USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[ryberg]

And now I would just like to highlight that I have said from the very get-go, and in fact based solely on his use of the peace sign in his logo (see my thread about judging the candidates' artwork), that Kucinich was going to come off like this to an awful lot of people in the country. I imagine he is probably a very good man, and though I haven't studied his background and experience, I have no problem believing he could show a successful track record in office, and as I've said, if his function or role is more than anything perhaps to be the voice of the conscience of the party or to ask the difficult questions others are afraid of and therefore aid the debate as a whole and so forth, good for him.

However, his presence and style and what he's advocating doing, apart from whether that is well justified or advisable or whatever, is unfortunately playing into the image conservatives have been painting of Democrats for quite some time now, with some reasonable degree of success, as well: that they tend to be loopy types who don't have a handle on reality out there, who cannot handle ideas of national security and definitely aren't to be trusted with it in office, who carry the ideals of hippies that were trailing out of fashion already 30 years ago and which didn't get us anywhere, and more stuff like that, however you want to describe it.

In the end and without trying to judge him or his ideals or their content, but rather just focusing on the impression with the public at large, one wonders (as perhaps is the case over on the other side with Ron Paul, for example) if he can be said to be helping or, perhaps, hurting the party's general goals and image, overall, with his presence. It is just reality and reality needs to be dealt with.

My tack has simply been to pursue that line of thinking and see if it doesn't apply to what are generally considered more mainstream candidates that are garnering more attention and seen as more serious possibilities and getting higher poll results and so forth. And again I have been doing that without judging them personally or the content of their ideas to be bad, for example when I first came out a long time ago, well before this thread started, and said, "OK, I'll say it: don't run, Hillary!" With her particular case and background and the high negatives she has and so forth, it was just a natural line of thought.

Sorry to ramble but I see these reactions as corroboration (for better or worse, but corroboration, nevertheless!) that this approach I've been discussing is a valid and important one, not as something that can, or should wisely be, just ignored, or left aside until the nomination process is finished and the actual election is upon us.

Steve

[MikeW]

Originally Posted by sctx

Ron Paul is an idiot.......Kucinich is just a lame weenie

Finally, something I can understand.

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by ryberg

And now I would just like to highlight that I have said from the very get-go, and in fact based solely on his use of the peace sign in his logo (see my thread about judging the candidates' artwork), that Kucinich was going to come off like this to an awful lot of people in the country. I imagine he is probably a very good man, and though I haven't studied his background and experience, I have no problem believing he could show a successful track record in office, and as I've said, if his function or role is more than anything perhaps to be the voice of the conscience of the party or to ask the difficult questions others are afraid of and therefore aid the debate as a whole and so forth, good for him.

However, his presence and style and what he's advocating doing, apart from whether that is well justified or advisable or whatever, is unfortunately playing into the image conservatives have been painting of Democrats for quite some time now, with some reasonable degree of success, as well: that they tend to be loopy types who don't have a handle on reality out there, who cannot handle ideas of national security and definitely aren't to be trusted with it in office, who carry the ideals of hippies that were trailing out of fashion already 30 years ago and which didn't get us anywhere, and more stuff like that, however you want to describe it.

In the end and without trying to judge him or his ideals or their content, but rather just focusing on the impression with the public at large, one wonders (as perhaps is the case over on the other side with Ron Paul, for example) if he can be said to be helping or, perhaps, hurting the party's general goals and image, overall, with his presence. It is just reality and reality needs to be dealt with.

My tack has simply been to pursue that line of thinking and see if it doesn't apply to what are generally considered more mainstream candidates that are garnering more attention and seen as more serious possibilities and getting higher poll results and so forth. And again I have been doing that without judging them personally or the content of their ideas to be bad, for example when I first came out a long time ago, well before this thread started, and said, "OK, I'll say it: don't run, Hillary!" With her particular case and background and the high negatives she has and so forth, it was just a natural line of thought.

Sorry to ramble but I see these reactions as corroboration (for better or worse, but corroboration, nevertheless!) that this approach I've been discussing is a valid and important one, not as something that can, or should wisely be, just ignored, or left aside until the nomination process is finished and the actual election is upon us.

Steve

But Steve you are putting little faith in the American people. I think the greatest obstacle facing the Democratic Party ,regardless of the candidate,is to define itself clearly and concisely to the American people. It is one of the reasons I asked you earlier for some bullet points on Obama's positions. The danger politically is to allow our opponents to define us and our candidates.



As far as national security I don't think even the Socialist Workers Party could have screwed up the way the administration has over the last 6+ years even before 9-11/ Here is some info from the NIE that was released:

17 — The United States will face “a persistent and evolving terrorist threat” over the next three years, as Al Qaeda continues to plot attacks comparable in scale to those of Sept. 11, 2001, the nation’s intelligence agencies said today.Despite efforts to root out Al Qaeda terrorists from their strongholds in the tribal areas of northwest Pakistan since 2001, the group has been able to protect or rebuild a cadre of “operational lieutenants” and its top leadership, the estimate declared.
And while Al Qaeda remains the greatest single terrorist threat to the United States, its leadership will continue to prod other terrorists in “extremist Sunni communities” to “mimic its efforts and to supplement its capabilities,” the 16 intelligence agencies agreed.
Moreover, the Lebanon-based Islamic militant group Hezbollah, which has carried out attacks against Americans overseas, may be tempted to attack the United States if it feels that it or its main sponsor, Iran, is threatened by America, the assessment said. Finally, the United States may suffer small-scale attacks from other, non-Muslim terrorist groups, the document warned.

