This weekend the CA Repubs are meeting to plan the future of their party in this state. Sparks are flying over Prop 14. Outgoing party Chairman Ron Nehring has a great (i.e., self-destructive) idea. Choose one Repub candidate per office, and back him/her to the hilt in the primary. Conservative Rep. Dana Rohrbacher supports the idea. It’s a sure way for the Tea Party to take over that organization.
They’ll make a lot of noise, but they won’t win many elections. Dems are 40% of registered voters, and over 20% are independent. Repubs have 30% now, but if the Tea Party takes over that will drop.
State Sen. Sam Blakeslee said he was “deeply disturbed” by Nehring’s proposal. Good! Hopefully, he and other moderate Repubs will be driven from the party.
Nehring said that Prop 14, has “many unintended consequences that we are just starting to see now.” That’s right, bro. It’s going to, hopefully, scatter the two-party system.
There is another good omen. On May 17 there will be a special primary election to replace former Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice). Big name CA Dems joining the contest include Janice Hahn, Debra Bowen, and progressive Marcy Winograd. Many lesser known folks from the two major parties and from all over the place are filing their papers to get on the ballot.
The good news here is that, under Prop 14, party elites have no control over who files to be on the ballot. Candidates are using party labels on their own choice. By doing this, they are weakening party power. As the field gets more crowded with party labels, those labels will mean less and less!
After a few election cycles like this, maybe people will learn to vote for individuals, rather than party labels. Voters will do a little research, and elections will become an education to the electorate. Prop 14 can grow democracy in CA, and then could spread to other states.
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Internetvoting@gmail.com
Info from:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2011/03/state-republican-convention-opens-with-discord-over-top-two-primary.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter;
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2011/03/bowen-hahn-tout-new-endorsements.html
Showing posts with label 2008 presidential campaign. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 presidential campaign. Show all posts
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Sunday, November 09, 2008
TODAY'S NEWS HEADLINES for INDEPENDENT VOTERS
ELECTION FALLOUT
HISTORY OF AFRICAN AMERICAN CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT
LAST WORD
1960s Radicals Predict Rebirth of Social Activism (NY Times) Mr. Fenton, 56, had dropped out of the Bronx High School of Science in 1968 to pursue photojournalism. “There were demonstrations every week,” Mr. Fenton said. “I don’t know if that will ever happen again. I hope it doesn’t have to.”
- Race didn't decide the election (LA Times) "Economic issues trumped race." That doesn't mean white voters in Ohio harbored no racial prejudice; it means they put their feelings aside, or subordinated them, in deciding to vote for Obama over McCain. That's a psychological process that is common in many of the decisions we make. We do or decide something in spite of feelings to the contrary.
- State GOP got outworked, outspent (Detroit News) Saul Anuzis is a good state chairman who understands the need to woo independent voters. But he is always fending off challenges from the party's ideologues. He can't be effective if his own team is trying to stick a shiv in him.
- Stronghold shows cracks (Lancaster Online) "The difference in totals could therefore be attributed to the Democrats coming out while the Republicans stayed home. It also shows that Obama received twice as many of the independent voters than did McCain."
- An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage (Washington Post) The Post's polling was on the mark, and in some cases ahead of the curve, in focusing on independent voters, racial attitudes, low-wage voters, the shift of African Americans' support from Clinton to Obama and the rising importance of economic issues.
- Oregon Exits (Blue Oregon) But his most important demographic wins--and probably the reason he won the election--came among moderate and independent voters. Merkley won self-identified independents 48%-43%; among self-identified independents
- Obama's victory in Florida represents many firsts (Tallahassee Democrat) Obama won counties in the famed I-4 corridor, which cuts from Tampa through Daytona Beach, and includes a slice of independent voters who practically decided if Florida will be a red or blue state. In Orange County, for example, Obama beat McCain by 85,000 votes.
HISTORY OF AFRICAN AMERICAN CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT
- Role of race in the race (The Item - South Carolina) Lenora Fulani ran as an Independent in 1988 and again in 1992. She was the first black woman to appear on the presidential ballot in all 50 states.
- With Obama's win, our nation has overcome (The Courier Journal - KY)
LAST WORD
1960s Radicals Predict Rebirth of Social Activism (NY Times) Mr. Fenton, 56, had dropped out of the Bronx High School of Science in 1968 to pursue photojournalism. “There were demonstrations every week,” Mr. Fenton said. “I don’t know if that will ever happen again. I hope it doesn’t have to.”
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Hankster Vote
Sunnyside Queens at 7:30 am
I voted, but I had to give the poll worker instructions. High emotions! Lots of neighbors!
I'll be heading up to Harlem tonight to take some pictures and hopefully celebrate Obama's election, so stay tuned!!!
Monday, November 03, 2008
Independent voters do not like robo calls!
