Ralph Nader... Ralph Nader... Ralph Nader.
Mr. Nader announced today on Meet The Press that he will indeed enter the race for the Presidency of the United States. The impact of this, is felt little by all Republicans of various stripes. As far as they are concerned, they welcome the entry, harkening back to the year 2000 where many blame Mr. Nader from keeping Mr. Gore from the White House. Republicans view Nader as an equalizer in the general election. Democrats, on the other hand, look upon a Nader candidacy with real dread. But damn it, if Mr. Nader isn't correct on so many issues... and that's the problem. His arguments make him more than a compelling figure to vote for, but it is at the peril of seeing a Republican win the office. With the circumstances of the 2000 election in mind, Mr. Russert asked Mr. Nader who he would prefer in 2008, Obama or McCain. How could he ask Mr. Nader that question when he just announced his candidacy? He also suggested that Mr. Nader was responsible for the George W. Bush Presidency, which is completely ludicrous. Mr. Nader reminded him that 250,000 Democrats voted for George Bush in Florida, an eerie reminder to say the least. If you're a Democrat, chew on that number for a while.
So Mr. Nader has once again, made a compelling argument to run and this column does not begrudge anyone who makes that decision. Mr. Nader is for the populace and is right to remind us that George W. Bush's administration has committed multiple impeachable offenses. It's offensive to not hold the administration accountable. Mr. Nader justly reminds us of this - hence he candidacy is completely justified.
However, there are two problems with the Nader candidacy. One, we only hear from Mr. Nader every four years. There is no doubt that in the time between he is working on behalf of the American people, but vocalization of this work and the injustices perpetrated against Americans by its own government as he sees them is vitally important to be effective. Overall, he is not vocal enough. A President needs to have a strong voice, lead more out front, and this is never truer than in today's times.
The other problem was illustrated on today's program - the corporate media. Mr. Nader announced his run for the presidency on today's show, and Mr. Russert never brought it up with the panel that followed. The discussion immediately went to polls concerning Obama-Clinton-McCain. Ignored by the corporate media five minutes after you announce is something that, unfortunately, can only work against a candidate. This is written off as just typical these days.
Speaking of the media, for such an exciting, history-making election, they have done an awful job in sticking with the topics that are of the most importance. All they have been trying to do, it seems, is steer the race in the directions that they want it to go. The New York Times article is a good example. If they had eliminated the circumstantial part about the affair and just focused on McCain's unusual closeness with lobbyists, then the article presents a critical issue for the race. Now, as it stands, it is viewed as weak and salacious. On most issues, as Doris Kearns Goodwin pointed out today, the people are ahead of the reporters.
The panelist discussion today really isn't worth commenting on, save for this. There are so many important topics for the press to discuss, and for this particular program to address, that this constant rehash of presidential polls every week on the program has become predicable, tiresome, and counter-productive. It dominates every panel discussion and this column demands more thoughtful discussion. There was a Presidential historian (Doris Kearns Goodwin) and there wasn't even a mention of Cuba. Ridiculous. Do we demand a higher standard from Meet The Press than the rest of the 'news' talk shows? You better believe it. Did MTP live up to that standard today? Not even close.
[Side Note 1: One of the polls that was flashed on the screen was a Diageo poll. Is Diageo a spirits conglomerate? What's up with that?]
[Side Note 2: Can everyone stop with 'you plagiarized that line' tit for tat? The William Saffire clip about his lifting lines as a speechwriter should explain it all.]
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Sunday, February 17, 2008
2.17.08: Internal Slaughter
Are we sick of hearing about superdelegates yet? Yes, we most probably already reached the tipping point about three weeks ago. Yet here we are, and the talk is only going to get more intense and superdelegates are an even bigger factor in the Democratic presidential race. If the television press keeps up with all this super-speculation about the role of superdelegates, the voters will really be put off the political process.
It is the most politically salacious story going, which brings us to this week's first two guests - Chuck Schumer (D-NY and Clinton spokesman) and Dick Durbin (D-IL and Obama spokesman). Senator Schumer keep referring to internecine battles, which would damage the party. Internecine is defined in Oxford as a general slaughtering or mutually destructive. Schumer was using the word with the latter definition in mind, but rest assured, if superdelegates play an integral part in nominating the Democratic candidate for President, then the former definition will be the operative one. It will be a general slaughtering in as much as Democratic voters will be so turned off by the process that the Democrats will lose the Presidency. Yes, they will lose it!
