidates.
For the last time: Ralph Nader did not cost Al Gore the 2000 election. Al Gore lost that election all by himself. If he had run a better campaign and been a better candidate, he would have generated enough support and excitement to win his home state of Tennessee, Florida, Ohio and other states where third party votes made a difference.
We should all be thankful for Nader’s battles for consumers earlier in his lifetime. Without him there would be no National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, seat belts and airbags. Nader can also be considered a grandfather of the entire PIRG movement, which led at least indirectly to the creation of the EPA, OSHA and scores of non-governmental organizations that have improved the voice of the average citizen in Washington. He also made the government more transparent and accountable through laws like the Freedom of Information Act.
As for Nader’s political views, they speak for themselves. His current vision of slashing the defense budget by double digits would require hundreds of thousands of layoffs and gut the military-industrial complex that has driven technology and employment in America for over 50 years. It would also show our enemies we are not serious about defending ourselves and would tremendously jeopardize our homeland security. He clearly has no chance of winning.
But please let Ralph run his campaign. Don’t call him a spoiler or blame him for other candidates’ mistakes. What’s great about America is that anyone can run for public office, and in local races independent and third party candidates have a legitimate shot of winning if they can raise enough money and have a good grassroots organization. Ralph Nader’s 2000 vote tally showed he was on to something, and it was Gore’s fault he did not anticipate Nader’s popularity at the time and take him more seriously. And as for Nader’s 2000 proclamation that it wouldn’t matter if Gore or Bush was elected because they were practically the same candidate – well, you can decide if he was right on that one as well.
For the last time: Ralph Nader did not cost Al Gore the 2000 election. Al Gore lost that election all by himself. If he had run a better campaign and been a better candidate, he would have generated enough support and excitement to win his home state of Tennessee, Florida, Ohio and other states where third party votes made a difference.
We should all be thankful for Nader’s battles for consumers earlier in his lifetime. Without him there would be no National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, seat belts and airbags. Nader can also be considered a grandfather of the entire PIRG movement, which led at least indirectly to the creation of the EPA, OSHA and scores of non-governmental organizations that have improved the voice of the average citizen in Washington. He also made the government more transparent and accountable through laws like the Freedom of Information Act.
As for Nader’s political views, they speak for themselves. His current vision of slashing the defense budget by double digits would require hundreds of thousands of layoffs and gut the military-industrial complex that has driven technology and employment in America for over 50 years. It would also show our enemies we are not serious about defending ourselves and would tremendously jeopardize our homeland security. He clearly has no chance of winning.
But please let Ralph run his campaign. Don’t call him a spoiler or blame him for other candidates’ mistakes. What’s great about America is that anyone can run for public office, and in local races independent and third party candidates have a legitimate shot of winning if they can raise enough money and have a good grassroots organization. Ralph Nader’s 2000 vote tally showed he was on to something, and it was Gore’s fault he did not anticipate Nader’s popularity at the time and take him more seriously. And as for Nader’s 2000 proclamation that it wouldn’t matter if Gore or Bush was elected because they were practically the same candidate – well, you can decide if he was right on that one as well.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Much Ado About Nothing
There were three big developments this week, which I will rank in order of patheticness.
1) The Plagiarism Non-Issue: As Hillary’s campaign began its hopeful final downward spiral, she comes out with the charge that Obama has plagiarized speeches and sayings from our own Massachusetts governor, Deval Patrick. The similarities between the two candidates are unmistakable. Since Patrick doesn’t care, it’s a dead issue. And it’s tough for Clinton to make this claim when she co-opted the change mantra and the “Yes we Can!” cry from Obama, not to mention the race card from Karl Rove.
I’ll delve into the parallels between Obama and Patrick if Hillary finally goes down, because there are similarities. Patrick’s motto was “Together We Can.” In the best anti-sign defacing I’ve ever seen, I saw one of his signs read, “Together We Can…What?” Man cannot run by hope alone.
2) McCain vs. NY Times: A paper that had finally started to return to respectability gets knocked down yet again with prominent notion to a complete non-story. It’s hardly a news flash that most lobbyists provide invaluable knowledge, support and, yes, donations to politicians to advance their agendas. Private citizens do the same thing. Campaign donations do not buy votes. That would be bribery, and you can count the number of federal politicians convicted of bribery during the last eight years on one hand with fingers to spare. The money buys access, which is certainly not the way it should be but unfortunately is the way it is. But this is all perfectly legal. For all of McCain’s talk against “special interests,” he uses special interests as much as any other state or federal politicians, especially with his work on the Armed Services, Commerce and Indian Affairs committees.
