|
 |
Welcome to Backyard Blog, our group online journal for this election season. We've asked a broad array of people with deep ties to the region to share their views on politics during the 2004 campaign.
Send your comments to bbcomments@seattletimes.com. |
September 30, 2004
| A debate for the undecideds |
| Posted by Michael Moretsky at 08:51 PM |
Having just finished watching the first presidential debate between President Bush and John Kerry, all I can think of is that I cannot wait for the next one! I love football but I have got to say that this is better than the Super Bowl!
I was talking with some of my co-workers earlier today about how to judge a debate. We were asking questions such as 'does one debater really win' and 'will a debate actually change people's minds.'
Our consensus was that you can't really win a debate. Of course the Republicans will say their guy won and the Democrats likewise. But now that I have seen our two candidates in action, in terms of poise, eloquence, and clarity Kerry clearly comes out the winner.
Kerry was very precise about the points he wanted to get across. Bush, on the other hand sounded much like a broken record. He relentlessly repeated Kerry's statement about Iraq being the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, time and again.
I understood the point Bush was trying to make the first, second, and even the third time he said this. But as he kept coming back to this point I began to feel as if Bush did not trust the 55 million observers of the debate to have more than a short term memory. I felt as if Bush was going to fill in his extra time by repeating qualifiers such as "A Bush presidency is very, very, very, very, very, good. And a Kerry presidency would be really, really, really, really, really, really bad." Bush definitely was the winner in the redundancy category.
During the opening minutes of the debate Kerry expressed his sorrow for the people of the host state of Florida and the tragedies they have recently endured. Bush summed it up that Floridians have "suffered a lot." As the debate continued, I was impressed by the strength of Kerry's conviction and confidence that he is the better candidate for the job.
I think that Bush was impressed by these qualities of Kerry as well. The President seemed chagrined by Kerry and almost seemed to be pleading for his job. All politics aside, if you had just interviewed these two candidates for a job where you work, who would you hire?
Both of these men are smart. Both have excellent educations as both pointed out. But Kerry was simply more believable in his presence. I felt that I could clearly see which answers Bush had rehearsed and when he was winging it. Kerry, on the other hand, had a much smoother delivery. Of course, despite public speaking ability we are going to vote for the candidate with whom we agree.
In the end I don't feel anyone who has made up their mind about who they will vote for is going to change their vote based on the debates. However, the undecided voters still are a large enough group to make or break either candidate. The debate was for them.
Respond |
| The debate |
| Posted by Stephen Russell at 08:31 PM |
So who won? I don’t know because I didn’t watch (don’t worry, I have an excuse). But no one else knows either: as of 8 p.m. the major news networks are still spinning their wheels, trying to get a grip on the big story – the two or three sentences that will summarize this debate until the next one. This statement will go something like, “John Kerry won because…” or conversely, “President Bush won because…”
At this time, both parties are sending out their “spinners” to try and sway us one way or the other. I’ve been watching MSNBC for 30 minutes and have seen two such interviews, each claiming their man not only won, but left the other battered and bruised under his podium. I’ve heard that Bush people are “confident” whereas Kerry people are “giddy.”
From what I’ve seen, Kerry managed to define himself in the way he needed to, and turned many of the key issues back on the President, making him defend his record (which is what this whole election thing needed to be about in the first place). Bush on the other hand was steady with the message that he’s been peddling for the past few months: “you get more of me, or you get a flip-flopper.”
So who won? Since Kerry had more to lose from this debate than Bush, and he appears to have accomplished those goals that people said he needed to accomplish; while on the other hand Bush did nothing but “not screw it up,” (as a friend of mine put it).
I’m willing to give this round to Kerry.
|
| Notes and Musings on Debate Night |
| Posted by Ian Stewart at 03:15 PM |
|
1. MSNBC has decided not to go with Frank Luntz and his on-air focus groups during the debate tonight. Luntz is definitely a partisan pollster like Josh Marshall says, so I’m glad MSNBC has made this decision. That said, Luntz’s focus groups are utterly fascinating. He did them four years ago during Bush v. Gore, and I was glued to the screen. He may be partisan, but he’s very good pollster.
2. Finally saw the new George Nethercutt ad about Patty Murray and Osama Bin Laden. I think everyone knew whoever Murray’s opponent was would use this footage.
He's (Osama bin Laden) been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. He's made their lives better. We have not done that.
Clearly, Nethercutt’s team is trying to do some damage. But why leave the “We have not done that” in? It only helps to put Murray’s quote in perspective from her point of view. If you’re going to go this scorched earth negative, I say go the whole way.
3. I said it’s debate night, but it ain’t. It’s simply a press conference that looks like a debate.
More evidence, 10 things “they” (whoever “they” is) don’t want you to know about the debates.
Very, very lame. I hope the two candidates (or at least Kerry) ignore the rules and actually debate.
Respond
|
| Ugly advertising backfires |
| Posted by Sierra Michels-Slettvet at 01:13 PM |
The latest Bush attack advertisement, using a clip of Kerry swerving while windsurfing in New England, asking why he can't stick to one direction, gets at the heart of what I hate about the attacks on Kerry.
The man has changed his mind, so what?
His stance on the Iraq War has changed, sure, but so has the information that the White House has given us. The President said that there was a clear and impending threat to Americans due to Iraqi agression and WMDs, but then there weren't. To endorse the same course of action regardless of the threat to the American people would be illogical, the ability to change one's mind as information changes should be lauded (or at least considered), not attacked at every turn.
Ugh.
Respond |
| Dangerous demographic ahead! |
| Posted by Libby Liming at 01:10 PM |
The MTV generation with their short attention spans, their preference for short skirts, their funky music and distaste for anything serious is a demographic that needs to be addressed in this election. (I know not everyone 18-24 fits in this description; however, there are quite a few registered voters whofall into that category).
I called a friend of mine this morning on my way to work to talk about the presidential race (she’s undecided too!), and she was trying to explain to me a recent special they aired on MTV on the “bling” each presidential candidate had. (Since I don’t have television, I live vicariously through the recaps of others.) She was a bit fuzzy on the details, but $500 ties and expensive cowboy boots seemed to be included in the show’s content. She was a little concerned (as am I) that MTV is not focusing on the “meat” of the issues, but rather what each candidate wears.
My friend should be concerned. I was watching MSNBC earlier and they were speaking with Gideon Yago, a news correspondent with MTV. He had some startling facts and figures about the demographic mostly catered to by his television station:
**8 in 10 in the 18-24 age group plan to “definitely” vote. (Only 42% of registered voters between 18-24 yrs old voted in the 2000 election)
**75% of eligible voters under the age of 25 are registered to vote (highest percentage ever in an election year)
**There are more eligible voters in the 18-24 demographic than at any other time in history.
Those are some dangerous numbers! More people in the demographic than ever before, more people in that demographic registered to vote than ever before, and more expressing an interest to vote than ever before.
Where is that entire generation turning for their news? Is it the “Daily Show” and Jon Stewart? Is it the MTV News Briefs at 10 minutes to the hour every hour? Yes, I know that the local and national news and specials like the debates can be tedious and boring to watch, but try it! You may like it! You may learn something too!!
Also, for those, like my friend Melissa and I, searching for the candidates’ opinions on certain issues…check out the website MSNBC.com has up comparing the candidates on specific “hot button” issues. You select which point of view you agree with the most on each issue, and at the end of a series, it will tell you which candidate you seem to be leaning towards. It tells me I am leaning towards Kerry….could have fooled me.
Respond |
| Things to look for tonight |
| Posted by William Thomas Mari at 01:03 PM |
Tonight, in Miami, is the first of three presidential debates. Hours of practice, months of campaigning, and lots of overall prep have gone into tonight’s primetime showdown.
This won’t be a dry, hour-long commercial either. Expect some “heavy” verbal sparring from both of the candidates, considering each will attempt to be the more assertive and “in-control”.
Both must also walk the proverbial political tightrope. The danger for Mr. Kerry is being too “wordy”, appearing pompous, or otherwise acting like he’s on the high horse of challenging an incumbent president. He will also need to be as dynamic, articulate, and “nice-guy-like” as possible.
Mr. Bush, on the other hand, will have to not only sound intelligent and intelligible, but will need to balance an “I’m-smart-too” position with just the right amount of his trademark “likeability”, and all this while trying not to look like “too nice”. How hard could it be? I guess we’ll see tonight…
Respond |
September 28, 2004
| Where's education in the debate? |
| Posted by Stephen Russell at 11:27 AM |
Yesterday I was surprised to see this piece in our Seattle Times . I was surprised mostly because I don’t see this issue being discussed in forums like this one.
Currently, I am a graduate student in Seattle University’s College of Education, and I have just started my second year of a three year program. In my first four quarters I have come into contact with a large number of very bright, motivated, and opinionated educators who have had nothing but bad things to say about the NCLB .
Lectures on the history of education reform or public education policy have the tendency to diverge into Bush slamming – not only for the NCLB itself (with which many take philosophical issue), but especially for W’s chronic financial neglect of the legislation that has left many school districts just as bad off as before.
An in-class discussion will typically break down like this: Professor: “and most recently, the No Child Left Behind Act was put into effect…” Class: “**Groan**”
At this point the professor can kiss her lecture plan good-bye. What follows are 12 to 20 mature, well-educated, responsible adults engaging in a spirited dialogue on their loathing for everything Bush.