The debate today was silly and speculative, but here are some observations. With Obama winning right now, what do you think Senator Durbin is going to say... Let the will of the people prevail and don't let the superdelegates decide. For Senator Schumer, he said the supers should vote their conscience. What he's saying is for Washington political insiders to vote their conscience, which sounds oxymoronic at best, right?
Sen. Schumer also said that this nomination should not be decided with some back room deal. If it's close, that is exactly what's going to happen, make no mistake. He couldn't give a straight answer to Mr. Russert for the entire interview. It is a wasteful and derisive conversation at this point. Let primaries take place first because it always ends up that the American people, when it comes to politics are always the smartest ones. Washington insiders are very arrogant in this regard and assume that the people don't know best. The Supreme Court chose George W. Bush when another guy got the popular vote. Does more need to be said?
The panel discussion featured the return of the Capitol Gang - Al Hunt, Margaret Carlson, Mark Shields, Bob Novak, and Kate O'Beirne. The significance of these people getting together again is negligible. Going around the table, Mark Shields admitted that his own political prognosticating is less than credible, being on the losing side of the last four Presidential elections. Mr. Novak warned him chided him on being a political operative instead of an impartial journalist. Are you kidding, Novak is the worst of them all. He is not a conservative. He is a Republican political mouthpiece. His conduct during the entire affair of outing Valerie Plame was inexcusable and disqualifies any credibility that he has so by extension anything that he says, including what was said on today's program, carries no weight. If it hasn't be made perfectly clear - this column has little to no use for Robert Novak at all and would be happy to never see him appear on Meet The Press again. Those privileges should have been retracted long ago. If you want a true conservative, look to Kate O'Beirne. You may disagree with her political views, but she commands respect because she does not back away from criticizing Republicans when they contradict that conservative philosophy that she adheres to.
All the pundits had his/her own take and observations on the Democratic race, breaking it down into bullet points, which is the best reason for pundits to exist. The frustration is evident on the part of Hillary Clinton, as Ms. O'Beirne said. Of course, when she laid out her strategy, there wasn't an Obama tsunami on radar. The notion of 28 years of Bush and Clinton names dominating the presidential conversation is not something the American people want. Most people would say to give someone else a shot. Again, the people are correct in that having that idea.
The Republican contest was touched on briefly and the consensus was that Huckabee is just a monkey in the wrench and should step away. Internecine battles are what Washington is all about. Eating your own is the modus operandi on both sides and it is the exact thing the people don't want. But the general slaughter will continue with the press providing the ammunition. And as these mutually destructive internal battles continue, the rest of the country sat through a disturbing week, in which they watched Americans citizens walk into schools and universities with guns killing their own.
It is the most politically salacious story going, which brings us to this week's first two guests - Chuck Schumer (D-NY and Clinton spokesman) and Dick Durbin (D-IL and Obama spokesman). Senator Schumer keep referring to internecine battles, which would damage the party. Internecine is defined in Oxford as a general slaughtering or mutually destructive. Schumer was using the word with the latter definition in mind, but rest assured, if superdelegates play an integral part in nominating the Democratic candidate for President, then the former definition will be the operative one. It will be a general slaughtering in as much as Democratic voters will be so turned off by the process that the Democrats will lose the Presidency. Yes, they will lose it!
The debate today was silly and speculative, but here are some observations. With Obama winning right now, what do you think Senator Durbin is going to say... Let the will of the people prevail and don't let the superdelegates decide. For Senator Schumer, he said the supers should vote their conscience. What he's saying is for Washington political insiders to vote their conscience, which sounds oxymoronic at best, right?
Sen. Schumer also said that this nomination should not be decided with some back room deal. If it's close, that is exactly what's going to happen, make no mistake. He couldn't give a straight answer to Mr. Russert for the entire interview. It is a wasteful and derisive conversation at this point. Let primaries take place first because it always ends up that the American people, when it comes to politics are always the smartest ones. Washington insiders are very arrogant in this regard and assume that the people don't know best. The Supreme Court chose George W. Bush when another guy got the popular vote. Does more need to be said?