I truly have no idea what the Times was trying to accomplish with this story, and I can’t believe an editor like Bill Keller let it run unless he let his personal feelings trump his journalistic integrity. Were they trying to embarrass McCain, who had no reason to be embarrassed for anything? Were they trying to catch him in a sexual scandal, when there was zero evidence of one? It has done one thing – united more conservatives behind him who used the Times story as a rallying cry. Donations to McCain’s campaign exploded after it ran. And here's a huge overview of what the blogosphere said.
3) Hillary Goes Wild!: Watching Hillary pretend to be angry because her opponent had the nerve – the nerve, I say! – to criticize her health care strategy was humorous and horrific at the same time. It was like watching a professional wrestler trying to intimidate a fake opponent before they go into a ring for a beating everyone knows is coming to them. When this sad spectacle is hopefully over soon, Hillary will go down as a warning to any future candidate that thinks they can easily win by flip flopping to poll results, and sycophantic consultants who refuse to tell the empress she has no clothes. Her clumsy lurches from nice to nasty and back again do not leave a good impression with undecided voters, and her new reliance on crying when she doesn’t get her way reminds me of my three-year-old. You can sense the panic setting in that she may not get what she wants, and if she can’t maturely handle rejection on the campaign trail, let alone successfully manage a campaign for the long haul, she has no business being in the White House.
1) The Plagiarism Non-Issue: As Hillary’s campaign began its hopeful final downward spiral, she comes out with the charge that Obama has plagiarized speeches and sayings from our own Massachusetts governor, Deval Patrick. The similarities between the two candidates are unmistakable. Since Patrick doesn’t care, it’s a dead issue. And it’s tough for Clinton to make this claim when she co-opted the change mantra and the “Yes we Can!” cry from Obama, not to mention the race card from Karl Rove.
I’ll delve into the parallels between Obama and Patrick if Hillary finally goes down, because there are similarities. Patrick’s motto was “Together We Can.” In the best anti-sign defacing I’ve ever seen, I saw one of his signs read, “Together We Can…What?” Man cannot run by hope alone.
2) McCain vs. NY Times: A paper that had finally started to return to respectability gets knocked down yet again with prominent notion to a complete non-story. It’s hardly a news flash that most lobbyists provide invaluable knowledge, support and, yes, donations to politicians to advance their agendas. Private citizens do the same thing. Campaign donations do not buy votes. That would be bribery, and you can count the number of federal politicians convicted of bribery during the last eight years on one hand with fingers to spare. The money buys access, which is certainly not the way it should be but unfortunately is the way it is. But this is all perfectly legal. For all of McCain’s talk against “special interests,” he uses special interests as much as any other state or federal politicians, especially with his work on the Armed Services, Commerce and Indian Affairs committees.
I truly have no idea what the Times was trying to accomplish with this story, and I can’t believe an editor like Bill Keller let it run unless he let his personal feelings trump his journalistic integrity. Were they trying to embarrass McCain, who had no reason to be embarrassed for anything? Were they trying to catch him in a sexual scandal, when there was zero evidence of one? It has done one thing – united more conservatives behind him who used the Times story as a rallying cry. Donations to McCain’s campaign exploded after it ran. And here's a huge overview of what the blogosphere said.
3) Hillary Goes Wild!: Watching Hillary pretend to be angry because her opponent had the nerve – the nerve, I say! – to criticize her health care strategy was humorous and horrific at the same time. It was like watching a professional wrestler trying to intimidate a fake opponent before they go into a ring for a beating everyone knows is coming to them. When this sad spectacle is hopefully over soon, Hillary will go down as a warning to any future candidate that thinks they can easily win by flip flopping to poll results, and sycophantic consultants who refuse to tell the empress she has no clothes. Her clumsy lurches from nice to nasty and back again do not leave a good impression with undecided voters, and her new reliance on crying when she doesn’t get her way reminds me of my three-year-old. You can sense the panic setting in that she may not get what she wants, and if she can’t maturely handle rejection on the campaign trail, let alone successfully manage a campaign for the long haul, she has no business being in the White House.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Superdelegates and the Democratic Elite
Quick – when was the last time a political party entered its nominating convention without an official nominee? It was 1968, when the Democrats entered their very ill-fated convention in Chicago. What people remember were the huge fights and protests with the Chicago police and on the convention floor. What people have forgotten were the huge fights and protests within the Democratic party, when closed-door backroom deals gave the nomination to Hubert Humphrey, a decision that satisfied nobody except the party’s elite, led to howls of dissension among Democratic voters and a terrible candidate who lost to Nixon.