Still others I’ve spoken with in the classroom have said that sweeping public education reform was unnecessary to begin with, and that the NCLB is a continuation of the Regan administration’s “A Nation at Risk” education fear-mongering. Both the NCLB and “A Nation at Risk” seem to be preoccupied with raising test scores versus educating the student, and in doing so make the fundamental error of confusing causes with symptoms. To bureaucrats and politicians, test scores are the only way to measure success rates. To teachers, “teaching to the test” is often restrictive and counterproductive.
So where does education stand on the candidates’ priorities? Not very highly, if media coverage is any indication of an issue’s importance. I’d like to think that it’s a priority for voters – there isn’t a single person in the US who isn’t in some way impacted by the condition of public education. All the same, I’m doubtful we’ll be seeing this topic come up in the debates of the next few weeks.
Respond
|
September 27, 2004
| Terrorism, the environment and the election |
| Posted by Libby Liming at 02:37 PM |
I am startlingly aware that the Iraq conflict is but one piece of the terrorism problem. Russian schools, Madrid trains , shoe bombers …I don’t really want to continue, but some people feel the need to make the Iraq War and terrorism in general one and the same in voters’ minds.
(Also, to defend myself and my somewhat politically-addled mind, the Iraqi conflict seems to be the only bit of terrorism that Bush has been addressing lately. I don’t read every single article in the paper, but I never heard anything about Bush touching on the Russian school hostages, saying what a terrible tragedy it was or anything in that manner.)
I did a teensy bit (read: minuscule speck) of research on the environmental plans from Bush, and frankly, I can see why there’s been a bit of an increase in environmental protests in the last few years. There was an article in the Times on a plan by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services to eliminate the amount of federally designated critical habitat for the bull trout in Montana. Now, I don’t know a whole lot about bull trout, other than what I read in the article, but when someone says it’s a GOOD THING that they are eliminating all protection for the habitat of an endangered species, that smells a little fishy to me (pardon the pun). Re-reading the article, I wondered how much the US Fish & Wildlife is saving the government by this elimination of protection for streams and lakes. (I’m trying to learn, but it’s getting frustrating. Too much information.)
Respond |
September 24, 2004
| The 'youth vote' is changing |
| Posted by Garrett Ryan Ferencz at 03:30 PM |
The war against terrorism might be ongoing but the war for votes has reached a feverous pitch.
As politicians scrabble to target different voting bocks, pollsters, spinsters, and political commentators alike have targeted a whole new batch of demographic groups that are perceived to make a difference in 2004. Soccer moms and security moms are being touted as the key to success. Bush and Kerry no longer fight about offering seniors prescription drugs but merely how much.
Through all of this our generation seems to have been forgotten. Sure, Clinton came on MTV and assured us he was wearing boxers and not briefs; however, policy is not driven towards those under 35. Yet there are sign things might be about to change.
The Seattle Times this week reported that Dino Rossi is trailing by nearly double digits to Christine Gregoire --however the same poll also shows Rossi leading the 18-to-34 age group by eight points. The "Age-gap" nation wide is as striking as the much touted "gender gap" with Bush finding his strongest support from those under 35.
Even around my water cooler, the Republicans on my floor are 19, 25, and 27, whereas, our liberal colleagues remember Woodstock and Watergate. The question to my fellow bloggers is why? Where has gone our stereotypes of old conservatives and young liberals? Are we about to see a paradigm shift in traditional notions of political demographics? One thing is for sure, the parties are bound to begin to take notice.
"Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show
me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains."
- Winston Churchill
Respond
|
| Name recognition |
| Posted by William Thomas Mari at 03:10 PM |
I’ve been talking to my friends about “big names in politics.”
It seems that we tend to vote for the guy (or gal) with the bigger reputation, more recognizable face, or most publicity. One particular pal of mine was frustrated by the lack of unbiased info on the candidates, especially for some of the local races. “It’s so hard finding about where they stand on important issues,” she said. “You go to their website, or read and/or watch their ads in the media, and that’s all you have to go on, it seems.”
The “Battle of the Daves”, between Dave Ross (D) and Dave Reichert (R) in eastern King County for Washington state representative, 8th district, is a case in point. Both the Ross and Reichert pages seem to be almost populist in nature, illustrating the wide appeal both candidates have.
Ross is a popular radio personality, while Reichert is a prominent law-enforcement figure known for tracking down the Green River Killer. Both won handily in their primaries, trouncing their lesser-known but still-qualified rivals. It almost seems that folks went with the name they remembered. But how do you get a “big name”?
“Money,” said one of my friends. “With enough financial backing, you can get your face on more billboards and your name on more yard signs.” True enough, I admitted. What else?
“Well, I guess having done something locally that lots of people remember is important.” Again, another good answer. Ross and Reichert are well-funded, and both have “curbside appeal” for what they’ve done (or want to do) in congress.
I think having a “big name” in politics might also be tied into a certain element of trust. That is, of course, related to how they got their fame to begin with. If their reputation is based on solid, “good” contributions to the local community, like our two Daves, then it’s a huge plus for both candidates. If one guy was a relative unknown and was going up against someone most people had at least heard about, I wonder how that would affect the “voting public”.
Do we go with brand names, or qualifications? And how do we find out about candidates, especially in a fair and unbiased manner? Is it just limited to the voter’s pamphlet? Or can we do more? Do we even want to? When it boils down to it, do we vote because we recognize the name, or because of who's behind it?
Respond
|
September 23, 2004
| Libby and Ian, cont. |
| Posted by Libby Liming at 01:58 PM |
Ian,
Okay, now on to the Kerry side of the questioning:
IAN ASKS: Who is John F. Kerry? I mean, what do you really know about him?
LIBBY ANSWERS: I know he’s married to Teresa Heinz Kerry, and that they have some kids (all grown) and a bunch of houses. I know he is a senator from Massachusetts; I know that he fought with the Navy in the Vietnam War and got three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star. I know some “swift boat” people are angry about this, and there’s a whole mud-slinging campaign (from BOTH sides) going on about his service in said war.
I know that the only thing I care about in that previous paragraph is the senator part. It gives me an insight into what he tried to do in representation for his state, and a small sliver of what he may try to do for our country. I don’t really like it, but if I don’t want to vote for Bush, then he’s my choice, yes?
IAN ASKS: Do you think he would make a good Commander in Chief, or not?
LIBBY ANSWERS: I’m not sure. His voting records are a little flip-flop; he votes for spending increases in the Pentagon, but then votes to eliminate projects like the B2 bomber program . He votes to give the president the right to decide on the Iraq War, but then turns around and says he believes that Bush made the wrong decision. I want a president who can make up his mind and stick to it, or admit that he was wrong and try to fix it. Again, a president who may not exist.
So to answer your question, no. But I don’t think that Bush has proved himself as a stellar leader, either.
IAN ASKS: Do you think his economic policies would be better for you than under Bush, or not? Do you think the economy is different depending on who is in charge?
LIBBY ANSWERS: I don’t know. Like I said a couple of weeks ago , I am not hearing either campaign addressing actual issues. I just hear a whole bunch of opponent-bashing and BS that I could really do without.
I absolutely believe that the economy is different depending on who is in charge. The interest rates change, the healthcare availability and costs fluctuate, and the war causes chaos in the government, as they have to find $80 some-odd billion dollars to fund it. I want to know who is going to fix this whole mess so we peons don’t have to cover for the bigwig’s tax cuts.
IAN ASKS: And finally, what’s your best reason NOT to vote for Kerry?
LIBBY ANSWERS: Because he’s an unknown “evil”. Because he could screw up the government and the country even more than Bush has. Because I don’t like the fact that I read articles on Cheney at least every 3rd day, and I have not heard a single thing from Edwards since he was announced as the VP pick (and I cannot remember his first name). Because I want a president who can make a firm decision and one who can admit when he is wrong. Because I cannot relate to anything that he has spoken on so far. Because I need a president who has the country’s best interests in mind, not his own. Because I don’t know enough about him to vote FOR him.
Don’t worry Kerry fans, my list of reasons to not vote for Bush is just as long….if not longer. I’m weighing my options to see which choice is worse right now, instead of which candidate is better.
Respond |
| Advice to Kerry (from a conservative) |
| Posted by Matthew Ranger at 08:39 AM |
As we approach the fall, a few questions hang in the air. Will the debates be the deciding factor in the election? What strategy will Kerry use to erase the gap? Who lives in a pineapple under the sea?
Foremost among these questions is how in the heck did Kerry manage to let Bush get a lead in New Jersey? New Jersey is supposed to be a safe Dem state. Gore won it by a good 15 points in 2000. Now Survey USA has Bush up by four points.
A similar story has emerged in Illinois, where he is down by only four points in another Democrat stronghold. If Kerry has to defend turf that he was counting on getting without a fight, he's going to have a very hard time defeating Bush in the battleground states that he has to win.
Now, to be fair, this is an unknown election. According to most projections I've seen, Bush is barely over the 50% mark of the overall popular vote. Kerry can still win, but to do so, I think that he'll have to do the following:
- Avoid the terrorism issue. It's Bush's best issue, and he needs to play to his enemy's weakness not his enemy's strength.
- Reframe the Iraq debate. Instead of talking about the past in Iraq, which has carried him about as far as it can, talk about the future. He needs to make concrete proposals on improving the situation there that go beyond the Europeans magically showing up to help us. These could be timetables for withdrawal, changes in force structure, creation of new Iraqi institutions, etc. Right now, he seems to be saying that he'll do everything the President will do, only he'll do it better and completely differently. Not exactly a formula for victory.
