Democrats

10 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals, Republicans

just take the field

things aren’t going so well for senator rodham in her possible bid to be our next president. is it possible that she would decide that ’08 is not her year after all? well…no. just because a few polls haven’t gone her way, that doesn’t automatically translate into votes or a nomination for any of the other contenders. that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t take those contenders seriously. there is reason to believe that democrats are not so thrilled about a hillary candidacy, and they are looking for someone else to support in ’08. have they found that someone else in senator barack obama? maybe their savior could be mr. “two americas”.

john edwards and barack obama could pose a threat to hillary’s chances if they can present themselves as that someone else, and perhaps even a more electable someone else. they certainly have the capacity to raise ridiculous amounts of money. edwards is still relatively popular, even though he couldn’t seem to deliver his own state to kerry in ’04. obama has come out of relative obscurity (to the non-political folks at least) to become the next big thing in candidates. i’m always skeptical of that tag because that phrase is used too frequently to have any significant meaning. obama should be wary of all the hype, because eventually the honeymoon will be over and people will start to ask serious questions about his record and whether he has the right experience to hold the highest office in the land.

have we found a worthy democratic nominee in this group? the democrats will get the opportunity to decide that later on this year.

for unabashed mockery of john edwards that you would never find on this blog, enjoy wonkette and scrappleface.

tags: , , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

be careful what you wish for

i will never completely understand why being the president of the united states is such a desirable job. yeah, sure, you get a cool jet to fly around in, and there are quite a few other great perks, but ultimately it’s your job to figure out what to do about iraq. let’s not forget about north korea, china, russia, and iran, other countries we need to keep an eye on. the next president of this country gets to deal with all that, plus he or she will have to figure out how to pass any of their wonderful proposals through congress, while enduring daily abuse by the press and the blogosphere. yep…that’s a job i really want.

of course, if a candidate successfully navigates the gauntlet — that is, the rough-and-tumble campaign for the nomination of their party– and then wins the general election, that does deserve some kind of reward. not every potential candidate has this ability. does obama have it? that is yet to be determined. he hasn’t faced a serious challenge of the type that he will face if he goes head to head with hillary clinton in a fight to be the democrats’ presidential candidate in ’08.

barack obama’s appeal is not so much about who he is, but it is also about who he is not. he’s the anti-hillary. he’s a fresh face with none of the political baggage that she carries. he looks like such a charming guy, and speaks to people from the heart, and it could be easy to forget that his record on social issues isn’t much different from senator clinton’s. democrats aren’t that sold on hillary, and they are actively looking for other alternatives. john fund makes that point here.

i think that the honeymoon will be over for obama when people start to take a harder look at his record, because what they will find out is that there is more to the guy than his positive press clippings and fawning media coverage.

tags: ,

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

bye bayh

senator evan bayh is not running for president. that’s definitely a surprise to many of us who speculated that he could possibly make a strong run for the white house. of course, all of the speculation was made before the obama hype began. with hillary clinton, barack obama, and the possible entrance of john edwards into the race for the democratic nomination in ’08, there doesn’t seem to be room for another big dog.

here’s senator bayh’s official statement:

During my two terms as Governor and now in the United States Senate, it has always been more about the people I was able to help than the job I held. As you know I have been exploring helping the people of my state and our country in a different capacity. After talking with family and friends over the past several days, I have decided that this is not the year for me to run for President and I will not be a candidate for the presidency in 2008. It wasn’t an easy decision but it was the right one for my family, my friends and my state. I have always prided myself on putting my public responsibilities ahead of my own ambitions.

The odds were always going to be very long for a relatively unknown candidate like myself, a little bit like David and Goliath. And whether there were too many Goliaths or whether I’m just not the right David, the fact remains that at the end of the day, I concluded that due to circumstances beyond our control the odds were longer than I felt I could responsibly pursue. This path – and these long odds – would have required me to be essentially absent from the Senate for the next year instead of working to help the people of my state and the nation.

