The Town Hall Archives

The Top Crusader · Posted: Sun May 11, 2003 4:48 pm Post subject:

Ohio State University! Very Happy

I had to switch schools not far into my educational career, due to numerous issues. I hope to eventually go back there and finish once things are settled to the degree that I can actually do that.

Politics were always my first love, even before pro wrestling.

Jared · Posted: Sun May 11, 2003 5:21 pm Post subject:

Interesting, Top. Wrestling and politics... Hmm...

Well, in Monday's segment on Lieberman and Gephardt (due to going quite long on the Lieberman part, I'll be moving Edwards into the Wednesday segment), I'll be briefly referencing a Japanese wrestler-turned-politician who refuses to take off his mask, which he always wears in public, even know that he is in the Japanese parliament, much to the anger of the more serious members there.

It's a small mention, of course, because I had to focus on a lot of other things. The Lieberman section is long. The Gephardt section, on the other hand, is rather brief.

And Senator Edwards? Well, there's a lot to say about him, so expect that to be long as well. I'm not absolutely sure who I'll pair with him for the Wednesday segment yet, but it will probably be Senator Bob Graham of Florida.

And then we get to the REALLY funny people! Yellow Smile

rosie · Inquisitive Member Joined: 07 Jan 2003 Posts: 1197

Is there anything good at all to say about him? Or is he really that... uhh.... yeah.

Jared · Posted: Sun May 11, 2003 7:08 pm Post subject:

If I remember correctly, I have one positive thing to say about Lieberman (on his foreign policy stance). Another thing about him that I don't bring up in what I'll post tomorrow that was a major plus for him in 2000 was that he wasn't quite as annoying as Al Gore. When he disagrees, he just makes sour, appalled-looking faces in the opposing candidate's direction before whining loudly. Gore, on the other hand, took great joy in sighing into microphones...

Of course, not being completely obnoxious is hardly qualification for the presidency. And many think he can be just as bad as Gore... just in different ways.

But overall, there's really not much positive to say about this group of Democrats at all. :)

Once I get through all the intros, I want to talk about the electoral college, primaries and all the basics of the presidential elections, mixed with news and commentary about what's going on in current presidential, Senate and House elections. I'll also discuss at some point campaign styles, political aides, which states are the most important to the system and why, money and politics (and how campaign finance reform effects the races) and other background issues of politics throughout this course, keeping a healthy mix of the more exciting current political and election news to keep it interesting.

My goal is have everyone here informed of both how politics works and what's going on in politics at this time. Not to mention what it all means.

If anyone has a question, wants a certain topic covered or whatever, please post your request/question. This isn't a mapped-out study plan here... I'm writing this right before I post it online. (Okay, okay... I actually have finished tomorrow's piece tonight so it's ready for tomorrow morning.) And if you want me to stray off-course to cover something else of interest, then as long as it relates to politics, I'll d so gladly.

Thanks for the interest shown thus far and hopefully, more people will start participating/reading soon!

Jared · Posted: Mon May 12, 2003 6:12 am Post subject: Politics 101 - Segment Two!

First there's Kerry...

And then there's Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. His friendly website talks about Joe's values and Joe's wonderful vision for America. Everything about his campaign is friendly... Campaign literature invites supporters in areas he is campaigning in to come have a "cup o' joe with Joe."

Reality, though, is a dangerous thing for the Lieberman campaign. While I'm sure that Lieberman's advisers and campaign workers want people to be caught up the upbeat image, many consider him a whiner. During the 2000 recounts, the Gore/Lieberman logo was appropriated by someone with a sense of humor... New yard signs started appearing in the format of the old Gore/Lieberman ones, but this time reading "Sore Loserman." Sure, it was a partisan joke, but sometimes the shoe fits.

Senator Lieberman is the most popular candidate with Democratic voters overall, but that is mostly attributed to name recognition at this point. He's run nationally. The average uninformed voter just really doesn't know much about Dennis Kucinich (then again, who does?); at this point, when asked by pollsters, they cast their support for the people they've heard about and Lieberman leads in that category. Still, the winner in every one of these "who should win the primary?" polls, which only pose that question to those who identify themselves as Democrats, is "undecided."

A while back, a poll was released showing that President Bush trailed behind an unnamed generic Democratic candidate, but would win by a landslide against any actual Democrats in the running. This led to jokes that the only way a Democrat could beat Bush was by remaining unnamed and wearing a bag over his face during the entire election. Of course, there is precedent for this in other countries. In Japan, a man was just elected who wore a mask the whole time on the campaign trail and, even now in Parliament, refuses to take it off. But that's another story for another time.