Think campaigns are getting their money's worth out of the cheap but controversial practice of robocalling? According to the survey, 65 percent of all registered voters polled said they hang up when they receive an automated call and half said the calls are a "minor annoyance." Thirteen percent say the calls make them angry. But candidates may want to take note: Those coveted independent voters are the likeliest to hang up and get angry. Seventy-five percent of registered independents hang up on robocalls and 17 percent get angry. ...(US News & World Report)
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Qualifications for the Presidency: Substance, please.
I agree with Nancy Hanks' premise that we ought to rise above the pettiness of political demonization and personal attacks; there are enough real issues to debate. This presidential election will go down in history as a milestone in American politics, no matter who wins it. I cannot remember an election that energized as many people, or a longer campaign season. I am for breaking the stranglehold of the two party system and putting fuller representation into all levels of government. I plan to strongly join in the struggle to add more qualified Independents to the next election process. I am hopeful that 2012 will be the year that an Independent candidate has a legitimate shot at the presidency. However, having listened to Sarah Palin on several occasions, I don't agree that she is qualified to become president, which is the measure of any vice presidential candidate. While John McCain obviously has the credentials, eighty percent of the problems we're having today can be laid on the Republican Party's doorstep. Today's Republican Party is not the one of my youth--they have lost their way. Therefore, I don't care who their candidates are, I would vote, and did, against them. From all that I know, Barack Obama appears to epitomize the American dream, and he is thoughtful, intelligent, and measured in his responses. But then, I was fooled by George W. Bush in the 2000 campaign--I took him at his word that he would reach across the aisle and compromise; instead he drove the partisan wedge deeper. Bush tried to steamroll a man of principle, Senator Jim Jeffords, and it rightly backfired. I've been an admirer of Joe Biden for years, even when I was strongly Republican. Although I realize the significance of the first black presidential candidate, I have not looked on this election primarily as breaking barriers. I have looked at it in terms of who can best restore America's economy, move us away from the slide towards fascism, and restore our reputation in the world. Frankly, I was surprised that Hillary Clinton did not get the nomination--that was what the majority of Washington insiders were predicting. That said, I am strongly supportive of breaking all superfluous barriers. I was very pleased to have had a small part in selecting the first female brigadier general in the history of the US Army Reserve. That broken barrier has since opened the way for several other women. I look forward to the day that a woman becomes president, not because she is a woman but because she will be the best qualified. I agree with Joe Biden that the next president will be tested by an international crisis; there are so many in the offing. I am fully confident that Biden will be of great assistance to Obama in a crisis and in domestic affairs. I cannot say the same of Palin for McCain.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Talk/Talk: What Obama Should Do Now
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, September 14, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." Due to technical difficulties, the entire Talk Talk is printed below and is not available on www.independentvoting.org at this time.
Salit: Suppose we take a stab at unpackaging a question that everybody was talking about on the talk shows this morning. Is the Obama camp having trouble handling Sarah Palin?
Newman: Sarah Palin is not running for President of the United States, but for vice president. Does her selection have to be "handled?" Yes. It was a historic event. The Republicans put a woman on the ticket. If I were Obama's advisor I would say make the response tedious. Say Congratulations to the Republican Party for being the second major political party to nominate a woman as vice president.
Salit: And ...
Newman: And that's the end of it. It reminds the public that the Democratic Party nominated the first African American and that's a good thing. Now, says Obama, Let's talk about the American people and our policies. Let's talk about John McCain and our two parties. As I've said for a long time, the Democrats win if they can make this into a party election. The Republican Party has been in power for the last eight years and the American people don't like what they've done with it. End of story. You have to reduce Sarah Palin to the insignificance of the vice presidency.
Salit: Alright. So, how close to that did they get?
Newman: Oh, I don't know what the measure is. It's hard to say. That's going to be decided by what happens in the next few weeks.
Salit: When Chris Matthews asked the Matthews Meter question, "Who won the week - Obama or McCain?" they said McCain, 11-1. I would have answered "Obama." And the reason I would have answered Obama is that, in large measure, all you could do this week was let the Palin thing play out. It was going to be the headliner no matter what. It's the week after the Republican Convention, and she is a woman and she is a new face. Sometimes you just have to let the other side make their play.
Newman: I think who won the week was Palin.
Salit: OK. How did you react to the Charlie Gibson interview with Palin?
Newman: As an interview. It was just another interview of a newcomer onto the national stage.
Salit: On "The Chris Matthews Show" it was reported, not a big revelation here, that numbers of people in the Democratic Party, meaning within the political class in the Democratic Party ...
Newman: Yes...
Salit: ...are concerned that Obama has "lost some of his fire." They say he had his voice when he was running against the Clintons. He had a passion. He was on message. He was sharp. He had a drive that matched the moment. Now, having won that, having beaten the Clintons, having gotten the nomination, and now being up against McCain, he doesn't seem to have that same passion or that precision of message. Is that a fair characterization? Or is it just the anxieties of the Democrats as we move into the final seven weeks of the campaign for the presidency?