I am immensely grateful for the support of my family and friends and the thousands of people around the country who helped me with their time and their resources. There may be no campaign in the near future, but there is much work to be done. When the Senate returns, I will focus on the issues that matter to the people of my state and are critical to the future of the nation including reducing our dependence on foreign oil, creating opportunity for middle class families, and implementing a national security strategy that is both tough and smart.

i think that the wrong guy dropped out of the race. it should have been john edwards. edwards has the name recognition, the cash, and the personality to be a strong candidate if he can make a dent in the hillary-obama juggernaut. there’s no denying that on a political level, former senator edwards has everything going for him. he has everything except that lack of experience i mentioned in the previous post, which could keep him from being president. while acknowledging that there probably wouldn’t be a democrat that i could reasonably support in their bid to be the democratic nominee, i think that senator bayh is certainly more credible on national security than former senator john edwards.

senator bayh made a wise choice here. i am not second-guessing his decision here, because the deck was stacked against him. there may be a place for him in ’08 as a possible VP candidate. we will have to wait and see what happens.

tags: , ,

2 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

i feel so much better now

once upon a time we had another political lightweight running for president of this country. he was a handsome guy with a nice-looking family. he made his great fortune looking out for the downtrodden while punishing big, bad corporations. only this man could save america from continuing to be the unfeeling monolith it had become under bush 43. america swooned over this guy too, at least until they started paying attention to the obvious holes in his resume.

perhaps you remember this man — i’m referring to former senator and Democratic VP nominee john edwards.

he’s still interested in being president, in case you were wondering about that. someday soon we could all be hearing once again about the two americas, and how these inequalities are the fault of big oil and evil corporations. i can’t tell you how much i’m looking forward to hearing that speech. it always warms the heart to hear proposals for punishing rich people and corporations, suggestions that will somehow exclude senator edwards and his former partner in crime john kerry.

anyway, the shrill shill chris matthews of hardball with chris matthews fame just happened to invite our hero on his college tour. this was home base for edwards, as the show was broadcast from UNC-Chapel Hill. it started out with a discussion of iraq.

MATTHEWS: How many more months of this would you support if you were president now? I know it‘s—you haven‘t announced yet, formally, but with two more years of this administration, should we spend the whole next two years grinding this thing down to its inevitable conclusion and have a couple thousand more American guys killed, another 100,000 Iraqis?

J. EDWARDS: Well, we‘ve got to change and we ought to change dramatically. I mean, I have been saying that for a year or more, that we ought to have a significant drawdown of American presence there to send the signal that we are not going to be there forever and we‘re not there for oil. The president of the United States needs to say that very directly, because the rest of the world does not believe it. They don‘t believe it.

MATTHEWS: He‘s saying the opposite. He‘s talking about permanent bases over there.

J. EDWARDS: That‘s right, and he‘s wrong about that. We have to say the opposite, which is what the Baker Study Group said, we‘re not going to have permanent bases in Iraq and we‘ve got to start pulling our troops out.

MATTHEWS: We‘ve got 140,000 people over there now. How many would you withdraw fairly quickly?

J. EDWARDS: Forty to fifty thousand.

he didn’t answer the question. the question was about a specific timetable for determining whether we can achieve our current goals in iraq or not. it was probably wise not to answer this question, since i’m not sure there is a good answer to it. john edwards simply repeats the tired mantra that we must change our policy, and says that we should significantly reduce our troop presence in iraq. he also says that we should withdraw forty to fifty thousand ‘fairly quickly’, although he still doesn’t say when that could be.

if senator edwards is operating under the assumption that his strategy is what the ISG proposed, he needs to re-read it. it was very clear about the consequences of pulling troops out ‘fairly quickly’, and did not recommend this. the report did make some rather unrealistic assumptions about syria and iran and many other neighboring countries, so i hope that edwards is not completely endorsing the findings of the ISG. it does seem clear, however, that he doesn’t believe we can achieve the goal of a stable iraq. whether that’s true or not, troop withdrawals on the level edwards is suggesting could only hurt our ability to achieve this goal.
Continue reading →

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Moonbats

the dark horse rides again

rejoice, america! there is now a bright light to save us from our warmongering and our stubborn attempts to protect our country and its people from the threats we face from terrorism. one should applaud such a selfless individual, as well as outgoing UN secretary-general kofi annan, for showing us the error of our ways.

so for these and other useful reasons, i am compelled to announce that dennis kucinich, ohio’s #1 useful idiot, has now decided to run for president again.

that will be an interesting addition to a crowded field of democratic candidates, which could possibly include barack obama, al gore, john kerry, john edwards, evan bayh, and other knowns/ unknowns in addition to hillary, who still refuses to tell us that she’s running for president. wake me up when there’s news.

it’s probably going to shake down to obama and hillary, but it’s anyone’s game at this point. except for john kerry. he’s done.