The panel discussion featured the return of the Capitol Gang - Al Hunt, Margaret Carlson, Mark Shields, Bob Novak, and Kate O'Beirne. The significance of these people getting together again is negligible. Going around the table, Mark Shields admitted that his own political prognosticating is less than credible, being on the losing side of the last four Presidential elections. Mr. Novak warned him chided him on being a political operative instead of an impartial journalist. Are you kidding, Novak is the worst of them all. He is not a conservative. He is a Republican political mouthpiece. His conduct during the entire affair of outing Valerie Plame was inexcusable and disqualifies any credibility that he has so by extension anything that he says, including what was said on today's program, carries no weight. If it hasn't be made perfectly clear - this column has little to no use for Robert Novak at all and would be happy to never see him appear on Meet The Press again. Those privileges should have been retracted long ago. If you want a true conservative, look to Kate O'Beirne. You may disagree with her political views, but she commands respect because she does not back away from criticizing Republicans when they contradict that conservative philosophy that she adheres to.
All the pundits had his/her own take and observations on the Democratic race, breaking it down into bullet points, which is the best reason for pundits to exist. The frustration is evident on the part of Hillary Clinton, as Ms. O'Beirne said. Of course, when she laid out her strategy, there wasn't an Obama tsunami on radar. The notion of 28 years of Bush and Clinton names dominating the presidential conversation is not something the American people want. Most people would say to give someone else a shot. Again, the people are correct in that having that idea.
The Republican contest was touched on briefly and the consensus was that Huckabee is just a monkey in the wrench and should step away. Internecine battles are what Washington is all about. Eating your own is the modus operandi on both sides and it is the exact thing the people don't want. But the general slaughter will continue with the press providing the ammunition. And as these mutually destructive internal battles continue, the rest of the country sat through a disturbing week, in which they watched Americans citizens walk into schools and universities with guns killing their own.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
2.10.08: Everyone's got a Shot. (?)
Last night this column entered in a single criteria for Meet The Press's Mike Huckabee interview (refer to previous post). In short, injecting God's word into the Constitution was not discussed. Mr. Russert did ask tough questions about Gov. Huckabee's association with the Texas Tele-evangelist Kenneth Copeland whose finances are being investigated by Congress. During this portion of the interview, Mr. Russert touched on points such as Gov. Huckabee supporting Mr. Copeland in defiance of Congress, but he never arrived at Gov. Huckabee's position on the Consitution, much more important. Discussing the improprieties of this relationship is a smearing and simply lines up people to either side. Gov. Huckabee's position on changing the Constitution to be in line with God's law is philosophy that contradicts one of this country's prime pillars - namely, freedom of religion. Anyone with a single secular bone within should be concerned about his position.
So this interview did not cut it. There's no other analysis required. But there is just one another observation the column has about Gov. Huckabee. As he said, he's one who believes he has a shot where ever he goes. He does... because he doesn't take cheap shots, at least not in television interviews that garner single audiences and people consciously or unconsciously respond that. The likeability factor plays best with Gov. Huckabee, but not to the extent of lowest common denominator criteria such as who you would rather have a beer with.
The panel discussion obviously centered around the primary contests. If you read this column and of course watch Meet The Press, we will presume that you know the score in both. What's worth of discussion in terms of the panel is this Democratic party superdelegate problem... and it is a problem. Do these superdelegates go against the voters of the states they represent? Do they broker a backroom deal? Etc. Many people are wondering where the whole superdelegate business came from in the first place and why are we suddenly debating over them now. Even without looking at the numbers, having superdelegates in play is the work of the most savvy of political slicers and that is the Clintons. It reeks of them, anything to shoot down the competition. And the lobbying of these superdelegates on both sides doesn't pass the smell test, to borrow Gwen Ifill's phrase. And the kicker is that if they go to the backroom, Howard Dean, the chair of the DNC, doesn't have the clout to broker a deal, as stated by David Broder. That's not comforting.
Chuck Todd, unlike the other journalists on the panel, started as a blogger and understands the role of the internet better than most and was quick to point out something significant, which was once the list of superdelegates goes up on the internet, there will be e-mail campaigns hitting people who least expect it. And there should be.