The problem for Joe Lieberman is that the people who vote in the Democratic Primaries are the uber-liberals and Hollywood elites. (Actually, those terms are almost interchangeable, aren't they?) Despite the "moderate" label always given to Lieberman by the adoring media, he is extremely liberal -- except on defense. He made sure to constantly criticize Bush throughout the war in Iraq, but he nevertheless supported the idea of going to war. This doesn't bode well for him, as Democratic primary voters are overwhelmingly anti-war. And a few years back, he took on Hollywood and the music industry over content. Realistically, his work didn't change anything and its main purpose would seem to be as a positive publicity stunt for him. However, Hollywood still bears a grudge against Lieberman. If Team Lieberman didn't understand this yet, they certainly do now: Democrats rely on Hollywood for their money. And right now, Lieberman isn't getting much out of them.

There's another thing working against Lieberman: his religion. Even though conservatives are the ones always accused of intolerance and bigotry, liberals really dominate in that category. The majority of Jews are Democrats at this point in time, but that doesn't mean that all Democrats love Jews. Those who call themselves Democrats are about four times more likely than those who classify themselves as Republicans to say that they have an negative opinion of Jews overall. If Lieberman were at the top of the Democratic ticket, there'd be a sizable number of Democrats who just wouldn't go vote at all with the options being a Republican and a Jew. It's sad that people are that way, but they are. And it would work against Lieberman if he were the Democratic candidate.

That's not to say that it would be an insurmountable challenge. After all, some said that a Catholic could never win the White House, and early attempts seemed to back that up (raise your hand if you remember Democratic presidential nominee Al Smith), the prediction was wrong. John F. Kennedy proved that. However, Kennedy appealed to a lot of people across party lines, which made up for the losses because he was Catholic and Lieberman would be far less likely to gain huge support across party lines... But you never know.

If you were wondering where Senator Lieberman stands on the issues, don't bother checking out his website (joe2004.com). His "Where I Stand" issues page is one of the worst to be found, containing no information of any value and very little that could be subjected to any criticism. It's a complaint that could be lodged against material from hundreds of campaigns, but Lieberman's site bothers me probably the most. What am I talking about? Well, here are the four issues mentioned on the page. Lieberman stands for "protecting our people," "reviving our economy," "safeguarding our environment" and "improving education," with very little elaboration on any of the above. What a benign list of issues! I've always despised that type of thing.

Well of course Senator Lieberman stands for "protecting our people." Very few candidates run on an "I hope our people are destroyed by the enemy" platform, you know. But what's he going to do about the issue of national security? Here's his plan: "I will propose that, as we continue the critical work of rooting out our terrorist enemies militarily, we launch a long-term geopolitical and ideological initiative -- akin to the great campaign that won the Cold War -- to combat the despotism, poverty and isolation that terrorists exploit." In defense of the Senator, I must say that his stance on the war on terror has been far better than any of the other Democratic presidential candidates. But this long-term initiative to combat poverty and such... If he thinks this will work, he should explain it. He should talk about the cost, the rationale, the concepts behind it. He should explain why this would work despite the fact that we've lavished all kinds of aid and assistance on the Palestinians and they still hate us. Unfortunately, his issues page doesn't delve into any of this.

How about "reviving our economy"? Well, I'm all for that. But how do we do it? Lieberman's answer is that we must have courage, like Clinton did (according to him). Uh, sure. Let's all be courageous and the Dow will eclipse 10,000 by tomorrow. He later goes into a multi-step plan, which involves getting rid of the tax cuts (Democrats somehow believe that if people have less money, all will be well), "recommitting to fair and free trade" (I wasn't aware that we had stopped... This is nice language, but is utter nonsense), limit government spending (On this one, he's absolutely right, but on the same website, he talks about all the new programs he wants... How does that work?) and invest in jobs (Sounds wonderful, but how do you do that? It's nice rhetoric, but without an explanation, it's nothing more). I read the piece on his website and still wound up wondering exactly what he'd do to fix the economy. He has a four-point plan, but one comes away from the piece realizing that he has no plan at all.

And did you notice the lack of controversial issues on his "Where I Stand" list? Where are his positions on abortion, affirmative action, campaign finance reform, capital punishment, gay marriage, gun rights, immigration, school vouchers and social security privatization, to name a few? No one is going to disagree with "reviving our economy" and when worded so generically, few are opposed to "safeguarding our environment" (although, if he would have actually gone into details, many would be against his ideas). He never bothers with the real issues. And I can't stand that.

Joe Lieberman probably doesn't have much of a chance in the primaries... and he knows it. He won some points for himself in the very early in the election season Democratic debate on May 3rd, where he came off as a boring and poor candidate. How can that win points for him, you may ask? Well, I guess you didn't see how the other candidates performed.

But regardless of how he fared in the debate, he's going to fail miserably in the primaries. In my opinion, it's safe to say that Senator Lieberman will not be the Democrat who challenges President Bush in 2004.