In response to Humphrey’s shellacking inside and outside the party, the McGovern-Fraser commission was established to make the process more transparent. Naturally George McGovern, who was probably planning to run for president at the time, took advantage of this to become the Democratic nominee in 1972, which became the worst Democratic loss in modern history. However, the commission’s recommendations did move the selection process from the convention (where the nominee was often decided in secret by the elite) to the primaries (where voters decide the nominee and everything is in the open). Republicans largely adopted this practice shortly afterward.
But after another huge loss in 1980, the Democrats decided to fix what wasn’t broken and initiated the superdelegate concept. The “superdelegates” is a throwback to the British House of Lords and has the possibility of usurping popular sovereignty, and causing protests in the Democratic Party that will make 1968 look like a tea party.
Superdelegates, which compose about 20% of all Democratic delegates, are basically elected party leaders that compose the establishment and the elite in local and state politics. Here in Massachusetts, superdelegates include Governor Patrick, both senators, most or all congressmen and various Democratic leaders. It’s basically a nanny system made up of the leaders to make sure the kids (the voters and regular plebian delegates) don’t go crazy making rash decisions, such as making sure the person who gets the most votes is the nominee. Superdelegates made their mark in 1984 when Gary Hart won more primaries than Walter Mondale, but Mondale had lined up all the superdelegates beforehand and was easily nominated, leading to the second worst Democratic loss in modern history. Yep, those party elites sure understand the voters.
With Obama’s February sweep, he is now leading in popular votes and delegate count, but he’s still behind in superdelegates. Since superdelegates can flip flop their votes and support, Clinton’s count here is not ironclad but she still has the party elite behind her. If neither candidate hits the 2,025 mark before the convention there will be a major fight at the convention. And it is very, very possible that the 700 or so superdelegates will then meet in secret and decide that since most of them are Clinton backers, they will make her the nominee, completely subjugating the will of the people and their own party.
Could it happen? Yes it could. I believe the Clintons will do any fair or foul trick possible to keep the party in their grip, and you may see a throwback to the smoke-filled rooms of machine- and boss-dominated politics that used to determine party candidates no matter what the people wanted. Should Obama continue his surge but Clinton maintains her role as champion of the superdelegates, there could be a true old-school convention showdown this summer.
In response to Humphrey’s shellacking inside and outside the party, the McGovern-Fraser commission was established to make the process more transparent. Naturally George McGovern, who was probably planning to run for president at the time, took advantage of this to become the Democratic nominee in 1972, which became the worst Democratic loss in modern history. However, the commission’s recommendations did move the selection process from the convention (where the nominee was often decided in secret by the elite) to the primaries (where voters decide the nominee and everything is in the open). Republicans largely adopted this practice shortly afterward.
But after another huge loss in 1980, the Democrats decided to fix what wasn’t broken and initiated the superdelegate concept. The “superdelegates” is a throwback to the British House of Lords and has the possibility of usurping popular sovereignty, and causing protests in the Democratic Party that will make 1968 look like a tea party.
Superdelegates, which compose about 20% of all Democratic delegates, are basically elected party leaders that compose the establishment and the elite in local and state politics. Here in Massachusetts, superdelegates include Governor Patrick, both senators, most or all congressmen and various Democratic leaders. It’s basically a nanny system made up of the leaders to make sure the kids (the voters and regular plebian delegates) don’t go crazy making rash decisions, such as making sure the person who gets the most votes is the nominee. Superdelegates made their mark in 1984 when Gary Hart won more primaries than Walter Mondale, but Mondale had lined up all the superdelegates beforehand and was easily nominated, leading to the second worst Democratic loss in modern history. Yep, those party elites sure understand the voters.