Lastly, because of all of this talk of delegates, super and mediocre, Michigan and Florida now are demanding back into the decision making process with the DNC. This column believes that they should have never been excluded in the first place. This was the DNC flexing muscle without the larger concern for the Democratic constituents of those states. Do-overs were fodder for conversation today. Do-overs?! The has mess written all over it and lawsuits as far as the eye can see if the delegate numbers count. Plainly, the responsibility for this is on the shoulders of the DNC.
As of this writing, the top four candidates still all have a shot at the nomination, but it won't come without dodging a barrage of bullets from all sides.
Guests:
Gov. Mike Huckabee
Gwen Ifill
David Broder
Chuck Todd
David Brody
So this interview did not cut it. There's no other analysis required. But there is just one another observation the column has about Gov. Huckabee. As he said, he's one who believes he has a shot where ever he goes. He does... because he doesn't take cheap shots, at least not in television interviews that garner single audiences and people consciously or unconsciously respond that. The likeability factor plays best with Gov. Huckabee, but not to the extent of lowest common denominator criteria such as who you would rather have a beer with.
The panel discussion obviously centered around the primary contests. If you read this column and of course watch Meet The Press, we will presume that you know the score in both. What's worth of discussion in terms of the panel is this Democratic party superdelegate problem... and it is a problem. Do these superdelegates go against the voters of the states they represent? Do they broker a backroom deal? Etc. Many people are wondering where the whole superdelegate business came from in the first place and why are we suddenly debating over them now. Even without looking at the numbers, having superdelegates in play is the work of the most savvy of political slicers and that is the Clintons. It reeks of them, anything to shoot down the competition. And the lobbying of these superdelegates on both sides doesn't pass the smell test, to borrow Gwen Ifill's phrase. And the kicker is that if they go to the backroom, Howard Dean, the chair of the DNC, doesn't have the clout to broker a deal, as stated by David Broder. That's not comforting.
Chuck Todd, unlike the other journalists on the panel, started as a blogger and understands the role of the internet better than most and was quick to point out something significant, which was once the list of superdelegates goes up on the internet, there will be e-mail campaigns hitting people who least expect it. And there should be.
Lastly, because of all of this talk of delegates, super and mediocre, Michigan and Florida now are demanding back into the decision making process with the DNC. This column believes that they should have never been excluded in the first place. This was the DNC flexing muscle without the larger concern for the Democratic constituents of those states. Do-overs were fodder for conversation today. Do-overs?! The has mess written all over it and lawsuits as far as the eye can see if the delegate numbers count. Plainly, the responsibility for this is on the shoulders of the DNC.
As of this writing, the top four candidates still all have a shot at the nomination, but it won't come without dodging a barrage of bullets from all sides.
Guests:
Gov. Mike Huckabee
Gwen Ifill
David Broder
Chuck Todd
David Brody
Saturday, February 09, 2008
2.9.08: Saturday Night Criteria
On tomorrow's Meet The Press, Mr. Russert will interview Mike Huckabee, Presidential candidate. If Mr. Russert does not ask Gov. Huckabee about his stance on the Constitution and changing it to be more in line with God's law, then the interview is an overall failure.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
2.3.08: Double-Edged Swords
This week's panel managed to be mildly insightful and this column's expectations were quite low. It seems like this is the panel, Meet The Press calls on Thursday night before the e-mail newsletter goes out on Friday to inform viewers of the week's guests. These panelists are the MTP establishment, three phone numbers (two for one when you call fric and frac) constantly at the ready.
However, these panelists stepped up this week, obviously psyched for Super Bowl Tuesday. (This is like a quasi-leap year with the Super Bowl and Super Tuesday in such close proximity.) The thing with Shrum and Carville is that we're always told who they were instrumental in helping win. But let's put it this way (keeping with the football spirit), Brett Favre has the most touchdown passes in NFL history, but what is not acknowledged as much is that he also has the record for career interceptions. Carville and Shrum, in particular, have been responsible for some serious democratic defeats and bad judgement - John Kerry hunting a week before people go to the polls was just downright idiotic.
With that said, Shrum did make a good point (incredibly) that when Clinton plays the experience card, it's a double-edged sword. People want the experience, but they are tired of hearing the same name that goes with that experience. This whole notion makes it more difficult for Clinton to defeat McCain in the general election if, in fact, they are to be the respective nominees.