Newman: I'd approach this as a psychotherapist for a moment. Who are you ultimately going to be more passionately fired up in opposition to - if you're in opposition at all? Your family? Your mother who raised you? Or someone you've been dating for a week and a half?
Salit: Your family.
Newman: Of course. And, it's a good thing that he's more passionate in his opposition to the Democratic Party. The corruption that you have to defeat first has to be the corruption of your own party. That's what really shows some courage. Running against Clinton was enormously courageous.
Salit: Yes.
Newman: Running against McCain inspires less passion. McCain isn't Bush. He's just an extension of Bush.
Salit: Right.
Newman: Palin isn't on her own. She's just an extension of McCain.
Salit: Right.
Newman: So, there's going to be a difference, not only in the degree of passion, but in the kind of passion. Real courage was required in taking on the Clintons and the entire Democratic machine. Obama passed that test. It's relatively easy to criticize the Republican Party, as even McCain is trying to project. The whole of the American people are against the Republican machine. Now, have McCain and Palin gone up against the Republican Party? No. In fact, McCain has totally tailored his positions, totally remade himself to be more of a regular Republican.
Salit: That's the 2008 John McCain.
Newman: That's where he's caved. That's what he's caved on. In 2000, he ran against Bush and said I'm not a regular Republican. He lost that fight. Now, he's a regular Republican, with an occasional maverick sound bite. And for all of her outsider gloss, Palin is following his lead. She is a regular Republican, too.
Salit: That's not what you'd call a profile in courage.
Newman: No, that's a profile, somewhere between changing your mind and rank opportunism.
Salit: OK.
Newman: If that were properly presented, Obama would diminish McCain's maverick appeal. Now, the reason Obama's hesitant to take that on, of course, is he doesn't want to offend the regular Democrats who make up a portion of his base.
Salit: Yes.
Newman: But, I still think there's a way of doing that.
Salit: Break it down for me.
Newman: There's a way of saying this which glorifies the Democrats. Obama says, Look, our party knew that we had to go through a very difficult but clarifying process if we were going to be prepared to take on the presidency. We did that. It was very difficult. And I know some people felt their toes were stepped on. But we took that on and thanks to the independents who backed us, and thanks to our ranks, and thanks the younger generation, we cleaned up our house.
Salit: Yes.
Newman: And we will finish that job. The Republicans never cleaned house. They're not willing to step out and say, in general, we've done a disastrous job, although it's apparent that they have done a disastrous job. The American people know that. So, if you want to consider who has genuinely taken on their party, look at that. That's my record, says Barack. I led the way in that. John McCain tried to take on his own party in 2000 and he failed. I tried in 2008 and I succeeded.
Salit: I think it works. And my prediction is that McCain's going to try to make that a topic in the first debate coming up in two weeks.
Newman: How?
Salit: Because his only hope of winning is to claim the mantle of the insurgent. That's why his convention speech was 'I've stood up to the Republican Party. The Republican Party lost the trust of the American people. I've stood up to the anti-change forces.'
Newman: Well, if I were Obama, I'd say John, that's what you did in 2000 and you got beaten. Now you've remade yourself. You're a regular Republican who supports the policies of George W. Bush. You didn't change your party, your party changed you. I changed my party. I succeeded where you failed. And that's why I'm more qualified to be president. Because the American people want change. And I have a record of change.
Salit: Here's how I would characterize the debate within the Democratic Party about how to handle this very dynamic. I think there is a strong constituency inside the Democratic Party for Obama to simply hammer at what you might call "the issues." John McCain is tied to George Bush. George Bush ran the war. George Bush ran the economy into the ground. Ordinary Americans are suffering for lack of health care, for lack of jobs, from poor education, from a lack of affordable housing, and so forth. We're not competitive in the world. The Democratic Party is going to change that. In effect, Fred, I would say, their argument is to skip over the point that you're making here about Obama having taken on his party, taken on the establishment, taken a risk and gone through that process, and having the party come together around that. This other strategy that I'm describing, the traditional Democratic strategy, is what the Democrats go to, and what they've gone to. It was the Kerry strategy. It was the Gore strategy. You go to the American people on the basis of what's in their economic interests and what's in their social policy interests and you draw those distinctions and that's how you win the election. There's only one problem. They lost both of those elections with that strategy.
Newman: But the American people have already spoken on the issues. They don't like the way things are being run, they don't like the foreign policy, they don't like the domestic policy, they don't like the educational policy.
Salit: Right.
Newman: They don't like the current healthcare policy. The American people have spoken on that. So who do they think they're talking to?
Salit: Well, they're talking to the "undecideds."
Newman: The undecideds, though, as I understand it, are undecided because they aren't yet clear on who is the best person to do something about the things that they're concerned about.
Salit: Not on the question about what needs to be done.
Newman: Yes.