With Obama’s February sweep, he is now leading in popular votes and delegate count, but he’s still behind in superdelegates. Since superdelegates can flip flop their votes and support, Clinton’s count here is not ironclad but she still has the party elite behind her. If neither candidate hits the 2,025 mark before the convention there will be a major fight at the convention. And it is very, very possible that the 700 or so superdelegates will then meet in secret and decide that since most of them are Clinton backers, they will make her the nominee, completely subjugating the will of the people and their own party.
Could it happen? Yes it could. I believe the Clintons will do any fair or foul trick possible to keep the party in their grip, and you may see a throwback to the smoke-filled rooms of machine- and boss-dominated politics that used to determine party candidates no matter what the people wanted. Should Obama continue his surge but Clinton maintains her role as champion of the superdelegates, there could be a true old-school convention showdown this summer.
More Info:
You know the Democratic Party could have trouble when The Nation criticizes the superdelegate process.
A good overview in Commentary. Includes quotes from some leading Democrats on what they'll do if the superdelegates decide the nominee.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Democratic Reality Check
With all the hype and excitement surrounding Obama, the time is overdue for a Democratic reality check.
Even the most partisan, die-hard Democrat can admit in hindsight the party has a stunning ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Already I can see overconfident Democrats and the media buzzing with the excitement of election inevitability, no matter who is nominated. Sorry, but it IS the candidate, stupid. With most Americans either independent, unenrolled or apathetic, the candidate with the most appeal to the masses (buttressed by the proper language and image) and charisma tends to win. It’s like running for student body president – popularity and messaging trumps issues. The smartest person doesn’t deserve to win, nor the richest (although money helps). "Deserve" has nothing to do with it.
So with that in mind, let’s review the two Democrats left standing. Obama had a huge fundraising month in January with $32 million raised, while Clinton raised $16 million and just lent herself $5 million to keep up. Fundraising is a terrific gauge and measure of popular support. Obama originated and continues to run on a message of change and hope, while Hillary also began using the “hope” message when the polls said it was what voters wanted. Hillary also brought the ugly factors of race and gender into the campaign (she alternates between using her gender as an excuse to vote for her and a liability when she’s being attacked), using her aides, allies and husband as attack dogs. Bill Clinton – remember how admired he used to be? – has made snide comments deriding Obama’s grade-school desire to be president, comparing his South Carolina victory to Jesse Jackson and lied about his own comments on Iraq. He has brought irreparable damage to his reputation and his wife’s campaign in the process, and is now back on the sidelines.
Obama, meanwhile, has dominated the recent rounds of debates. He has huge crowds in Idaho -- Idaho! He is the darling of the media, which skew leftward and help frame so much of the debate. His favorable ratings eclipse Hillary’s by a longshot, especially among the undecideds in places like Ohio and Florida that decide the election. He has become a hero among Generation Y and those old enough to vote in their first election (although whether they end up voting is an open question). In short, he is certainly the person best qualified to represent the party if the Democrats want to win the White House.
Now look at Super Tuesday’s results. Obama won more states by larger majorities that tend to be red – Kansas, Colorado, Georgia and Alaska. Clinton won the states that are largely blue, including Massachusetts, New Jersey and California. It’s still a close race. But when you look at the delegate and superdelegate count Clinton is winning, especially among the Democratic base (who Rove calls the “beer drinkers” and who the media ignores). And these are the people who vote in primaries. There is still an excellent chance she will be the nominee, and have zero shot against McCain because he won the same states as Obama and polls well with the same people who would vote for Obama.
Does Obama deserve to win? It doesn’t matter; “deserve” has nothing to do with it. This is the Democratic Party. This is the party that still had no identity until Obama supplied it with one. This is the party that has nominated vapid candidates like Dukakis, Mondale, Gore and Kerry. This is the party that lost to George W. Bush – twice. This is the party that may nominate someone who 40% of the population said they will never, ever vote for.
Have the Democrats forgotten that both Clintons have too much scandal and dirty laundry surrounding them? Have they realized that much of the country has neither forgotten nor will ever forgive the Clintons for some of their actions in the White House? Do they see that the GOP is on its knees and they have the new JFK and RFK fighting the party’s own base, establishment and former president for the nomination? Will they notice that despite the candidate’s unabashed liberalism, he has huge appeal to Republicans and Independents alike, almost all of whom will never vote for Hillary?