Much of the conversation with regard to Democrats was in terms of Senator Clinton - what she does/says or doesn't do/say. But Mary Matalin was right when she said that Clinton has the machine set up for Super Tuesday whereas Obama only has name recognition. This would seem to be a problem, however, in American presidential politics, it has been shown that the less people know about the candidate, the better for electability. This brings us to the opening comments about the Kennedy endorsements. This column does not feel that those endorsements are that significant. The Kennedy name is a tower in the Democratic party, yes, but does that name help with bringing someone over the top? Hardly. And speaking of the Kennedy name, Mr. Russert mentioned that this campaign's themes and rhetoric are very much like when JFK was running and that experience isn't the biggest factor. But realistically, many would agree that JFK's presidency was failing down - Cuban Missile Crisis, Bay of Pigs.... Experience, like everything else, is what the individual perceives it to be.
And going back to Shrum, he said that Senator Clinton should have just said that her vote on the war was a mistake and that she should have just apologized for it. Mary Matalin commented how it looks like to be duped by a dope (meaning President Bush). We realize that we're taking her statement a touch out of context as Ms. Matalin did not and would not call President Bush a dope, but it is fun to hear the words 'dope, Bush, duped' all in the same breath coming from her mouth. However, Bob Shrum's advice to apologize for the mistaken vote, is a mistake in and of itself. She can not apologize, nor should she, for that vote. Going to war with Iraq was a mistake, we all know this. But if she reverses on the one vote, there is no possible way she would be elected. Not only would she be piled by Democrats, but Republicans as well. If Mr. Shrum were involved in Hillary Clinton's campaign he would have advised that - remember all Brett Favre's interceptions....
On the other side of the break, the Republican conversation is much dicier. Mary Matalin was trying desperately to hide her vitriol for John McCain. She should just give it up. She said that she's not against McCain, but it was one of those times when you hear a straight denial and nothing but the exact opposite is the truth. She doesn't like Huckabee obviously as she constantly referred to his 'man-crush' for McCain, which leaves Romney who she seems to support. There is the Republican Conservative base and then there's a Republican establishment. The establishment wants Romney, but as she said, the Republican party is one of primogeniture so with that, McCain is the only choice. The other Republican voice on the panel, Mike Murphy, is always a bit more analytical with his answers, remarking today that the Republican base appeasing strategy will simply not do and is not a winner. Also, Mr. Murphy always seems quite amicable, but with him being a campaign strategist, a Republican strategist, one can't help but wonder what Mr. Murphy turns into when the moon is full.
All this brings us to the general election and who the nominees should be. This column feels obligated to make presidential recommendations before Super Tuesday. Not weighing in before is like picking the Super Bowl on Monday.
For Republicans, this column has been very transparent on who their nominee should be - John McCain. Huckabee is very personable, but anyone who recommends that the Constitution should be amended to more reflect the Bible's teachings, is out! Country of laws, not men. With Romney, this column's humble opinion is that people are tired of a politician who will say anything to be elected. McCain's not a perfect Republican candidate, but he's their best shot for November and any Democrat who underestimates John McCain in the general, is living dangerously.
For the Democrats, frankly this column has been a bit more demur about it's recommendation for the general election. This column believes that the players in the party will continue to be players whether or not he or she is the nominee. The operative example here is John Edwards, not in the race but still a voice of considerable clout. He will be a party of the process as would the candidate who does not get the nomination.
With this said, it is time for new names and new faces, therefore this column recommends that the Democrats lift Barack Obama to be their nominee. The Republican machine would be firing on all cylinders against the Clintons and Hillary Clinton would still play an instrumental role in the governing of the country under a Democratic president. Senator Obama's hopeful vision comes up against many cynics, but that has never been this country's self-description. We do not consider ourselves that and never have. There is no reason to be afraid of change and a new vision and a new cast to fulfill it.
However, these panelists stepped up this week, obviously psyched for Super Bowl Tuesday. (This is like a quasi-leap year with the Super Bowl and Super Tuesday in such close proximity.) The thing with Shrum and Carville is that we're always told who they were instrumental in helping win. But let's put it this way (keeping with the football spirit), Brett Favre has the most touchdown passes in NFL history, but what is not acknowledged as much is that he also has the record for career interceptions. Carville and Shrum, in particular, have been responsible for some serious democratic defeats and bad judgement - John Kerry hunting a week before people go to the polls was just downright idiotic.