Salit: OK. So the question is who is the best person to do it. The Democrats' argument is the person who's the best person is the one who has the right policies. That's a different way to approach the issue than what you're describing. I feel close to what you're saying, but that's how the traditional Democrats package it. That's their argument. The way you sell the person is you sell the policies. Meanwhile, at the moment, what the Republicans are doing is selling the person. They're not selling the policies. They can't. The policies are a disaster. Just pick up a newspaper. Still, there is close to half the country, in spite of the failed policies of the Bush administration, who consider themselves conservatives. And McCain has put together a package that appeals to them. I'm not Bush, so you're not going to get the problems from Bush. But I am a conservative, and so you don't have to fear that I'm going to change things in a way that violates that.
Newman: So, I still don't get it.
Salit: You don't get the old strategic thinking from the Democrats?
Newman: No, because the issue is whose policy is preferred at this point in time. Well, nobody quite knows because the choice is about who to trust on the articulation of what they're going to do.
Salit: Right.
Newman: So, defining policies doesn't make a difference, if I understand that reasoning.
Salit: Yes.
Newman: So, why would the Democrats who, as you correctly point out, have been defeated by George Bush twice - why would they go back to that? I don't understand the reasoning.
Salit: Ultimately their reasoning, the old guard's reasoning, is party-based in the following sense. The Democrats' registration has grown. Their numbers have grown on the ground.
Newman: Right.
Salit: The Obama campaign put together a superb grassroots infrastructure. You couple that with the Democratic Party's machine and they think - this is what I expect their reasoning is - they can just simply pull it off on the ground. I'm not saying that they think they don't have to do stuff and that he doesn't have to articulate stuff in the debates and in their commercials and so forth. But, ultimately, the thing turns on their capacity to put it together on the ground.
Newman: But that's a separate question. You just changed the topic in the middle of the discussion. Because one has to do with what you have to do to get elected and the other has to do with what you have to do to effect change that the American people want. And they're two totally separate questions.
Salit: Yes. But you have to sell to the American people that you can effect a change that the American people want. Presumably, that's the issue that's on the table now.
Newman: Yes.
Salit: OK.
Newman: I think Obama is most effective when he says I have some experience, but I also have a connection to a new wave of Americans, young Americans, Americans who want to see political change. They don't care what party you're in and I have a connection to them. I've worked with them. I'm a community organizer.
Salit: Yes.
Newman: And people say to Obama, how can you prove that? And, he could say I just ran a campaign against the hardcore establishment of one of the two major parties and I won. John McCain ran that kind of campaign eight years ago. And he lost. He lost the Republican primary in 2000 for a reason. It wasn't a popularity contest. He lost because the kind of party the Republicans were looking for was expressed by George Bush, not by John McCain.
Salit: OK.
Newman: Everybody knows that John McCain went to the right wing of his party this time because that was the way to win. I'm not condemning that. But that doesn't produce change.
Salit: Correct.
Newman: It might produce victory but it doesn't produce change. Obama has to make his appeal to the new generation. That's not taking McCain on for his age, because the age that we're talking about is not his. It's the age of the new electorate that's relevant.
Salit: Let me shift gears to Alan Greenspan's comments about the state of the U.S. economy. He says we've never seen the degree of connectedness on a global scale as we have today, and that's why the current level of government intervention into the markets is necessary.
Newman: Yes.
Salit: And, he adds, the very factors of globalization which have been so beneficial and have taken millions of people out of poverty around the world are the same factors that make it the case that there needs to be a market correction. Put in the most positive light, from his standpoint, that's what we're seeing now. Globalization produced huge levels of growth which benefited millions and millions of ordinary people around the world. Now we're seeing a correction and a reorganization going on.
Newman: OK.
Salit: Is that an accurate framing? Is there anything left out, in your view, of that account?
Newman: Well, Greenspan's a very smart man. But is he really saying, Alright children, let me teach you a basic law of physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction? Now, what is it he wants to do about it? I didn't hear him say.
Salit: Nor did I. All he says is that the main thing that the American government should do is take whatever steps it needs to take in order to stabilize the price of housing. Once the price of housing is stabilized, and that's what all the intervention is about, then things will settle out and the market will take care of the rest.
Newman: What if that doesn't happen? What if the correction for globalization turns out to be so vast that it undermines the very stability of the world economic system?
Salit: Then it wouldn't be a correction, it would be a destruction.
Newman: I didn't hear him reassuring us with specificity that this whole globalization thing was so well thought through that destruction couldn't possibly happen. And I don't think it was. I think there was a huge amount of money to be made. And, as always, when finance capitalists see huge money to be made, they go ahead and make it - without much thought about what the consequences might be. So, for example, at the risk of oversimplification, people who are saying that it's alright to bail out the finance industry because it's a worldwide system and that's different than bailing out the automotive industry...
Salit: Yes...
Newman: ...I would say there's a sleight of hand in there. It's alright if that represents your going-forward values.