And then we come to Representative Dick Gephardt of Missouri and he's as confusing of a candidate as you can have. He's the former Democratic House Minority Leader, resigning from the position shortly after the Democrat's disaster on Election Day, 2002. It was a year in which the Democrats should have picked up seats; instead, they lost a handful. Officially, the resignation was so that he could run for the presidential nomination. Unofficially, some say he was forced out of the position after year after year of promising great Democratic gains and failing to deliver.

In traditional Democratic style, he is always emphasizing his humble family origins. You would be hard-pressed to watch a single speech of his without learning that he is the son of a milk truck driver. Dick Gephardt is a huge supporter of unions and absolutely abhors "big business," something you'll also be sure to notice if you are unfortunate enough to hear one of his dry, boring speeches. He always is terribly concerned, or so he says, about what he calls the "Enronization of America." You see, to the Democrats, every business is just another Enron waiting to happen.

He talks a lot about how his father was a union worker and was saved by the union. You get the impression that his father loved the union and was a proud Democrat. Dick's brother, though, tells a different story. According to him (and voter registration data), the elder Gephardt was a Republican, and a strong one at that. He hated the union and spoke against it loudly and often. He tried to get the union out of where he worked, telling those who would listen that unions were only in place to save those too lazy to do a day's work. So much for Dick Gephardt's happy-to-be-in-the-union dad. And you've got to wonder: if Dick Gephardt can't get family stories right, would he do any better on the issues?

Gephardt hates big business, but he loves big government. In fact, he wants the government to pay to insure every American. While he says that the Bush tax cuts are unacceptable because they've "cost" (it's actually giving back money after too much was taken, but the Democrats would rather that you forgot the details) $1.3 trillion over ten years. The Democrats - including Gephardt - whine that we don't have enough money to have that much of a tax cut. But they sure don't have a problem with spending that much or more on government largess. The estimated price tag for Gephardt's health care plan? A huge $700 billion per year. Well, the Bush tax cuts are $130 billion per year and the Gephardt health care $700 billion per year. Which exactly can't we afford here?

Besides which, the whole concept is absurd. If the government provides health care, the quality will go way down. The government is not well-suited for this type of thing and, quite frankly, it's not the job of the government to provide this. Dick Gephardt would do well to take some advice from Ronald Reagan, who once quipped, "The most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

Does Gephardt have a chance? Well, that all depends. If he gets the backing of the major unions, he'll definitely be a tough person to beat in quite a few states. Personally, I don't think it will bring him enough votes for victory, but we'll see. With the way people choose candidates sometimes, Gephardt would be a poor choice for the Democrats. His voice can get a bit annoying, he has light blond hair and, well, he doesn't have much in the way of eyebrows? Should this even factor in to the decision on who will get one's vote? No, of course not. But let's be realistic: to quite a few, it does. My prediction is that Gephardt will be in the race for quite a while and will remain a top contender, but just won't quite make it.

ASSIGNED READING:

Lieberman's Inside Track Heads Uphill
The Washington Post examines Lieberman's difficult challenge and looks at the charge that Lieberman is "too conservative" for the Democratic Party, while Lieberman and his aides respond that he is plenty liberal.

Real War Heroes Eat Pork
A Dave Barry humor column, this has nothing to do with Lieberman or Gephardt. Instead, the topic is government pork. Sure, it's a humor column, not an investigative report, but it gets the point across well. And with some laughs.

COMING WEDNESDAY: Senator Edwards and the southern strategy

rosie · Inquisitive Member Joined: 07 Jan 2003 Posts: 1197

This is very enlightening. Thankyou.

BTW, what do you think of Ted Stevens? All I know is that he's pro-life... I think....

Josiah · Guest

Not trying to get off-topic here, but has anyone heard the latest quote by Al Gore?

"I'm sorry I ever invented the electoral college."

Wink

Jared · Posted: Mon May 12, 2003 7:34 pm Post subject:

Poor Al... Those inventions are all coming back to hurt him. I'm sure that when he invented the democratic republic, he never thought it would turn out like this...

As for my opinion on Ted Stevens, I must say that my thoughts are mixed. He's a decent Republican, but hardly the nation's most conservative. I checked the American Conservative Union's rating of him and it's currently at 88%. He's strongly opposed to abortion and he's a reliable vote on national defense and tax cuts, but he's a moderate on a few other social issues and is consistantly in the annual top five list of "Porkers" (those who try to bring home way too much money).

He has gotten better over the years... He was a very liberal Republican at one point in his (thus far) thirty-two year career. He's the most senior Republican Senator now that Strom Thurmond is retired, but he's not its most dependable.

Would I take him over a Democrat? In a moment. But he's hardly my favorite Senate Republican.

Elf of Rivendell · Posted: Mon May 12, 2003 8:09 pm Post subject:

This is great. Keep on going!!!

rosie · Inquisitive Member Joined: 07 Jan 2003 Posts: 1197

Why are tax-cuts good? And why do some people disagree?