tags: ,

Posted on Democrats

flawed

since we didn’t seem to be too interested in debating anything but iraq during the ’06 election cycle, it’s about time that we started looking at proposals we can expect from the new democratic majority. one of these will most certainly be a hike in the federal minimum wage. proponents argue that this change is overdue, and who in their right mind could be opposed to paying more to the struggling american worker? i think that we can all agree that we don’t want anyone to live in poverty, and think that more could be done to help those who are struggling financially. the best way to do that is to get those workers more skills, training, and education, not by the artificial wage inflation created by a higher minimum wage. the minimum wage is a bad idea with the best of intentions.

according to this heritage study, fifty-three percent of minimum wage workers in 2005 were young people between the ages of 16-24. teenagers and young adults around this age don’t generally depend on these jobs for survival or to take care of families. of course, there are exceptions to this, but for the majority in this category, they have other means of financial support. the idea behind entry-level jobs for those workers should be to gain skills and work experience, and then to move on to pursue other opportunities. they are never meant to provide a living wage or to be the primary source of income for the average family. to the extent that this is the case, raising the minimum wage doesn’t solve that problem.

the study concluded that:

Raising the minimum wage has these negative long-term effects because it alters the choices that people make today in ways that have long-term consequences. It induces some students to drop out of school, reducing their long-term employability. By raising unemployment and eliminating entry-level jobs, minimum wage hikes also eliminate opportunities for workers to gain valuable experience and skills that prepare them for future jobs. These unintended consequences severely hamper low-income workers’ future job and earning prospects.

the problem here is that congressional republicans who disagree with this idea aren’t willing to make the opposing case. the public overwhelmingly supports raising the minimum wage, and there are very few politicians willing to risk their jobs by voting against something like this. there are very good reasons to oppose the minimum wage. the main reason is that there are better ways to break the poverty cycle than increasing the minimum wage. that purpose isn’t served well by decreasing the amount of jobs available for lower-skilled workers and encouraging them to work rather than pursuing further educational opportunities. further education and vocational training would allow them to get those higher-paying jobs we all want those workers to have.

while increasing the minimum wage may gain political points for its proponents in congress, it doesn’t begin to address the problem it was created to solve in any significant way. we can do better than this. there are better ways to get the poor out of poverty. we just need to put a little more effort into finding a better solution to this rather than to recycle old ideas that haven’t been proven to work.

tags: ,

Posted on Democrats, Liberals

still not funny

john kerry is even less credible as a comedian than he was as a presidential candidate…and by the way, his ’08 campaign should now officially be over. watch the tears from republicans all across america at this turn of events. or not.

the alleged actual joke(from ace of spades):

It’s great to be here with college students. I can’t overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.

well…that’s much better, isn’t it? that certainly wouldn’t be offensive to anyone. still not funny. call jon stewart. get some better material, senator. thanks so much.

even when kerry apologizes, he still ends up sounding condescending and arrogant. he thinks the american people are stupid also. he thinks we have short memories. how else could he in good conscience produce an apology like this?

from johnkerry.com:

As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.

I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.

It is clear the Republican Party would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy. I don’t want my verbal slip to be a diversion from the real issues. I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops.

poor misunderstood john kerry. he is merely a victim of “those right-wing nuts” and all those people who weren’t smart enough to understand what he meant by that statement. his problem is that not only do we understand what he meant, we passionately disagree with it. we remember his past statements, and discredit his explanations, because THIS IS what john kerry believes about our military.

then there’s this from hugh hewitt at townhall: john kerry had two different positions on a volunteer army. he was for it before he was against it. when he opposed it, he claimed that it would be “dominated by the underprivileged, be less accountable and be more prone to ‘the perpetuation of war crimes”. i suppose that was a botched joke too, senator? maybe we just misunderstood him again.

john kerry’s primary mistake is simply telling us what he really thinks. this is the guy who could have been our president. his record isn’t a creation of the vast right wing conspiracy. he believes what he said, and he’s apologizing because he got caught being honest (and because the democrats made him do it).