With that said, Shrum did make a good point (incredibly) that when Clinton plays the experience card, it's a double-edged sword. People want the experience, but they are tired of hearing the same name that goes with that experience. This whole notion makes it more difficult for Clinton to defeat McCain in the general election if, in fact, they are to be the respective nominees.
Much of the conversation with regard to Democrats was in terms of Senator Clinton - what she does/says or doesn't do/say. But Mary Matalin was right when she said that Clinton has the machine set up for Super Tuesday whereas Obama only has name recognition. This would seem to be a problem, however, in American presidential politics, it has been shown that the less people know about the candidate, the better for electability. This brings us to the opening comments about the Kennedy endorsements. This column does not feel that those endorsements are that significant. The Kennedy name is a tower in the Democratic party, yes, but does that name help with bringing someone over the top? Hardly. And speaking of the Kennedy name, Mr. Russert mentioned that this campaign's themes and rhetoric are very much like when JFK was running and that experience isn't the biggest factor. But realistically, many would agree that JFK's presidency was failing down - Cuban Missile Crisis, Bay of Pigs.... Experience, like everything else, is what the individual perceives it to be.
And going back to Shrum, he said that Senator Clinton should have just said that her vote on the war was a mistake and that she should have just apologized for it. Mary Matalin commented how it looks like to be duped by a dope (meaning President Bush). We realize that we're taking her statement a touch out of context as Ms. Matalin did not and would not call President Bush a dope, but it is fun to hear the words 'dope, Bush, duped' all in the same breath coming from her mouth. However, Bob Shrum's advice to apologize for the mistaken vote, is a mistake in and of itself. She can not apologize, nor should she, for that vote. Going to war with Iraq was a mistake, we all know this. But if she reverses on the one vote, there is no possible way she would be elected. Not only would she be piled by Democrats, but Republicans as well. If Mr. Shrum were involved in Hillary Clinton's campaign he would have advised that - remember all Brett Favre's interceptions....
On the other side of the break, the Republican conversation is much dicier. Mary Matalin was trying desperately to hide her vitriol for John McCain. She should just give it up. She said that she's not against McCain, but it was one of those times when you hear a straight denial and nothing but the exact opposite is the truth. She doesn't like Huckabee obviously as she constantly referred to his 'man-crush' for McCain, which leaves Romney who she seems to support. There is the Republican Conservative base and then there's a Republican establishment. The establishment wants Romney, but as she said, the Republican party is one of primogeniture so with that, McCain is the only choice. The other Republican voice on the panel, Mike Murphy, is always a bit more analytical with his answers, remarking today that the Republican base appeasing strategy will simply not do and is not a winner. Also, Mr. Murphy always seems quite amicable, but with him being a campaign strategist, a Republican strategist, one can't help but wonder what Mr. Murphy turns into when the moon is full.
All this brings us to the general election and who the nominees should be. This column feels obligated to make presidential recommendations before Super Tuesday. Not weighing in before is like picking the Super Bowl on Monday.
For Republicans, this column has been very transparent on who their nominee should be - John McCain. Huckabee is very personable, but anyone who recommends that the Constitution should be amended to more reflect the Bible's teachings, is out! Country of laws, not men. With Romney, this column's humble opinion is that people are tired of a politician who will say anything to be elected. McCain's not a perfect Republican candidate, but he's their best shot for November and any Democrat who underestimates John McCain in the general, is living dangerously.
For the Democrats, frankly this column has been a bit more demur about it's recommendation for the general election. This column believes that the players in the party will continue to be players whether or not he or she is the nominee. The operative example here is John Edwards, not in the race but still a voice of considerable clout. He will be a party of the process as would the candidate who does not get the nomination.
With this said, it is time for new names and new faces, therefore this column recommends that the Democrats lift Barack Obama to be their nominee. The Republican machine would be firing on all cylinders against the Clintons and Hillary Clinton would still play an instrumental role in the governing of the country under a Democratic president. Senator Obama's hopeful vision comes up against many cynics, but that has never been this country's self-description. We do not consider ourselves that and never have. There is no reason to be afraid of change and a new vision and a new cast to fulfill it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)