Pakistan’s tribal areas have effectively become havens for terrorists

[melliedee]

I also don't see how running on a peace platform makes someone an unreliable kook with no other foriegn policy chops other than the machinery of war?

We cannot forget that Kucinich remains one of the only candidates to oppose the war in the first place and make no apologies for doing so.

From his website:


"All of this has estranged and frightened our allies and provoked enduring enmity in the councils of other governments and the hearts of citizens around the world. George Bush's foreign policies have made us new foreign enemies. George Bush's defense policies have weakened our defenses. George Bush's responses to 9/11 have made future 9/11s more likely to occur."


All the Jerry Garcia dancing bears could not make me ignore that I like what he has to say about almost nearly every issue that I care about--most especially education. Again, not saying he'll get the nomination or that he does not divide people even more while giving the GOP yet more fuel to depict us as out of touch hippy dippy types...but, I'll say again: he's not to be brushed off so easily as bad for the party. IMO.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

Steve don't get me wrong, I too long for a more civil discourse. Perhaps an almost mythical time when the two parties got along better and somehow more things were accomplished for the good of the nation.

The real problem does not lie with partisanship in my opinion. It lies with a totally different concept of government. As I've said before, the neo-cons absolutely despise government they see no role for it except perhaps to enable the market and provide corporate welfare. We can see and I think will be seeing the results of this for generations to come. From their point of view all is subjective. Without the bridge of objectivity logic seems to be one of the casualties.

I can see no way that they can be lead down a path to compromise. I very much envy your optimism.

Well that last bit is ironic, as you seem... strangely optimistic in saying more recently that you think I underestimate the people (by which I think you really mean the voters) and their ability to discern reality from these images. You're clearly more optimistic than I am on that point. I think lots and lots of people walk around swallowing up images more or less whole and unanalyzed, particularly when the subject is complex and would require a fair amount of thought (like politics) and particularly when high-profile demagogues like Fox hone and polish and step up their game.

But then oddly I think you undercut that same optimism yourself, for example when you ask for just 3-4 strong bullet points for a candidate Obama that Bubba can just look at quickly to get the picture. Even a Cliff Notes version of the candidate would be too much for your Bubba everyman, it seems; heaven forbid he should try to, say, do as little as I have and read one of the man's two books or get into a discussion in an online forum about him and other candidates. You have faith in such a person's ability to discern images from a deeper, less obvious reality?

Really?

I can certainly sympathize with your other points. Basically assault on reason again. Just don't want to give up hope on overcoming that deep rift that currently exists between the right and left, at least not yet.

Steve

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by melliedee

I also don't see how running on a peace platform makes someone an unreliable kook with no other foriegn policy chops other than the machinery of war?

Well if you're referring to my comments, I'm not saying that. However I would say that using the peace sign makes him look to many people kooky, certainly in the sense that it makes him look like he wants to return to hippie days, given the prominent associations of that symbol, and that he therefore may be rather out of touch with the situation of 2007 and beyond. That, not wanting peace, makes him seem that way (I think), to many people.

Steve

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Well if you're referring to my comments, I'm not saying that. However I would say that using the peace sign makes him look to many people kooky, certainly in the sense that it makes him look like he wants to return to hippie days, given the prominent associations of that symbol, and that he therefore may be rather out of touch with the situation of 2007 and beyond. That, not wanting peace, makes him seem that way (I think), to many people.

Steve

I see the peace symbol as carrying varying degrees of baggage. Yes, what you say about kooky/hippy, but it also recalls a counter-culture movement that history remembers for stopping another unpopular war and revolutionizing civil rights as surely as it recalls its other (perhaps more pop, drugs, music) connotations? Just sayin...

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by melliedee

I also don't see how running on a peace platform makes someone an unreliable kook with no other foriegn policy chops other than the machinery of war?

We cannot forget that Kucinich remains one of the only candidates to oppose the war in the first place and make no apologies for doing so.

From his website:


"All of this has estranged and frightened our allies and provoked enduring enmity in the councils of other governments and the hearts of citizens around the world. George Bush's foreign policies have made us new foreign enemies. George Bush's defense policies have weakened our defenses. George Bush's responses to 9/11 have made future 9/11s more likely to occur."


All the Jerry Garcia dancing bears could not make me ignore that I like what he has to say about almost nearly every issue that I care about--most especially education. Again, not saying he'll get the nomination or that he does not divide people even more while giving the GOP yet more fuel to depict us as out of touch hippy dippy types...but, I'll say again: he's not to be brushed off so easily as bad for the party. IMO.

A) You funny.

B) You right.