Technorati Tags: , ,

1 Comment Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

kerry says something stupid

You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.

john kerry

this isn’t the first time john kerry has been accused of saying something negative about our military. that’s why he’s not getting the benefit of the doubt here. there are some democrats who buy the explanation that he was attempting to insult the president instead of our military men and women serving in iraq. john kerry says that it was a “botched joke”. if that’s the case, his speechwriters should know better. john kerry is incapable of being funny. he is also politically clueless. whether he was talking about the president or about the military, it’s still a reckless thing to say, especially when nothing is guaranteed for democrats this november.

this isn’t 2004. kerry missed his opportunity to defend himself, and he can’t get it back by trying to justify what he said. it’s not just “right-wing nut jobs” condemning what kerry said, unless you count john mccain, harold ford jr. and HILLARY CLINTON in that group. hillary only said that kerry’s remarks were “inappropriate”, but that’s strong enough language for her, i guess. kerry made a mistake. he should admit it and apologize.

if he still thinks he can be the ’08 democratic nominee, he is deluding himself. move on, senator kerry. do us a favor. do the democrats a favor. go on a nice long vacation.

related:

What Did John Kerry Do?— Hugh Hewitt
Kerry, Kerry Quite Contrary–Jonah Goldberg
Why Kerry’s crack matters— Michael Medved

tags: , ,

1 Comment Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans

last man standing wins

senator allen has every right to be angry. his reputation has been dragged through the mud by the media. vicious rumors have been spread about him. even though he hasn’t dealt with all the questions very well at times, that still doesn’t take away from the fact that quite a few lines have been crossed in this campaign. it’s gotten very ugly in the virginia senate race. it’s easy to understand the temptation to fire back at the opposition with all the ammo you can find. if we experienced similar treatment, no doubt we would have that same temptation.

that doesn’t excuse what senator allen did by bringing up all those nasty passages from webb’s book. it says more about allen’s desperation than it does about webb’s character. i don’t know jim webb personally, but he seems like a decent guy, although there may be a few areas where we would disagree on policy. that’s a problem for allen, because he can’t easily paint this guy as a loony lefty. senator allen’s own inability to deal with the problems he has faced throughout his campaign have brought him to this point. this shouldn’t have even been a contested race. if allen loses this race, it’s his own fault. the media can be blamed to some degree, but a man who wants to be president needs to know how to handle these obstacles without melting down.

senator allen has failed the test. his latest campaign tactics will have voters asking more questions about him than they will about his opponent. when two candidates sling mud, they both get dirty. george allen may win the battle but lose the war. he may return to the senate, but not without his credibility and integrity being seriously damaged by the way this campaign has ended. i’m not ready to say that senator allen can’t recover from all this and make a serious run at the presidency, but i do think this hurts his chances to be the nominee in ’08.

politics is an ugly game. we all accept that. in this case, this intensely personal slugfest has gone too far. no matter how it turns out, both candidates should be ashamed of their behavior and take no pride in a victory in this race. it’s a hollow victory when you sell out your principles and your integrity to win.

michelle malkin says it better in this post.

tags: , , ,

Posted on Democrats, Editorials, Liberals, Republicans

saints and sinners

put away the stones. there are no saints among us, especially in the chattering class of politicians. let’s not pretend that we could even find such a person willing to run for political office today. we know more about those politicians than we want to know, and (may i dare to suggest) more than we need to know. believe it or not, this will not be the first or the last time we elect people with skeletons in their closets. acknowledge the possibility and accept that reality.

let’s start with the premise that there is something about each and every one of us that we don’t want the whole world to know about. we all have dirty laundry that we wouldn’t want to be aired in a public forum. this is even more true of politicians than it is for us. should we care so much about the personal lives of politicians? when does it have any bearing on how well the person would perform in his/her job? i’m not suggesting that when there are obvious ethical violations (like the foley mess, for example), that we need to look the other way and ignore it. i do believe that there’s a serious problem when we are fighting about which politician’s life is less screwed up. leave that garbage to the celebrity gossip columns, and let’s talk about what’s really important to us as a nation. that’s what this election should be about. that’s what the 2008 election should be about.

this election should be about issues, not about personalities. i cringe with each campaign speech mentioning that “san francisco liberal nancy pelosi”, and that our democracy as we know it is DOOMED, DOOMED i tell you…if liberals like her are in control of congress. for the politically engaged, mentions of specific personalities like pelosi may have an effect. for everyone else, they are left with several questions: “ok, so why should we care?” and “who’s nancy pelosi?”

republicans have done an excellent job making the word “liberal” a pejorative term. what they haven’t done successfully is to define what makes liberals dangerous to have in control of congress. that’s where the battle needs to be fought. we need to explain why the other side has the wrong strategy on north korea, iraq, and iran, and that electing them would mean higher taxes and wrong-headed foreign policy.

that should be our focus as we head toward november, because if republicans make the debate about ideas and talk about values, we win.

tags: , ,