Salit: Yes.
Newman: If you want to make sure the banks and financial system get bolstered on the grounds that that has to do with everybody and the automotive industry doesn't get protected in the same way because that that doesn't involve everybody in the same way...
Salit: Right...
Newman: Well, that seems a little tricky to me, because it depends on who you mean by "everybody" and how you relate to "everybody." It's not that I can't see the sense of the argument. The financial markets do have applicability to everyone, but not everyone in the same way. So, I'd say Greenspan tells less than the whole story. I almost agree with him. But it's less than the whole story.
Salit: A good way to put it. Thanks, Fred.
Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, September 14, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." Due to technical difficulties, the entire Talk Talk is printed below and is not available on www.independentvoting.org at this time.
Salit: Suppose we take a stab at unpackaging a question that everybody was talking about on the talk shows this morning. Is the Obama camp having trouble handling Sarah Palin?
Newman: Sarah Palin is not running for President of the United States, but for vice president. Does her selection have to be "handled?" Yes. It was a historic event. The Republicans put a woman on the ticket. If I were Obama's advisor I would say make the response tedious. Say Congratulations to the Republican Party for being the second major political party to nominate a woman as vice president.
Salit: And ...
Newman: And that's the end of it. It reminds the public that the Democratic Party nominated the first African American and that's a good thing. Now, says Obama, Let's talk about the American people and our policies. Let's talk about John McCain and our two parties. As I've said for a long time, the Democrats win if they can make this into a party election. The Republican Party has been in power for the last eight years and the American people don't like what they've done with it. End of story. You have to reduce Sarah Palin to the insignificance of the vice presidency.
Salit: Alright. So, how close to that did they get?
Newman: Oh, I don't know what the measure is. It's hard to say. That's going to be decided by what happens in the next few weeks.
Salit: When Chris Matthews asked the Matthews Meter question, "Who won the week - Obama or McCain?" they said McCain, 11-1. I would have answered "Obama." And the reason I would have answered Obama is that, in large measure, all you could do this week was let the Palin thing play out. It was going to be the headliner no matter what. It's the week after the Republican Convention, and she is a woman and she is a new face. Sometimes you just have to let the other side make their play.
Newman: I think who won the week was Palin.
Salit: OK. How did you react to the Charlie Gibson interview with Palin?
Newman: As an interview. It was just another interview of a newcomer onto the national stage.
Salit: On "The Chris Matthews Show" it was reported, not a big revelation here, that numbers of people in the Democratic Party, meaning within the political class in the Democratic Party ...
Newman: Yes...
Salit: ...are concerned that Obama has "lost some of his fire." They say he had his voice when he was running against the Clintons. He had a passion. He was on message. He was sharp. He had a drive that matched the moment. Now, having won that, having beaten the Clintons, having gotten the nomination, and now being up against McCain, he doesn't seem to have that same passion or that precision of message. Is that a fair characterization? Or is it just the anxieties of the Democrats as we move into the final seven weeks of the campaign for the presidency?
Newman: I'd approach this as a psychotherapist for a moment. Who are you ultimately going to be more passionately fired up in opposition to - if you're in opposition at all? Your family? Your mother who raised you? Or someone you've been dating for a week and a half?
Salit: Your family.
Newman: Of course. And, it's a good thing that he's more passionate in his opposition to the Democratic Party. The corruption that you have to defeat first has to be the corruption of your own party. That's what really shows some courage. Running against Clinton was enormously courageous.
Salit: Yes.
Newman: Running against McCain inspires less passion. McCain isn't Bush. He's just an extension of Bush.
Salit: Right.
Newman: Palin isn't on her own. She's just an extension of McCain.
Salit: Right.
Newman: So, there's going to be a difference, not only in the degree of passion, but in the kind of passion. Real courage was required in taking on the Clintons and the entire Democratic machine. Obama passed that test. It's relatively easy to criticize the Republican Party, as even McCain is trying to project. The whole of the American people are against the Republican machine. Now, have McCain and Palin gone up against the Republican Party? No. In fact, McCain has totally tailored his positions, totally remade himself to be more of a regular Republican.
Salit: That's the 2008 John McCain.
Newman: That's where he's caved. That's what he's caved on. In 2000, he ran against Bush and said I'm not a regular Republican. He lost that fight. Now, he's a regular Republican, with an occasional maverick sound bite. And for all of her outsider gloss, Palin is following his lead. She is a regular Republican, too.
Salit: That's not what you'd call a profile in courage.
Newman: No, that's a profile, somewhere between changing your mind and rank opportunism.
Salit: OK.
Newman: If that were properly presented, Obama would diminish McCain's maverick appeal. Now, the reason Obama's hesitant to take that on, of course, is he doesn't want to offend the regular Democrats who make up a portion of his base.
Salit: Yes.
Newman: But, I still think there's a way of doing that.
Salit: Break it down for me.