- Emerge with an issue that targets independents. This could the health care, the economy, or possibly the environment. Give that family in the 'burbs a reason to vote for you, not just against the other guy.
Whatever Kerry's going to do, he had better do it quickly. Otherwise, that sound you hear on election night will be the Republican revelers chanting "Mondale".
Respond |
September 21, 2004
| Is Libby popular, or what? |
| Posted by Ian Stewart at 01:25 PM |
Hey Libby.
I really enjoyed reading your response to my questions. Here are some things I noticed.
First, you say you’re a political ditz, but you voiced solid opinions on almost all (save the environmental Q) of the questions I asked.
Second, maybe you were already thinking ahead to my Iraq questions but this part was by far the most interesting to me…I’ve excerpted it here:
IAN ASKS: What would you say Bush’s strategy is for combating worldwide terrorism? Has it been effective, or not, or can you even tell?
LIBBY ANSWERS: Bush’s strategy (at this particular time) seems to be “try and force Iraq into a democracy”. (emphasis added by Ian)
Maybe your brain got ahead of you and was already on to the Iraq question from later in the post.
That sentence of your answer points to one of the most brilliant (and abhorrent to me) victories of the Bush campaign; getting people to confuse the war on terrorism with the war in Iraq. In fact, the Bushies have managed to pull this off three or four times on different issues. Don’t take my word for it. You too can do what CBS did and get verification from this fake Bush RNC video done by the Daily Show (there’s a Kerry one too, both equally brilliant, yet painfully accurate).
Sowing confusion on this issue (and many others) is key to a Bush victory. And although his ability to do so is waning, he’s still getting away with it. At least, that’s how I see it. What about you?
It’s my sincere hope that Kerry steps up the attack he started on Monday with his speech in New York, and end these shameful and dangerous lies the administration has perpetuated since they got in power .
Third, if I didn’t already know differently it, your answers would lead me to believe you’re done with Bush.
But I still haven’t heard the other side of your story…time for Kerry.
Who is John F. Kerry? I mean, what do you really know about him?
Do you think he would make a good Commander in Chief, or not?
Do you think his economic policies would be better for you than under Bush, or not? Do you think the economy is different depending on who is in charge?
And finally, what’s your best reason NOT to vote for Kerry?
Join the fray: answer Ian's questions about Kerry
|
| Yes, but which 4H display will they vote for? |
| Posted by Libby Liming at 10:43 AM |
I overheard the following conversation (almost word-for word) between two women at the Puyallup Fair yesterday afternoon. The ladies seemed to be in their 70’s, checking out the quilts and preserves in the exhibition center while discussing presidential candidates:
Woman A: So, who do you think you’re voting for this year?
Woman B: I’m not going to vote. I’ve been voting for 47 years, and I am done. Someone else can make my decision for me.
A: What if they choose someone you don’t like?
B: Then I’m just going to have to live with that. That’s what I get for giving someone else the choice to make for me.
A: But what do you think about that “Kerry Edwards”? He seems like a nice boy.
B: It’s not Kerry Edwards, dear. His name is Edward Kerry. And I think he’s running for governor.
I know that SOME people are trying to make an informed decision, but how many just don’t care about voting? How many people have given up on voting, due to the “lesser of two evils” factor in this presidential race?
On totally different subject…Jay, it was really nice to meet you yesterday, and I honestly didn’t hold your post last week against you, I promise. [Ed: See Jay Porter post below]
I like it when people disagree with me and don’t feel ashamed to say whatever they feel. It’s when people are too quiet and just nod and smile that it irritates me.
It’s your democratic right to argue! Say what you feel! Tell me I am a terrible stupid person! It’s OK to express your opinion! (Even if you’re Teresa Heinz Kerry, I admit. I haven’t heard anything from her lately, and I sort of miss her.)
Also Jay, I am fully supporting your proposal of the DOMABSA. I will picket and gather signatures on a petition for you...whatever it takes to get this put into law!
Respond
|
| Small (blog) world |
| Posted by Jay Porter at 09:08 AM |
Posting on the blog here can seem so abstract. It's not like our fellow writers are people we see every day, right?
Wrong. It turns out I see Libby pretty often. We share a little slice of Bellevue together. So when I happened to hear her say "This is Libby," and saw her familiar-from-the-blog face, I blanched. I was kind of tough on her last week.
I was extra nice when I introduced myself. And apologetic for any offense. I think it's safe to say none was taken, unless she is a really good actor.
Libby and I have seen each other, and will again. That puts a new spin on things. I'll be a bit more respectful toward you, knowing that I could run into you pretty much anywhere. It makes all this a bit more personal.
Likewise, my fellow bloggers, let me make this request as a walking, talking wedge issue. Next time you think about the Republican Party's narrow definition of marriage, think of me and my husband.
Think about the 1,100+ Federal rights and responsibilities we don't enjoy here in
the USA. And because it was covered on all the news channels today, think about the fact that Britney Spears can get married twice this year. Because I'm bitter about that. Along with Kerry's poll numbers it's one more thing that makes Canada look awfully attractive.
Can I get a shout out for a Defense of Marriage Against Britney Spears Act?
DOMABSA-- Can't we all agree on that?
Does the anonymity of the web affect the way you act toward other people? Would the political dialogue be different if we were somehow face-to-face? |
September 20, 2004
| More on religion and politics |
| Posted by Stephen Russell at 12:18 PM |
Another interesting response to my post about religion and politics.
I'm surprised that in your post you didn't mention any other priorities of voters who make decisions based on faith. The broad support Democrats have traditionally enjoyed from Catholics was historically based on economic issues, charity to the disadvantaged, healthcare, human rights, and support for diplomatic avenues of conflict resolution. Of the politically liberal people I talk to, many consider these to be important moral issues.
Many other denominations, who don't go along with the Falwell inspired worldview that issues of morality center totally on reproduction related concerns, are comfortable advancing positions that more closely follow a liberal worldview. Most notable was the case of the United Methodist Church, which was in the same camp as the Pope when it came to opposing military action in Iraq. The UMC is the denomination that George Bush belongs to.
Linking political priorities to faith is extremely difficult. Our politics are an outward display of issues that can be very personal; and it follows that the more developed your sense of personal faith is, the harder it will be to find a political figure or issue that corresponds perfectly with it. What we are left with is sorting out our political priorities based a specific set of issues. In my posting two weeks ago, I chose to focus on those issues that are said to be central to Catholic voters.
Needless to say there are many other issues at hand than those, and this reader has hit on precisely why I tend to align myself with the Democratic side of politics: their attention to economic and social concerns.
Before I wrap this up, I will just say that it’s wonderful that George Bush’s church opposes military action in Iraq. But that doesn’t change a thing about the way he and his administration have gone about completely f---ing up the “War on Terror”, the war in Iraq, and the U.S.’s standing in the world. On top of all that, the man seems to truly believe that he is “chosen by the grace of God”.
Respond
|
| Rock on, Mr. Kerry? |
| Posted by William Thomas Mari at 10:40 AM |
Last Thursday evening, I went with a buddy to a rock concert at Graceland in downtown Seattle. Now, this is way out of character for me, but I figured, “why not?” Besides, I was sure someone there could give me some insight on why young voters chose their candidates… right? Wrong!
I asked a couple of young ladies manning a radio station’s booth The Question: “who ya’ going to vote for?” Well, after a shocked pause, one admitted she wasn’t registered to vote, but wanted to be (ok, at least she’s honest and wants to vote ;-), and the other muttered “John Kerry”. I asked why she wanted to vote for him, and she said, “because he’s not Bush.” Any other reason?
“Nope.”
Wow! Of course, what was I to expect, asking such silly questions at a place of musical enlightenment. “Oh well, I can just try someone else,” I thought. So, afterwards, my pal and I tracked down one of the lead singers for Moments of Grace, Jeremy Griffith. My friend is a huge fan, and asked Jeremy a bunch of questions, including who he was going to vote for.
Jeremy was quite generous, and with a bemused smile on his face, said, “why, the esteemed Mr. John Kerry of Massachusetts, of course!” All right, so maybe those weren’t his exact words, but he basically said “Kerry, dude.”
My friend asked him why, and he said, get this: “I don’t know…I really haven’t heard all that much about what he wants to do…and I gotta’ do more research.”
That’s cool. We thanked him for his input, and left. Now, I really didn’t expect more from a rock concert in We-hate-Bush-Land, but I was really surprised by the lack of enthusiasm for John Kerry, and, more tellingly, by the lack of information about what he plans on doing.
So, I must concur with my fellow blogger Sierra, “What’s up with John?” He oughta’ spell out his agenda quick, before even his lukewarm supporters (rock fans) abandon him.
Respond |
| Kerry needs to focus on his platform |
| Posted by Sierra Michels-Slettvet at 09:28 AM |
Last week Libby asked "What's the deal with Dick Cheney?"
And I have to add another: What's the deal with John Kerry?
Admittedly, I'm on the Anybody but Bush bandwagon, so the competition could've spent the entire convention dancing around naked in a circle of howler monkies and he'd still have my vote; regardless, Kerry himself is not allowed to be on the ABB platform.