If Obama doesn’t win the nomination – especially with the huge fundraising and favorability advantages he has – because the Democratic base and establishment don’t want him, they deserve more than to lose in November. They deserve to lose all the new converts to the party. They deserve to lose the excitement and passion that Obama has gift-wrapped for them. They deserve another four years of wandering in the wilderness. I don’t know if it will happen. But based on the Democrats’ history and their recent candidates, I can’t say I’ll be surprised if it does.
UPDATE: It's always nice when someone as smart as Nicholas Kristof backs you up.
Even the most partisan, die-hard Democrat can admit in hindsight the party has a stunning ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Already I can see overconfident Democrats and the media buzzing with the excitement of election inevitability, no matter who is nominated. Sorry, but it IS the candidate, stupid. With most Americans either independent, unenrolled or apathetic, the candidate with the most appeal to the masses (buttressed by the proper language and image) and charisma tends to win. It’s like running for student body president – popularity and messaging trumps issues. The smartest person doesn’t deserve to win, nor the richest (although money helps). "Deserve" has nothing to do with it.
So with that in mind, let’s review the two Democrats left standing. Obama had a huge fundraising month in January with $32 million raised, while Clinton raised $16 million and just lent herself $5 million to keep up. Fundraising is a terrific gauge and measure of popular support. Obama originated and continues to run on a message of change and hope, while Hillary also began using the “hope” message when the polls said it was what voters wanted. Hillary also brought the ugly factors of race and gender into the campaign (she alternates between using her gender as an excuse to vote for her and a liability when she’s being attacked), using her aides, allies and husband as attack dogs. Bill Clinton – remember how admired he used to be? – has made snide comments deriding Obama’s grade-school desire to be president, comparing his South Carolina victory to Jesse Jackson and lied about his own comments on Iraq. He has brought irreparable damage to his reputation and his wife’s campaign in the process, and is now back on the sidelines.
Obama, meanwhile, has dominated the recent rounds of debates. He has huge crowds in Idaho -- Idaho! He is the darling of the media, which skew leftward and help frame so much of the debate. His favorable ratings eclipse Hillary’s by a longshot, especially among the undecideds in places like Ohio and Florida that decide the election. He has become a hero among Generation Y and those old enough to vote in their first election (although whether they end up voting is an open question). In short, he is certainly the person best qualified to represent the party if the Democrats want to win the White House.
Now look at Super Tuesday’s results. Obama won more states by larger majorities that tend to be red – Kansas, Colorado, Georgia and Alaska. Clinton won the states that are largely blue, including Massachusetts, New Jersey and California. It’s still a close race. But when you look at the delegate and superdelegate count Clinton is winning, especially among the Democratic base (who Rove calls the “beer drinkers” and who the media ignores). And these are the people who vote in primaries. There is still an excellent chance she will be the nominee, and have zero shot against McCain because he won the same states as Obama and polls well with the same people who would vote for Obama.
Does Obama deserve to win? It doesn’t matter; “deserve” has nothing to do with it. This is the Democratic Party. This is the party that still had no identity until Obama supplied it with one. This is the party that has nominated vapid candidates like Dukakis, Mondale, Gore and Kerry. This is the party that lost to George W. Bush – twice. This is the party that may nominate someone who 40% of the population said they will never, ever vote for.
Have the Democrats forgotten that both Clintons have too much scandal and dirty laundry surrounding them? Have they realized that much of the country has neither forgotten nor will ever forgive the Clintons for some of their actions in the White House? Do they see that the GOP is on its knees and they have the new JFK and RFK fighting the party’s own base, establishment and former president for the nomination? Will they notice that despite the candidate’s unabashed liberalism, he has huge appeal to Republicans and Independents alike, almost all of whom will never vote for Hillary?
If Obama doesn’t win the nomination – especially with the huge fundraising and favorability advantages he has – because the Democratic base and establishment don’t want him, they deserve more than to lose in November. They deserve to lose all the new converts to the party. They deserve to lose the excitement and passion that Obama has gift-wrapped for them. They deserve another four years of wandering in the wilderness. I don’t know if it will happen. But based on the Democrats’ history and their recent candidates, I can’t say I’ll be surprised if it does.
UPDATE: It's always nice when someone as smart as Nicholas Kristof backs you up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)