Newman: There's a way of saying this which glorifies the Democrats. Obama says, Look, our party knew that we had to go through a very difficult but clarifying process if we were going to be prepared to take on the presidency. We did that. It was very difficult. And I know some people felt their toes were stepped on. But we took that on and thanks to the independents who backed us, and thanks to our ranks, and thanks the younger generation, we cleaned up our house.
Salit: Yes.
Newman: And we will finish that job. The Republicans never cleaned house. They're not willing to step out and say, in general, we've done a disastrous job, although it's apparent that they have done a disastrous job. The American people know that. So, if you want to consider who has genuinely taken on their party, look at that. That's my record, says Barack. I led the way in that. John McCain tried to take on his own party in 2000 and he failed. I tried in 2008 and I succeeded.
Salit: I think it works. And my prediction is that McCain's going to try to make that a topic in the first debate coming up in two weeks.
Newman: How?
Salit: Because his only hope of winning is to claim the mantle of the insurgent. That's why his convention speech was 'I've stood up to the Republican Party. The Republican Party lost the trust of the American people. I've stood up to the anti-change forces.'
Newman: Well, if I were Obama, I'd say John, that's what you did in 2000 and you got beaten. Now you've remade yourself. You're a regular Republican who supports the policies of George W. Bush. You didn't change your party, your party changed you. I changed my party. I succeeded where you failed. And that's why I'm more qualified to be president. Because the American people want change. And I have a record of change.
Salit: Here's how I would characterize the debate within the Democratic Party about how to handle this very dynamic. I think there is a strong constituency inside the Democratic Party for Obama to simply hammer at what you might call "the issues." John McCain is tied to George Bush. George Bush ran the war. George Bush ran the economy into the ground. Ordinary Americans are suffering for lack of health care, for lack of jobs, from poor education, from a lack of affordable housing, and so forth. We're not competitive in the world. The Democratic Party is going to change that. In effect, Fred, I would say, their argument is to skip over the point that you're making here about Obama having taken on his party, taken on the establishment, taken a risk and gone through that process, and having the party come together around that. This other strategy that I'm describing, the traditional Democratic strategy, is what the Democrats go to, and what they've gone to. It was the Kerry strategy. It was the Gore strategy. You go to the American people on the basis of what's in their economic interests and what's in their social policy interests and you draw those distinctions and that's how you win the election. There's only one problem. They lost both of those elections with that strategy.
Newman: But the American people have already spoken on the issues. They don't like the way things are being run, they don't like the foreign policy, they don't like the domestic policy, they don't like the educational policy.
Salit: Right.
Newman: They don't like the current healthcare policy. The American people have spoken on that. So who do they think they're talking to?
Salit: Well, they're talking to the "undecideds."
Newman: The undecideds, though, as I understand it, are undecided because they aren't yet clear on who is the best person to do something about the things that they're concerned about.
Salit: Not on the question about what needs to be done.
Newman: Yes.
Salit: OK. So the question is who is the best person to do it. The Democrats' argument is the person who's the best person is the one who has the right policies. That's a different way to approach the issue than what you're describing. I feel close to what you're saying, but that's how the traditional Democrats package it. That's their argument. The way you sell the person is you sell the policies. Meanwhile, at the moment, what the Republicans are doing is selling the person. They're not selling the policies. They can't. The policies are a disaster. Just pick up a newspaper. Still, there is close to half the country, in spite of the failed policies of the Bush administration, who consider themselves conservatives. And McCain has put together a package that appeals to them. I'm not Bush, so you're not going to get the problems from Bush. But I am a conservative, and so you don't have to fear that I'm going to change things in a way that violates that.
Newman: So, I still don't get it.
Salit: You don't get the old strategic thinking from the Democrats?
Newman: No, because the issue is whose policy is preferred at this point in time. Well, nobody quite knows because the choice is about who to trust on the articulation of what they're going to do.
Salit: Right.
Newman: So, defining policies doesn't make a difference, if I understand that reasoning.
Salit: Yes.
Newman: So, why would the Democrats who, as you correctly point out, have been defeated by George Bush twice - why would they go back to that? I don't understand the reasoning.
Salit: Ultimately their reasoning, the old guard's reasoning, is party-based in the following sense. The Democrats' registration has grown. Their numbers have grown on the ground.
Newman: Right.
Salit: The Obama campaign put together a superb grassroots infrastructure. You couple that with the Democratic Party's machine and they think - this is what I expect their reasoning is - they can just simply pull it off on the ground. I'm not saying that they think they don't have to do stuff and that he doesn't have to articulate stuff in the debates and in their commercials and so forth. But, ultimately, the thing turns on their capacity to put it together on the ground.
Newman: But that's a separate question. You just changed the topic in the middle of the discussion. Because one has to do with what you have to do to get elected and the other has to do with what you have to do to effect change that the American people want. And they're two totally separate questions.