I haven't recieved any mail from him in the past three weeks that wasn't predominantly critical of the current administration with very few solid alternatives, and news.google.com (the current newssource of choice) hasn't had an article about his actual platform in weeks.
As all post-middle school girls know, anyone who spends all his or her time criticizing someone else has low self-esteem. Maybe if he made it more obvious what he was actually planning on doing he wouldn't be so pathetically far behind in half the polls.
Respond
|
September 17, 2004
| Politics and religion, cont. |
| Posted by Stephen Russell at 11:42 AM |
I received some very interesting responses from my post about religion and politics. Two in particular were very thought-provoking; the first because it was from a more orthodox Catholic viewpoint, and the second was more liberal. Below is a portion the first response, I’ll get to the second response next Monday.
I'm not a bible-quoting, bible-thumping, type of guy, but one Catholic to another, you may want to be careful about giving moral cover to proponents of the "culture of death". We all will face "Judgment Day". I don't pretend to be prepared for that day myself and I have plenty of my own moral warts I need to deal with. ...I'm not trying to sound holier than thou (because I'm probably not), I'm just suggesting some things you may want to consider before dismissing Catholic teaching as archaic and irrelevant. You may think this is trite, but the fate of our eternal souls may be in the balance on such things. As Catholics, God holds us to a higher standard than non-Catholics and non-Christians: "to whom much is given, much is expected."
I want to be clear that I don't dismiss anything about Catholic teaching. I believe in the benefits of it so much that I will continue to support it even though I have come to some contrary conclusions about how I live my life.
I believe that there is a distinction between "giving moral cover to the culture of death" and believing that something should be legal. I'm sure you'll agree with me that there are many, many things that are immoral but not illegal, and that the difference is a large one.
What I see George Bush doing in his position of power is setting up legislation what will threaten the civil liberties of citizens who do not believe in the same things he does. I see him moving towards a state in which civil law and religious moral code are aligned, making Christianity the de facto state religion.
Respond
|
| Libby and Ian, cont. |
| Posted by Libby Liming at 08:54 AM |
Hey Ian,
No supreme 4-alarm flame email yet from Dems on the “Teresa Trashing” of last week. I’m holding my breath though.
I will be the first to admit that I am completely susceptible to spin and/or hype campaigns.
I read a lot of newspapers and news websites (no television in my house, so no worries on that) but I understand that sometimes my news is tainted with the political views of spin doctors. (that’s why they get paid the big bucks…to confuse people who still believe news sources give you news, and not hype.)
Before I answer your questions, I must admit (not that it’s a TOTAL shock to anyone who reads my posts), I am not really all that clever when it comes to political topics.
In fact, I will go so far as to say I am a political ditz. I WANT to know what’s going on, I really do. However, I read all of these political stories in the paper, and sometimes it just goes in one ear and out the other (so to speak). I try to hang onto it, and I know how important it is, but I just can’t. (Don’t flame me, please. At least I’m TRYING to make an informed decision.)
I just want to know, at this point in time, which candidate is going to do the least further damage to our country?
Here goes for Ian’s questions:
IAN ASKS: What would you say Bush’s strategy is for combating worldwide terrorism? Has it been effective, or not, or can you even tell?
LIBBY ANSWERS: Bush’s strategy (at this particular time) seems to be “try and force Iraq into a democracy”. It doesn’t really seem to be working, from my standpoint. Did Bush say anything about the Russian schoolyard standoff? Does he consider that terrorism?
Also, I’ve been reading about the Abu Ghraib prison tortures and the subsequent arrests of soldiers connected, and the whole thing makes me sick.Is this how our president punishes “terrorists”?
IAN ASKS: What about Iraq? What are our reasons for being there? Was going in a good idea, a bad idea, or is it unclear? Are we making progress there or not, or is it impossible to tell?
LIBBY ANSWERS: I know my friends and friends’ husbands have to go back over there again and again. I know that people are dying; the American death toll is escalating. I know that there continue to be bombs exploding and shots fired. People are being kidnapped to blackmail entire countries to pull troops out of Iraq, and I’m still paying too much for gasoline.
Is it a good idea to try and throw more money into a problem to try and fix it? I don’t see it being fixed. I just see an escalating amount of violence in a place that desperately needs peace.
IAN ASKS: Does Bush’s economic plan make sense for you personally? How would you describe his plan, that is, what parts of the economy is he paying special attention to?
LIBBY ANSWERS: My personal experience with Bush’s economy is that I am paying more income tax, I am paying through the nose for healthcare; it’s a lot harder for me to get government assistance for daycare costs, and I’m just struggling through with trying to pay my phone bill every month. I haven’t seen any good things coming my way, just more difficulties in trying to make it from paycheck to paycheck. Doesn’t make a whole ton of sense to me.
IAN ASKS: What is Bush’s record on the environment? Is it good or bad for the Northwest?
LIBBY ANSWERS: I have to be brutally honest: I don’t have a clue. I want to know what’s going on, and I want to hear it from someone who wants to give me information, and not just blow democratic/republican smoke up my skirt.
IAN ASKS: And the ultimate question, would you want to grab a beer and a pretzel (I know, it’s an old joke so I’m letting it go) with Bush?
LIBBY ANSWERS: No, I would not want to go for beer and pretzels; I’m not eating carbs right now. (I’m joking.) But in all seriousness, I think I would have too much to ask him and would get frustrated in not getting all of my information. Plus, I’m a little rusty on the Heimlich maneuver.
Join the Ian-Libby conversation. Respond. |
September 16, 2004
| The VP's runaway mouth |
| Posted by Libby Liming at 03:06 PM |
I know I’ve been saying some rude things about the Kerry side of the presidential race, so I have decided to be a bi-partisan offender with the following question:
What is the deal with Dick Cheney?
He reminds me of my friend’s grandfather, Poppa Joe, who sits in a chair on his porch and offends everyone who walks by. It’s not that he’s trying to be mean; he just doesn’t know that words considered “okay” to say 40 years ago in Alabama are no longer kosher to say out loud.
Cheney seems like a nice enough person, regardless of how many heart problems he has , whether or not he uses hand sanitizer after shaking hundreds of people’s hands or what he says in public.
However, his words seem to be doing a lot more harm to the Bush campaign than Poppa Joe’s words can do to offend our neighborhood.
I know I’m a little behind the times, but last week, Cheney actually stated (and I quote) “It’s absolutely essential that … on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we’ll get hit again and we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.” No, really. He said that. Out loud.
Does he have a speechwriter? Does someone approve him to say things like that? I know I said that Heinz-Kerry was a teensy bit mouthy for my tastes, but Cheney is actually running for an elected office. If our current president suddenly (God forbid!) gorked while in office, this guy would be running the country straight from the Oval Office.
Are you kidding me?
Respond |
| Ian and Libby, cont. |
| Posted by Ian Stewart at 12:56 PM |
Hey Libby. Nice landmine on the Teresa Heinz-Kerry stuff. I hope you’ve been enjoying the flames from upset Dems.
But while your First Lady deliberations are going swimmingly, the rest of you seems caught in a spin cycle. And although this year will be better than most for an actual discussion of the issues, I do understand your frustration at the lack of info that’s out there. But before you search out a guru, trust in what Master Yoda says: Already know you that which you need.
The first axiom (or at least it was true until the last few weeks) is it’s all about the incumbent. So let’s train a critical eye on Bush. I would humbly suggest your first step is to decide if he deserves his spot on the roster.
And there’s no better compass to take direction from than…yourself.
Moving on.
What would you say Bush’s strategy is for combating worldwide terrorism? Has it been effective, or not, or can you even tell?
What about Iraq? What are our reasons for being there? Was going in a good idea, a bad idea, or is it unclear? Are we making progress there or not, or is it impossible to tell?
Does Bush’s economic plan make sense for you personally? How would you describe his plan, that is, what parts of the economy is he paying special attention to?
What is Bush’s record on the environment? Is it good or bad for the Northwest?
And the ultimate question, would you want to grab a beer and a pretzel (I know, it’s an old joke so I’m letting it go) with Bush?
I know how I’d answer these questions, and every answer puts me squarely with the D’s. But my answers don’t matter…my chad’s already hanging. And unlike stocks, past performance by a politician IS an indicator of future returns.
Which direction is your market heading?
Respond
|
| Those crazy bumper stickers |
| Posted by Michael Moretsky at 10:51 AM |
People email me all sorts of things. My mother has the record for forwarding me twelve emails in one day. Usually I delete these because I have seen them before.
However, I was forwarded an email that I am glad I opened. This contained a list of political bumper-stickers, both pro-Bush and pro-Kerry. I thought a few of these were clever and/or low-brow enough that they just might sway your vote.
In the ‘pro-Bush’ category a few of my favorites are:
*“Keep Ketchup Boy Out of the White House” Bush senior would not allow broccoli to be served in the white house. If Kerry wins, will Del Monte be banned?
*“I’m Not FONDA Kerry”
I have to admit I laughed at this one.
Unfortunately the bumper stickers in the ‘pro-Bush’ category were few. But there were plenty of pro-Kerry stickers to choose from. A few of my favorites are:
*“Bush/Cheney ’04: Compassionate Colonialism”
And speaking of foreign policy I really like this one next one…
* “Bush/Cheney ’04: Making the World a Better Place, One Country at a Time”
I am now looking for political bumper stickers as I drive around Seattle. Based on the bumper-stickers I have seen in this area, I think Kerry supporters outnumber Bush supporters about 3 to 1, at least among those willing to advertise their political affiliation on their cars.