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Well that last bit is ironic, as you seem... strangely optimistic in saying more recently that you think I underestimate the people (by which I think you really mean the voters) and their ability to discern reality from these images. You're clearly more optimistic than I am on that point. I think lots and lots of people walk around swallowing up images more or less whole and unanalyzed, particularly when the subject is complex and would require a fair amount of thought (like politics) and particularly when high-profile demagogues like Fox hone and polish and step up their game.

But then oddly I think you undercut that same optimism yourself, for example when you ask for just 3-4 strong bullet points for a candidate Obama that Bubba can just look at quickly to get the picture. Even a Cliff Notes version of the candidate would be too much for your Bubba everyman, it seems; heaven forbid he should try to, say, do as little as I have and read one of the man's two books or get into a discussion in an online forum about him and other candidates. You have faith in such a person's ability to discern images from a deeper, less obvious reality?

Really?

I can certainly sympathize with your other points. Basically assault on reason again. Just don't want to give up hope on overcoming that deep rift that currently exists between the right and left, at least not yet.

Steve

Well I think you may have caught me there. I have a problem somtimes writing before my thoughts are....er...firmed up.

In fact though I complain about letting my opponent paint my idea of a candidate I even joked around about Kucinich with some conservatives. I did that right after making a very serious post about impeachment and human and civil rights abuses by this administration.Shame on me. It is a deadly serious business when your country makes people "disappear" and just because they do it overseas doesn't mean it won't eventually come home to roost.


On your other point I think a major problem is defining exactly what the party stands up for. Frankly if it does not stand up for the Constitution this time I don't know what I'll do. It seems to me that some back room deals were made during Iran-Contra and we wouldn't be in the situation we're in today with an imperial Presidency if we had acted strongly at the time. Prior to that I'd spent significant amounts of my time trying to get the average citizen to be aware of the abuses in Latin America. Some of those folks would sign a petition but didn't want to know anything about human rights abuses. Sometimes I wonder if the whole country hasn't lost its soul.

[Just Lucky]

To add to what I was saying last night the Republicans have been the masters the last few elections of in breaking things down into simple "this is where we stand" issues. Their marketing of their candidates has been very well thought out and focused.

The Democratic candidates have imo been poorly marketed. There has been far to much nuance and an "on the other hand" approach in speechs and debates.While I lament that campaigning has reached such a simplified approach, I think our candidates and our party need to accept the reality of it.

It is not only necessary that we define our candidates identity to voters but also we must take control of the issues under debate. It is I think a difficult task considering the power of talk radio and the 24 hour news networks which are certainly no friend deep and complex explanations of problems or solutions.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

To add to what I was saying last night the Republicans have been the masters the last few elections of in breaking things down into simple "this is where we stand" issues. Their marketing of their candidates has been very well thought out and focused.

The Democratic candidates have imo been poorly marketed. There has been far to much nuance and an "on the other hand" approach in speechs and debates.While I lament that campaigning has reached such a simplified approach, I think our candidates and our party need to accept the reality of it.

It is not only necessary that we define our candidates identity to voters but also we must take control of the issues under debate. It is I think a difficult task considering the power of talk radio and the 24 hour news networks which are certainly no friend deep and complex explanations of problems or solutions.

I think this was especially true for Kerry's evasive, over-wrought non-answers to questions in the debates. Even hardcore Dems grew sick of him! That debating style encourages a public perception of the party as wishy-washy, or worse, outright deceptive.

But I actually think these candidates are getting better?

[kirbyfan]

That debating style encourages a public perception of the party as wishy-washy, or worse, outright deceptive.

Are you substituting the term "perception" for the term "reality"....

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by melliedee

I think this was especially true for Kerry's evasive, over-wrought non-answers to questions in the debates. Even hardcore Dems grew sick of him! That debating style encourages a public perception of the party as wishy-washy, or worse, outright deceptive.

But I actually think these candidates are getting better?

I certainly hope so! Since I don't have cable the only debate I saw was the one on PBS at Brown Univ. I didn't think many of the candidates made a strong showing and impact in that debate. The two who seemed to strongly feel and put forth their positions were Congressman Kucinich (who I see as an unlikely nominee) and Senator Clinton (who is too far to the right in my opinion).

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

Are you substituting the term "perception" for the term "reality"....

Public perception as a result of information learned about the candidates during a debate. Which is rather like trying to squeeze academic content from a People magazine article. On both sides, imo.

[roni]

Interesting column on Giuliani Here in the Washington Post/

Here are the first couple of paragraphs

R. Milhous Giuliani
A Front-Runner's Political Baggage

By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, July 18, 2007; Page A19

With the same rootless confidence that causes people to ignore hurricane warnings, many social conservatives remain in denial about Rudy Giuliani's chances of winning the Republican nomination.

But with three debates and eight months as the Republican front-runner under his belt, Giuliani's political strength cannot be dismissed as a fad or a fluke. His skills as a campaigner are considerable. His political strategy is plausible: Play down Iowa and New Hampshire, win Florida on Jan. 29, and sweep the big states (New York, California, Illinois) on Feb. 5, securing the nomination before a social-conservative reaction can set in. The Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney camps have their own victory scenarios, but they are not more likely.