Salit: Yes. But you have to sell to the American people that you can effect a change that the American people want. Presumably, that's the issue that's on the table now.
Newman: Yes.
Salit: OK.
Newman: I think Obama is most effective when he says I have some experience, but I also have a connection to a new wave of Americans, young Americans, Americans who want to see political change. They don't care what party you're in and I have a connection to them. I've worked with them. I'm a community organizer.
Salit: Yes.
Newman: And people say to Obama, how can you prove that? And, he could say I just ran a campaign against the hardcore establishment of one of the two major parties and I won. John McCain ran that kind of campaign eight years ago. And he lost. He lost the Republican primary in 2000 for a reason. It wasn't a popularity contest. He lost because the kind of party the Republicans were looking for was expressed by George Bush, not by John McCain.
Salit: OK.
Newman: Everybody knows that John McCain went to the right wing of his party this time because that was the way to win. I'm not condemning that. But that doesn't produce change.
Salit: Correct.
Newman: It might produce victory but it doesn't produce change. Obama has to make his appeal to the new generation. That's not taking McCain on for his age, because the age that we're talking about is not his. It's the age of the new electorate that's relevant.
Salit: Let me shift gears to Alan Greenspan's comments about the state of the U.S. economy. He says we've never seen the degree of connectedness on a global scale as we have today, and that's why the current level of government intervention into the markets is necessary.
Newman: Yes.
Salit: And, he adds, the very factors of globalization which have been so beneficial and have taken millions of people out of poverty around the world are the same factors that make it the case that there needs to be a market correction. Put in the most positive light, from his standpoint, that's what we're seeing now. Globalization produced huge levels of growth which benefited millions and millions of ordinary people around the world. Now we're seeing a correction and a reorganization going on.
Newman: OK.
Salit: Is that an accurate framing? Is there anything left out, in your view, of that account?
Newman: Well, Greenspan's a very smart man. But is he really saying, Alright children, let me teach you a basic law of physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction? Now, what is it he wants to do about it? I didn't hear him say.
Salit: Nor did I. All he says is that the main thing that the American government should do is take whatever steps it needs to take in order to stabilize the price of housing. Once the price of housing is stabilized, and that's what all the intervention is about, then things will settle out and the market will take care of the rest.
Newman: What if that doesn't happen? What if the correction for globalization turns out to be so vast that it undermines the very stability of the world economic system?
Salit: Then it wouldn't be a correction, it would be a destruction.
Newman: I didn't hear him reassuring us with specificity that this whole globalization thing was so well thought through that destruction couldn't possibly happen. And I don't think it was. I think there was a huge amount of money to be made. And, as always, when finance capitalists see huge money to be made, they go ahead and make it - without much thought about what the consequences might be. So, for example, at the risk of oversimplification, people who are saying that it's alright to bail out the finance industry because it's a worldwide system and that's different than bailing out the automotive industry...
Salit: Yes...
Newman: ...I would say there's a sleight of hand in there. It's alright if that represents your going-forward values.
Salit: Yes.
Newman: If you want to make sure the banks and financial system get bolstered on the grounds that that has to do with everybody and the automotive industry doesn't get protected in the same way because that that doesn't involve everybody in the same way...
Salit: Right...
Newman: Well, that seems a little tricky to me, because it depends on who you mean by "everybody" and how you relate to "everybody." It's not that I can't see the sense of the argument. The financial markets do have applicability to everyone, but not everyone in the same way. So, I'd say Greenspan tells less than the whole story. I almost agree with him. But it's less than the whole story.
Salit: A good way to put it. Thanks, Fred.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Talk/Talk: Tough Guys?
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, Tough Guys?. Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, August 17, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show", "Meet the Press" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".
Newman: OK. And back to McCain. The thing about McCain that is interesting and curious is that McCain did not make his national reputation as a tough guy. That's a part of his appeal. Actually, though, he made his national reputation as being something other than a tough guy. He was for cooperation across the aisle. He was open. He was for hearing what's best from the other side. Those aren't tough things to do. Some people might even perceive them as wishy-washy things to do. So, that's who he is. But now they're trying to transform him into a tough guy. Why? Because now he wants to court the Republican right. He wants to maximize the value of his relationship to Bush. So they've got a contradiction on their hands.
Salit: In other words, McCain's the guy who sat down with Ted Kennedy on immigration, the guy who got with Russ Feingold and does the McCain-Feingold bill...
Newman: George Bush is a tough guy. Not John McCain. McCain's a straight shooter, that was his whole image. And arguably, that's the opposite of being a tough guy.
Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, Tough Guys?. Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, August 17, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show", "Meet the Press" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".