I will be leaving town for a work-trip to the northeast next week and will be doing an informal survey of Bush versus Kerry bumper-stickers. But I gotta tell ya, my favorite sticker so far is:
“George W. Bush: The President Quayle We Never Had”
Any great bumper stickers out there? Send them to us
|
| "Stranger" voter |
| Posted by Sierra Michels-Slettvet at 08:36 AM |
Seeing Dad for the first time in a week I was greeted with, "You didn't make it up here to vote yesterday. Gregoire took the Democratic nod."
"Really?" I asked, perplexed. "But both the Stranger and the Weekly endorsed Sims."
With sarcasm he responded, "You may find it suprising, those aren't exactly mainstream publications."
And for just a split second (before the vastness of everything came into focus) that was really quite shocking to me. Everyone I'd talked to had cross referenced his or her own choices with the Stranger's endorsements; what a strangely isolated subculture I exist within.
Did you follow any print endorsements? Respond |
September 14, 2004
|
| Posted by Libby Liming at 02:04 PM |
Evidently, I made some people angry with my entry on Teresa Heinz-Kerry last week.
Before I proceed with the rest of my blog entry, here is my disclaimer:
I am NOT saying that all women should sit down and be quiet and never stand up for themselves. I am ABSOLUTELY NOT stating that women should be doormats. I am simply stating that in a presidential campaign, the candidate should be louder and more outspoken than his/her spouse.
I am ALSO NOT saying that Heinz-Kerry does not have a mind, or that she should not get a chance to speak on it, or that she is a trashy woman or is not a very lovely person. I’m sure that, if I got the chance to speak with her, she would be very cordial and quite entertaining, and she is a very good speaker.
It’s a personal problem, but I wish I could separate the odd things I am hearing about Teresa Heinz-Kerry from the angry “swift boat” comments from the substantive things and important questions that John Kerry should be addressing on the campaign trail.
DISCLAIMER DONE.
Okay, now ask any of my friends, family or coworkers and they will tell you that demure, quiet and ladylike are definitely not qualities that I have on a regular basis.
I have my moments when I am very Betty-Crocker-50’s-housemom, but for the most part, I am a loud-mouthed (and sometimes even low-class) woman. If I am not heard, I will just talk louder and louder until someone pays attention; that’s just the way I operate.
However, in the public eye and as the wife of a presidential candidate, maybe Heinz-Kerry should be speaking in a bit more of a professional tone. (for example, “shove it” is probably not a great thing to say, but it’s better than using foul language.)
After thinking on this matter a while (and after a couple of my close friends told me I was a total idiot for writing that last entry), I realized that I frankly don’t care what a prospective first lady has to say.
I do not want to hear what her stance is on education, what her beliefs on abortion are, I don’t really want to hear it. It should all be white noise to me, since she cannot make any decisions FOR her husband. I understand she can sway his vote (one of the perks of being a wife…), but I don’t want to hear about it while her husband is campaigning. Once her hubby is in office, she can be just as sassy as she wants.
And finally, just to clarify for all of those who think I am an “idiot”, I’m not voting for Heinz-Kerry. I’m trying to figure out why I should vote for her husband…but I keep getting distracted.
Respond
|
| Voting is a privilege |
| Posted by William Thomas Mari at 01:00 PM |
“Today I voted in the primary. I chose who I’m going to vote for in November.”
OK, that’s nice, you young gullible voter-person. When you’re tired and burnt out like me, jaded by politics-as-usual and attack ads, you’ll feel differently. Soon, you’ll come to think of voting as fondly as paying your taxes…
Excuse me! Wait just a minute! But did we just set in motion the peaceful selection of our government? The orderly and non-violent transfer of power from one group to the next? Yes we did!
That’s cool, and compared to many countries, downright stress-free! In some places, young men like me get drafted into militaries of dubious loyalty to their weak civilian governments, who are lead by ambitious, greedy reactionaries who plot and scheme to seize power through brute force.
But not in this country. Here, we use pens and pieces of paper, which we call ballots, to choose our leaders. Friendly retirees are our guides to filling our opinions, not armed-to-the-teeth soldiers in our backyards. I hope I never get so bitter and angry that I forget that fact, and this election season I will refrain from grouchy grumbling, angry ranting, and mournful whining.
I will make the conscious decision to appreciate the gift that I have. The privilege to cast a vote.
Respond
|
| Democracy at the end of a gun barrel |
| Posted by Donald Gilbert-Santamaría at 10:46 AM |
New York Times reports a car bomb went off in Baghdad today that killed 47 people and injured 114 more, mostly young Iraqis who were waiting outside of the police headquarters in search of work.
In interviews after the explosions, many Iraqis were quoted as blaming the Americans for the attack, even though it was clearly an act of the insurgency.
For many Americans such statements are both frustrating and illogical. Why can´t the Iraqis see that we came to liberate, and that our continued presence is part of a selfless attempt to help the Iraqi people taste the sweet freedoms of democracy? To pin the blame for such attacks on the Americans is not just wrong, its insulting. It demeans the loss of life that Americans have experienced in their struggle to establish democratic institutions in Iraq.
Many conservatives before the war argued with conviction that we could bring democracy to Iraq through force. This argument was promoted with even greater insistence after the original justifications for the war proved to be unjustified. When no weapons of mass destruction were discovered and the Iraqi connection to the World Trade Center attacks proved unfounded, administration official pushed this liberation thesis even harder.
It is a fact that the American invasion of Iraq ended one of the most brutal dictatorships of the 20th century. It is also a fact that during the Iraq-Iran war, the United States sold that same dictatorship many of the arms that it would later turn against its own people. Of course, as the old dictum goes, countries don´t have friends, they have interests, and it was not in the U.S. interest at the time to have Iraq defeated in that earlier conflict.
Perhaps in the 1980`s moral imperatives weren´t part of American foreign policy and now they are. To listen to the President and his associates, one would certainly have to conclude that this is the case. We invade to liberate. We do it because it´s the right thing to do.
But if we accept the premise that American foreign policy is now fueled by moral imperatives, it seems to me that we are then obligated to judge the outcome of foreign policy decisions on that same basis.
If moral criteria provided the rationale for the decision to invade Iraq, then moral criteria should be used to evaluate the outcome of that invasion. With that in mind, then, how should we react to today's bombing?
The easy answer, of course, is to blame the insurgency. With the Iraqis now nominally in control of their own country, and the insurgency on the rise, we can shrug our shoulders and say to ourselves that these poor Iraqis are just not up to the task. Look at the way they kill each other, day-in and day-out.
But such a response is at best naive, and at worst morally corrupt. If we really are as morally inspired as we claim to be, we have a moral responsibility to follow the chain of cause and effect back to the initial decision to invade Iraq. That decision was made by politicians in this country, politicians who, for better or worse, represent us all as American citizens.
And what about democracy? The freely elected government of the United States initiated the invasion of Iraq, so in a sense, one can even argue that the invasion itself was a democratic act. Never mind that the beneficiaries of all this American goodwill were never consulted about this decision. And never mind that tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have paid a very high price for our version of their freedom. Just give us more time, administration supporters say. Once the "enemies of freedom" have been defeated, the true light of democracy will shine through.
In the meantime, the dead keep piling up.
Respond
|
September 13, 2004
| Election exhaustion sets in |
| Posted by Sierra Michels-Slettvet at 12:50 PM |
I've come to realize that I don't want to talk people into voting the way I vote, I don't want to change people's opinions on the world, or politics, or any of the people involved therein. I don't want to sign initiatives, or to pester people to sign initiatives; I want people to vote but to do so out of their own desires.
The past month has done a number on my faith in the political process, I feel too broke, singular and insignificant to matter. Yes, I'll go to the polls in November, but I'll do so knowing that no candidate I'm marking has made any visible gesture towards my demographic. The issues that matter to me are talked about only in abstract and non-committal terms.
I need to find someone or something to get excited about.
Respond |
| The impact of outrage |
| Posted by Carl Gipson at 12:47 PM |
In light of the recent Swift Boat Vets for Truth ads and now the allegations of President Bush skipping out on Guard physicals over thirty years ago, both camps have asked repeatedly (and half-heartedly) for civility during election season.
But I've noticed an emerging and disturbing trend.
Living in Seattle, there's obviously going to be far less support for the president and his agenda than in, say, Texas. However, the vitriolic outrage many people here display towards the president can be encapsulated by a shirt I saw someone wearing while attending Bumbershoot (and while children were standing nearby), with language you can't use in the newspaper, on television, or this blog.
Are you serious? Is this what public debate has become?
All this got me to thinking. Liberals and Democrats should be wary of how much they ascribe to this type of searing logic and impassioned reason they might just inspire me to give financially for the first time to the Bush campaign or volunteer my precious time.
Respond |
| Go -- vote! |
| Posted by William Thomas Mari at 11:39 AM |
Last Saturday afternoon, a friendly-looking middle-aged woman knocked on my family’s door. My mom answered tentatively, as we get many solicitors on Snoqualmie Ridge. But instead of trying to sell a product, this particular person was attempting to sell an idea.
She was Barbara de Michele, the Democratic candidate for the 5th District of the Washington state house of representatives, 1st position. Those readers of the Times who live in the Issaquah area have probably seen her cheerful blue signs (complete with Madeline-style font) poking out of boulevards and sidewalks.
And here she was, pounding the pavement on a warm weekend afternoon, old enough to be my aunt. That and the fact that she had walked right up to a house with a Bush sign taped proudly in the window elicited sympathy from my mom, who listened very politely as Barbara gave a quick, earnest (in-person) campaign message .
She said she would be a representative “for education” and “for roads”, explained her background in education and transportation, and urged my mom to vote come Tuesday’s primary. My mom thanked her for putting a human face on the campaign, and promised to go to the polls, although she admitted that she was a Republican and would likely be voting for her opponent, Jay Rodne .
Mrs. de Michele took this in stride, graciously gave my mother a pamphlet with her e-mail/website in case we had any further questions, and bid her good afternoon. My mom did the same, and thanked her again for coming out to our neighborhood.
Meanwhile, I had been eating lunch in the kitchen (spaghetti), and had overheard this friendly exchange. I was wondering to myself, “should I go talk to this person?” when my mom urged me to go after her and ask her some questions. So I did, figuring that it wouldn’t hurt to get fodder for the blog.
Barbara had just finished talking to our next-door neighbor when I flagged her down. “Mrs. de Michele,” I called out, “could I talk to you?” Now, the poor lady took a step backwards, visibly startled that a young man would track her down and want to ask questions. Looking a bit perplexed, but nonetheless gracious, she obliged.
I asked her about how the people she had talked to thought about our new, Montana-style primary system, where one has to choose a party and then vote along those lines. This has made many folks upset.
She said that “…I’ve been going door-to-door, and no one seems to like it…” and many had told her that they wouldn’t vote in protest. But then she made an excellent and, I think, rather stirring point. “Now, that’s a real shame, because young men and women have died, and are dying, even as we complain about this primary, for the right and privilege of voting…” and not voting will dishonor them.
She further said that she, too, thought the old primary was better, and allowed more voters to make a more informed choice, but she also said that we shouldn’t stay at home in mock “protest” over it. Not when over a thousand men and women, many my age, have died in Iraq. Not when many more have sacrificed a college education and immediate comfort and safety to serve in our nation’s military throughout the world.
Don’t skip the primary to make some sort of political point. Don’t go straight home from work and pout. Go, vote! Whenever you do, you honor those who’ve died so that you can have that civic liberty. “Freedom isn’t free” isn’t just a trite little expression. Real people have sacrificed real lives to give us the chance to debate and argue and discuss. At the least, we ought to vote to honor them, to cast our ballots in their memory, and to exercise the freedoms that they held so dear.
Respond |
| Bumper Stickers across America |
| Posted by Anna Kleppert at 11:18 AM |
As I’m making my way around this great country on a road trip, I am discovering America’s penchant for expressing their political beliefs on the exteriors of their cars.
This, I presume, protects the drivers and passengers from engaging in actual dialogue and discussion: I post the names of my political heroes, you post yours, and we can both glare at each other as one of us passes the other in the fast lane.
So I thought our country’s love of the sticker made sense within the context of our love affairs with our cars. We feel equally protected in our small hatchbacks or SUVs, and we feel further protected by the adhesive-backed ideas and mottos that announce our ideologies. We don’t want to fight, necessarily; we just want to silently share our views, and hope that, perhaps, someone takes a moment to consider an issue from a new perspective. But this bumper sticker business is not all fun and games. Take, for instance, two recent occurrences on America's great highways.
I often conduct my travels in a 1992 Mazda Protégé. She wears only one bumper sticker: “Attack Iraq? NO!” Now I am not someone who sees much value in expressing political and spiritual beliefs on twenty square inches of colorful plastic. Sitting behind someone in Seattle gridlock who has a “W 2004” sticker does not for one second give me pause as to whom I am voting for in November.
I don’t suspect my sticker has changed anyone’s attitude about Iraq. Actually, it’s absurd to think a sticker would have such an effect, as one would hope that the general public needs more than a bumper sticker to change a mind on such a volatile issue. But my mom put it on my car when I was out of town, and since I agree with its sentiment, I did not remove it while living in Spokane and crossing various parts of the Northwest.
But twice now I have been nearly run off of the road because of fellow drivers’ negative feelings about my bumper sticker. Both times the offending vehicle was roughly three times the size of my little sedan, decorated with Bush stickers and driven by a male in his twenties. Once I was given the finger as I was being cut off and pushed onto the shoulder, and once I was being followed so closely that I had 9-1-1 dialed on my cell phone, my finger ready to press 'send' should I find myself bleeding in a ditch.
So, what gives? Are we so passionate about our political beliefs that we are choosing to run people off the road in place of conducting educated debates?
Have we begun to use stickers and signs as replacements for actual dialogue Have we given up trying to find common ground and instead found solace in slapping on a few decals, closing our windows, turning up the AC and ignoring (or perhaps trying to kill) those around us who disagree?
The car my road trip partner and I will use to explore Texas, Mississippi and Alabama will be sticker-free. It’s a conscious decision we’ve made in response to the above two incidences. We may just have to talk to people, face-to-face, about why we think Kerry's the best choice in November. I hope that won't land us in a ditch.
Respond
|
| Yes, we're debating the choice of First Lady |
| Posted by Jay Porter at 10:50 AM |
If Libby is really representative of undecided voters, her screed against Teresa Heinz Kerry gives me serious pause. Not just for the state of the election, but for the status of women in 2004. "Some of us may think that it is better for women to stay 'on topic' or to remain seen and not heard," she writes.
I had to check my calendar-- first to make sure what decade we were in, then because I had thought most people who feel that way got behind Bush a long time ago. I for one would prefer that more women spoke up, acted out, and generally shook things up. I guess I'm glad it was Libby who made the comment, because had a guy said it I would have been really angry.
We need more female voices among the political media, more women running for office, and fewer women on the political sidelines until 2 months before the elections. Interestingly, single women prefer Kerry to Bush as something like 70%-- I guess these women have been able to stomach the thought of an indepedent woman with brains and money speaking her mind. My girlfriends who live in Capitol Hill condos and Wallingford apartments certainly don't think Laura Bush speaks for them... when she is allowed to speak at all.
I can, to be fair, see how some people might not like Teresa Heinz Kerry. There's no accounting for taste (which explains why some people think of the Bush twins as classy.) But there is a gigantic leap from that, to deciding one's presidential vote on that basis. And and even bigger leap to declare by fiat, as Will recently did, that one should choose the candidate whose wife is more like your mom. Was that a joke?
I don't mean to be rude or mean about it... but this whole line of discussion strikes me as the kind of noodleheadedness encouraged by the news media's prolonged prattle about who is going to get voted off the island next. This isn't "Survivor," friends. We are electing the next leader of the free world--liking his wife is purely extra credit. Even someone as strong as Hillary has pretty limited impact on actual policy--and if you doubt that just think about the bad joke that is our current health care "system."
Until we get around to actually nominating a woman for president, the First-Ladies-in-Waiting will be merely a sideshow. From the Bush crowd, the effort to make them center stage is just another shell game to distract us from the issues that matter--issues about which cold reality should give any voter pause about staying the course.
Respond |
September 10, 2004
| A blogger's introduction |
| Posted by Donald Gilbert-Santamaría at 04:27 PM |
There is this notion floating around that professors live in an ivory tower and that we only come out under great duress, as when we need to buy groceries or drop off our dry cleaning.
I thought that, at the very least, participating in this blog project might allow me to do a service to my profession and dispel such myths. Perhaps more to the point, however, I was intrigued by the opportunity to talk back to all the talking heads that are always talking at me: on television, the radio, and even in this newspaper.
Instead of just hitting myself upside the head at some outrageous item in the news, I might actually say something back. Someone might read it, or no one might read it, but at least I'd get to say my piece in a relatively public way.
Much of the news these days is disturbing. To me, however, what is perhaps more disturbing than the news itself is the way in which it's packaged and then dissected in a highly uninformative way. The advocacy system that is the dominate format for most news programs that I listen to—yes, you guessed it, NPR—is especially unhelpful.
So-called experts are called in from partisan think-tanks to debate an issue, and the audience is left to fend for itself, trying to read through the ideological spin to get to the substance of the matter.
Still, nothing prepared me for what happens on commercial radio: Driving back from California at the beginning of August, I had a chance to listen to Sean Hannity at length for the first time. I must confess that I was glued to the dial.
Everyone who called in was described as a "great American," that is, provided they agreed with the host who also, I was reminded by several of his callers, was a "great American." As I listened, I couldn't help but wonder whether I, too, might qualify as a "great American."
As a self-identified Democrat, I have my doubts. Language is powerful, and its power resides not only in what is said, but also in what is left out. The implication throughout the show—Sean only asks us for three hours a day—is that those who do not agree with him are somehow something less than "great
Americans."
I'm not really sure what the political logic is behind shows like his.
Clearly he's a commercial success, so that would explain the economic logic, but what drives the politics? Is he merely satisfying a demand that preexists his ideological rhetoric, in which case he's not so much influencing public opinion as responding to it?
Perhaps, but the man behind the microphone doesn't seem to be satisfied merely to satisfy a demand, he also makes demands: he asks his audience to give him three hours a day, presumably in the service of his political mission.
This demand, that he repeated several times on the day I was listening, raises interesting questions about the relationship between the media and the audience. I'm far from an expert on such matters, but it seems to me that at the very least such claims as Sean Hannity makes on his audience suggest the extent to which shows like his are designed to mold public opinion by reenforcing the values that make some people "great Americans" and others, well, something less than great.