Newman: OK. And back to McCain. The thing about McCain that is interesting and curious is that McCain did not make his national reputation as a tough guy. That's a part of his appeal. Actually, though, he made his national reputation as being something other than a tough guy. He was for cooperation across the aisle. He was open. He was for hearing what's best from the other side. Those aren't tough things to do. Some people might even perceive them as wishy-washy things to do. So, that's who he is. But now they're trying to transform him into a tough guy. Why? Because now he wants to court the Republican right. He wants to maximize the value of his relationship to Bush. So they've got a contradiction on their hands.
Salit: In other words, McCain's the guy who sat down with Ted Kennedy on immigration, the guy who got with Russ Feingold and does the McCain-Feingold bill...
Newman: George Bush is a tough guy. Not John McCain. McCain's a straight shooter, that was his whole image. And arguably, that's the opposite of being a tough guy.
Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.
Friday, August 08, 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Coming Soon: Hankster/CitiVote
The Hankster and CitiVote will be teaming up to bring you a new video project. Interviews with folks on the street around the country about the presidential election 2008.
Stay tuned!!
Stay tuned!!
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
CitiVote
Independent filmmaker, Ken Samarra, has been interviewing people in various cities about the 2008 election. These are wonderful "person on the street" interviews. Check it out here and at the top of The Hankster (that's Philly)!
The Hankster recommends CitiVote!
For a few of the individual cities: New York City, Seattle, Philly... Stay tuned!
The Hankster recommends CitiVote!
For a few of the individual cities: New York City, Seattle, Philly... Stay tuned!
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Win or Lose: What Obama Needs to Do Right Now
Obama himself seems to recognize, at times, that what really counts is not the horse race or even who wins the presidency, but the creation of an ongoing movement that will last. Unfortunately, he does not take the next, absolutely necessary step of telling his supporters what they can do to keep the movement going right now and endow it with the energy to last beyond the November elections. So, for example, the people in New York, California, Massachusetts, Iowa, New Hampshire and all the other states that have voted are implicitly being given the message that there is nothing for them to do right now except to donate more money to the campaigns of their candidates. (From The Obama Phenomenon, by Michael Lerner, Tikkun)
Friday, March 14, 2008
Other things to think about while you're waiting for Pennsylvanians to vote....
So, there are some other things happening in the world besides the endless punditry going on:
Beijing 2008 International Olympics
Dr. Kwame Anthony Appiah is speaking at Seaton Hall, NJ April 24
There's a big Hullabaloo about Horton and Who?...
Other things to do:
Yoga
Central Park
St. Louis Zoo
Let's do something else!
Beijing 2008 International Olympics
Dr. Kwame Anthony Appiah is speaking at Seaton Hall, NJ April 24
There's a big Hullabaloo about Horton and Who?...
Other things to do:
Yoga
Central Park
St. Louis Zoo
Let's do something else!
Monday, March 10, 2008
Obama: Coversations on Doing the Math and Reintroducing the Magic
I'm glad the Obama campaign is doing the math. I think that's important. It gives me confidence in the ability of ordinary people to have a say, to have an impact, to the extent that Obama is paying attention to this, which I think basically he is. Keep up the great work! The delegates are rolling in and I think that's smart and I think that's a good thing for the people of our country.
Now.
I also think there's another element to consider: The Magic.
What is The Magic?
I think the magic here consists in the qualitative development of the American people and our collective willingness (or what might turn out to be our collective UNwillingness) to make a statement of who WE are -- as distinct from who our government is and what our government is doing and who (or what) our politicians are willing to sell us out to.
Personally speaking, I'd love to see Barack talk about the qualitative development of his campaign. I see Barack on tv and I see that he has developed during this short effort to go up against the Clinton machine. I'm sure other lots of other people see that. Barack should share his journey of development in this campaign. Tell us how you're doing, Barack!
What's it like to plow a new field?
What's a New Field? Is it process? Is it issues?
It could be an important cultural element in mobilizing ordinary people for change. Americans like success.
Ain't I a woman?
And haven't you developed?
Independently yours, The Hankster
Now.
I also think there's another element to consider: The Magic.
What is The Magic?
I think the magic here consists in the qualitative development of the American people and our collective willingness (or what might turn out to be our collective UNwillingness) to make a statement of who WE are -- as distinct from who our government is and what our government is doing and who (or what) our politicians are willing to sell us out to.
Personally speaking, I'd love to see Barack talk about the qualitative development of his campaign. I see Barack on tv and I see that he has developed during this short effort to go up against the Clinton machine. I'm sure other lots of other people see that. Barack should share his journey of development in this campaign. Tell us how you're doing, Barack!
What's it like to plow a new field?
What's a New Field? Is it process? Is it issues?
It could be an important cultural element in mobilizing ordinary people for change. Americans like success.
Ain't I a woman?
And haven't you developed?
Independently yours, The Hankster
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Fulani: How Nader Has Made Himself Irrelevant
Ralph Nader seems to equate himself with the independent political movement and to define it relative to his positions, his aspirations and his critiques of the two-party system. In this way Nader has fallen out of step with the independent movement.... (Lenora Fulani, The Daily Voice)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)