I raise this issue in my first entry because it helps to explain why I'm so frustrated with the quality of the public debate in this country. How can we have an honest debate in this country about the pressing issues when the so much of what passes as "informational" content is nothing more than ideological rhetoric?
Respond |
| Thoughts from a Catholic voter |
| Posted by Stephen Russell at 02:04 PM |
The most important reader response I received for my last post was from my girlfriend.
We share similar views on many issues both religious and political, and on this she really challenged me: “how does the fact that you’re Catholic influence how you vote?” This is a question I grapple with every time I consider an election, but it is exceedingly difficult to write about because it’s so very personal and complicated.
I am in support of the right to choose, gay marriage, and stem cell research, and I tend to vote for those issues when they crop up in the political arena. Some may say, “If you are Catholic, how can you support those issues which are presumably antithetical to Catholic doctrine?” To which I tell them a little about my upbringing:
I was raised Catholic and have had the distinction (limitation?) of spending every year of my education in a Catholic School. The last nine of those years have been in Jesuit institutions. This is not to say that those schools promoted a liberal agenda. Far from it. What they did do was create a student that is open to other experiences and viewpoints, and who thinks critically and challenges the thinking of the established authority.
As a Catholic voter, I know that I don’t agree with the hard line that some Catholic organizations draw between political candidates and issues. Catholic Answer’s “Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics” (not endorsed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops by the way) states that there are five “non-negotiable issues” for the Catholic voter. Those are: 1. Abortion; 2. Euthanasia; 3. Fetal Stem Cell Research; 4. Human Cloning; 5. Homosexual “Marriage” (quotes are theirs).
The upshot is that if a candidate or initiative promotes any of these five issues, they should be eliminated from your consideration. Thankfully, there is no mention here of withholding communion to those who would vote against the five “non-negotiables,” a practice with which I have serious disagreement.
The official USCCB “statement” , on the other hand, has no mention of “non-negotiables,” and instead asks questions of the Catholic Voter intended to place political issues into the framework of Catholic social teaching. I would also recommend looking at the Washington State Catholic Conference’s “Legislative Priorities”, if this is an issue of interest to you.
The bottom line for me, and many other Catholics, is that I don’t always conform to the social teachings of the Catholic Church. The experiences and people that I have encountered in my life have lead me to see the world very differently from Church leaders. Fundamentally, I think that it is people with differing perspectives on how religion plays out in their lives (both personally and politically) that move our society forward.
Respond
|
September 09, 2004
| Advice to Teresa Heinz Kerry |
| Posted by Libby Liming at 01:57 PM |
In my honest opinion, I think Teresa Heinz Kerry needs to be quiet.
Her attitude while on the campaign trail is so horrible that she may be the breaking point for some undecided people, like me. True, I should not be voting for a first lady, but for a president…but honestly, that woman is really starting to grate on my nerves.
Why would I want to hear about her for another FOUR YEARS??? Her manners are atrocious, and frankly, I would rather have a demure, well-behaved woman and her children standing behind the leader of the free world than a well-traveled, outspoken, rich woman standing in front of him, expressing his views to us FOR him.
Yes, women should feel free to express their opinions and yes, we should feel as if we do not have to bow and scrape to our husbands, wives, partners or significant others, but if you are in the public eye, you should be expected to operate with a certain sense of decorum.
MY momma taught me never to tell people to “shove it”, to apologize when you have done something incorrect , to never call people names and to generally act like a lady. For someone so worldly and who speaks 5 languages, she sure can act like a low-class woman. I would even go so far as to say that I don’t blame her first-born son for wanting to stay away from her “limelight”.
To keep from scaring away those of us undecided voters with old-fashioned principles, I would recommend to Kerry and his campaign to reign in the proposed first lady a bit. Some of us may think that it is better for women to stay “on topic” or to remain seen and not heard.
Respond
|
| Flip flopper or fact finder? |
| Posted by Michael Moretsky at 10:58 AM |
“Flip-flop, flip-flop…”
So goes the chants of the GOP. Of course they're referring to Kerry and what they perceive are his flip-flopping ways. Bush even denounced Kerry in a recent campaign stop for changing his mind about the war in Iraq. ‘w’ stated “Kerry woke up yesterday with yet another new position…”
Now, let me refresh you. Two years ago, Congress and we the people were told that, without a doubt, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. We were told we should be scared. We were told that if we were to put plastic and duct tape up on our windows maybe we will be ok. Remember this? I remember ‘w’ on TV saying without a doubt Iraq had WMDs. I remember Cheney on TV saying without a doubt Iraq had WMDs. I remember Colon Powell on TV saying without a doubt Iraq had WMDs. And I remember trusting these people.
Congress trusted them, too. And Congress (Kerry included) gave the president their support. Now whudduya know? It turns out that the ‘intelligence’ was faulty. Guess what, there was never any real evidence that WMDs ever existed! But lack of facts won’t stop this president, no sir. ‘w’ will stick to his guns. And isn’t this really what we want in a president? I mean Kerry was supportive of the war based on the faulty, inaccurate intelligence we were all told about. Then we find out that the intelligence was wrong and Kerry no longer supports the war. ‘w’ calls assimilating new information and making a sound decision flip-flopping.
I call it actually using your gray matter. Being able to adapt and adjust your stance on issues is actually something I do want in the leader of the free world. ‘w’ will stay the course and never admit he was wrong and made a bad decision based on bad facts. Kerry changed his stance based on new and accurate information. This further convinces me that Kerry is more qualified to be president.
Respond
|
September 08, 2004
| What makes Washington a swing state |
| Posted by Shalini Gujavarty at 05:16 PM |
I was an avid Howard Dean supporter and am a reluctant Kerry supporter. I can't believe that it was about a year ago when I attended the Magnuson Awards for Washington Democrats. At this time last year, Dean was the star speaker at the Maggie awards.
There's a very good article on Slate on a topic I've been very curious about - why Washington is still considered a swing state when Kerry has been consistently leading Bush by wide margins for the past few months according to the leading polls: According to the article, both parties are invested in WA because of the *non* Presidential races at issue this fall: Murray v Nethercutt, Barbieri v Rep to be named, and Rossi v Dem to be named.
After the Repbulican convention, Bush is leading Kerry in some polls. And, according to some network wags, the Swift Boat ads have harmed Kerry. Since the ads have apparently only aired in battleground states, the fact that national polls show that Kerry has been harmed demonstrates that the media coverage of the ads more than the ads themselves have influenced voters. The media didn't immediately highlight that 90% of the allegations in the Swift Boat 527 ads were demonstrably false and this was not responsible journalism.
Did the press drop the ball on reporting the Swift Boat ads? Is Washington really a swing state?
Respond |
| How to make voting 'hot' |
| Posted by Libby Liming at 05:10 PM |
WIRED magazine has an online article about a new website called “Vote Or Not,” which launched over the weekend. I had some time, so I checked it out.
The picture on the front page is a teensy bit disturbing, but Vote or Not’s website is a killer idea. Like the owners’ “other website”, they are using something “attractive” to get people to hit their site: an offer of a $100,000 to a person drawn at random, and then $100,000 to the person who got the winner to sign up.
By offering a reasonable sum (evidently, through research, they found that $100k was a lot more believable amount than $1 million…) they are drawing people to their site. (“To avoid violating federal and state election laws that make it illegal to pay people to vote, the contest is open to all U.S. citizens 18 or older regardless of whether they're on the voter rolls themselves.”)
By getting people to surf their site, they are pointing out the fact that one really must vote if one wants to make a difference. (In case you have not read the papers or seen the news lately, and received the same subliminal message through those outlets.) They are traveling in the same vein as “Rock the Vote” by saying “Hey! Voting is cool! You can even win $100,000 if you get OTHER people to vote!!”
There is a down side to this “bribe you with money to raise awareness for voting” idea…like I insinuated in yesterday’s post, there are a lot of people who vote for certain candidates for odd reasons (cool t-shirts anyone?).
I’m under the impression that people who fall in that particular category of voters (neither Democrat, nor Republican, but Whatever-I-Feel-Like-at-This-Moment-ican) may actually be the kind of person who don’t care what their candidate of choice will be doing while in office. I’m worried that if we get all of these fresh-out-of-high-school 18 year olds registered to vote, (no offense, blogger Will, you are definitely the exception to the rule) the result will be a bunch of people voting for Bush because they giggle every time they say his name on the news. I definitely don’t think THAT’S a good idea.
“Vote or Not” doesn’t have anywhere DIRECTLY on their website to register. However, in case someone needs a place to register, they do direct you to www.rockthevote.com.
And if you feel so inclined, you can register on “Vote or Not” under my name…
Is Vote or Not a Smart Idea or Not? Respond
|
| Do Republicans have better bandwidth to God? |
| Posted by Stephen Russell at 01:16 PM |
My post last Wednesday received this response:
To you, it may seem unsettling that someone bases their decisions upon personal faith. To me, on the other hand, it is unsettling that you consider that "unsettling." Do you agree that President Bush has freedom of religion in this country? Then he ought to be able to express that religion in a free, unconstrained manner, right? Are you aware that religion has an effect upon ethical activity? Furthermore, are you aware that ethics has an effect upon political activity? So religion influences ethics, and ethics influences politics. Do you have a problem with that? If so, why? Are you trying to restrict President Bush's freedom of religion? What gives you the right to do that? You should ask yourself why you are bigoted against religious belief. Why is that, my friend?
Fuzzy logic for certain. But the reader brings up questions that are well worth addressing.
I am not, as the reader says, “bigoted against religious belief.” What I am is unsettled by the fact that our president makes decisions for every American (regardless of their religious beliefs) based on his barely-informed “gut” reactions (which are rooted very firmly in a conservative brand of Christianity).
Religion, as the reader notes, influences ethics. However, in making a presidential decision religion should not be at the core of those ethics; his religious ideology and analytical thinking should not be mutually exclusive. I happen to practice my faith inwardly, and allow it to guide my ethical decision making without dominating it. That’s just me. This president, on the other hand, seems to practice his religion outwardly: projecting onto Americans and the world. This is a quality of the president that I disagree with – not that I’m “bigoted.”
In some ways, George Bush’s use of religion in making presidential decisions is an infringement on Americans’ freedom of religion. Examples are plentiful: stem cell research, gay marriage, abortion, the death penalty, etc (am I leaving anything out?). If you follow politics at all, you know where the president stands on these issues. You might also know that his attitude towards these issues is based on his religious beliefs. So what we have are important policies being made – determining how we as Americans live our lives – that come from a conservative Christian point of view. So when the Constitution says Americans have the freedom to practice their own religion, George Bush says “only if you agree with me.”
Please read a very interesting Boston Globe column on this issue, which likens the GOP connection with God as “DSL”, while the Democrats only have a measly “dial-up.”
Respond
|
September 07, 2004
| Blogger back and forth |
| Posted by Libby Liming at 02:20 PM |
From Libby to Ian:
In response to your earlier entry: I guess I am truly an endangered species. I honestly believe I am an “indie” and I will choose a candidate on his/her merits, not their party. I have only voted in a few elections (all local elections, as I recall), but would never vote for someone just because they are Democrat/Republican/Green Party. I think that is one of the most narrow-minded and apathetic things a person can do in their lifetime.
To answer the primary question: I have not heard a whole lot I admire about either the Democratic or Republican candidates for POTUS. It is not that I hate either one of them or would vote for one (or NONE, as the case may be) just so I would not have to vote for the other; I just don’t hear a whole lot of positive things coming from either campaign.
I don’t hear candidates addressing issues (except for Kerry pledging to help the “middle class”, which doesn’t help ME out… ).
I do not hear the people introducing the candidates addressing issues. So far, all I see is pointing fingers and poking fun and people booing and pointing fingers and wearing little Purple Heart stickers on Band-Aids , and frankly, I left that sort of behavior behind in high school for a reason.
I want a president who will be able to get through a whole sentence without a speechwriter whispering in his ear, but I also want one who can make a firm decision. I want a president who will help everyone out (not just his buddies), but I also want a president who knows exactly who it is he’s helping. I want a president who doesn’t exist, probably.
Would someone PLEASE direct me to the nearest person who will explain exactly what the candidates I CAN choose from will do to make my country better? Will it just be a choice between the lesser of 2 evils for me??
Thanks!
Libby
Respond
|
| A vote for Kerry or against Bush? |
| Posted by Michael Moretsky at 11:38 AM |
I was out with friends this weekend and naturally the conversation turned to the election. Most of the folks I hang out with are just as if not more left-leaning than me. All of us agreed that we are dissatisfied with where John Kerry’s campaign seems to be heading. The polls show he is slipping and I think I know why.
There is something going sideways in John Kerry’s campaign. He has replaced many top operatives throughout the campaign and there seems to be no focus or goal other than winning the presidency. Well, that is the goal after all but I want to know more about what a Kerry presidency is going to look like. So far the Kerry campaign has not satisfied me.
People who are going to vote for Kerry can be divided into two groups: those who are voting for Kerry and those who are voting against Bush. I expect the ‘against Bush’ group is much larger than the ‘for Kerry’ group. I am an ‘against Bush’ voter but I would much prefer to be a ‘for Kerry’ voter.
I want to know more about John Kerry. I want him to respond to the attack ads about how many legislative votes he has missed. I want him to settle this swiftboat debate once and for all. I want him to be much more emotive when he speaks in public.
I think John Kerry might be relying too heavily on people who will vote against Bush no matter what. The anti-Bush numbers are large, this is true, but not large enough to get Kerry elected. I think John Kerry is making a mistake by not being more proactive in his fight for the presidency.
It will be the undecided voters out there that will determine this election. Those who are voting ‘against Bush’ have already made up their minds. However, there are a lot of undecided folks out there who will either vote for Bush or for Kerry. These are the people John Kerry needs to focus his campaign on if he is to win. When he slams Bush he is just preaching to the choir. When he talks more about himself and his policies he is assisting the undecided in making their choice.
So, I am curious. Of you readers out there who will be voting for Kerry this November are you actually voting FOR Kerry or AGAINST Bush? And I ask the same question to those voting for Bush. Is it because you want ‘w’ in the Oval Office or because you do not want Kerry there?
Respond |
| The t-shirt contest |
| Posted by Libby Liming at 11:00 AM |
“I’m voting for Kerry, because his t-shirts are cooler.”
I honestly, swear on a stack of phone books, heard a woman say that this past weekend. I was standing towards the back of the mosh pit at the Nickelback concert at Bumbershoot, and I turned to see a girl with a big green Mohawk sitting with a guy with really big pants and lots of piercings. I smiled at them, assuming they were the source of the interesting comment I just heard.
The voice that uttered the prior Kerry comment went on to laud the buttons that Kerry’s campaign was selling, and it did not come from the lovely Mohawk girl. It came from the two older ladies standing next to her. Shame on me for assuming.
Although the comment made me wince at its severity in judgment, it also made me ponder: do you think that there are a majority of people that vote that way? Is this a market that Kerry (or Bush) should corner in order to win this election? The “People who really don’t care about your stance as long as your t-shirts are cool” demographic?
Respond |
| Insight near Issaquah |
| Posted by William Thomas Mari at 09:00 AM |
This past Labor Day weekend, my family and I saw a most interesting sight (and I promise you, none of the following anecdotal details have been embellished in the least): Getting off I-90 in Issaquah, we pulled behind a white Lincoln continental.
A little old lady is driving, her head just barely reaching her seat rest, so you can only just tell someone’s in command of the vehicle. On the back fender was a “John Kerry/John Edwards 2004” campaign sticker. O.K., nothing to be excited about. Just a sweet lady with very large sunglasses, a comfy car, and a Kerry sticker.
Then, we spy something else. Right in the back window, located dead center in the driver’s blind spot, is a large picture taped haphazardly to the glass. “What could that be?” I wondered. Lo and behold, it is a photograph of John Kerry himself, holding hands with John Edwards at the Democratic convention! Just in case you forgot who they were! At first, I thought that it was just plain silly. But then it struck me -- the lady had made a point (unintentionally, bless her heart).
Boiled down, the DNC was about one person: John Kerry. “Of course,” you might say, “who else?” Exactly!
I watched both conventions, and the thing that struck me the most about the Democrats’ convention was the over-arching theme of John Kerry’s record, in particular, who the man is. The focus was not on what he wants to do if he becomes president, but rather on Kerry the man. That isn’t bad necessarily, but it did appear, well, a bit odd. I mean, shouldn’t the convention be a platform launcher, a time for big ideas and practical solutions? Shouldn’t it be an opportunity to hold a referendum on the incumbent, and not one on yourself?
Articles like “What makes John Kerry tick?” were the seeming focus of that week back in July. Now that the confetti has settled, so to speak, the Democrats appeared to have spent a great deal of time explaining who their candidate was, as opposed to the Republicans, who didn’t have to. I wonder if that was such a great idea.
As the goofy picture of John Kerry and John Edwards on the elderly lady’s car illustrated, we now know who Kerry is (sort of ;-), but not really what he wants to do. President Bush is someone we all know, for better or worse, and the RNC spelled out what he wants to do in his second term.
Perhaps the advice former President Clinton gave Kerry this past weekend was about how to be more proactive, how to be more about doing, and not explaining, in other words, more simple...like President Bush.
So, it will be interesting to see how things play out in the two-odd months left in the election season…almost as interesting as seeing John Kerry’s photo taped to a car window.
Respond
|
September 03, 2004
| GOP and proud...with a pause |
| Posted by Garrett Ryan Ferencz at 04:05 PM |
Huddled around a 15-inch television with yesterday’s pizza (just because we are Republicans does not mean we are not 20-something and still paying student loans), several like-minded friends and I watched last night as President Bush laid out his plan for the next four years. By the end of the speech, we were cheering along with those at Madison Square Gardens. Why would anyone put our national security into the hands of this weak-kneed liberal from Massachusetts; how would we trust our economy to a man who has never seen a tax he has not hiked?
I was soon answered…or in fact questioned…it was back to the water cooler.
As I walked (outside of Texas perhaps some would say swaggered) into work this morning, I found myself back at the water cooler; this time instead of finding good spirited political banter—I was faced with serious concern.
My boss asked if I knew that a Bush tort reform bill would make it too costly for our firm to advance the wrongful death case for a family whose child died due to a doctor’s negligence? Or take on a contingency case of a worker who had been sexually harassed? I had no answer.
Then a fellow associate chimed in, asking me if I heard the part about the Defense of Marriage Act? Did I hear that Bush does not want to let her marry? I had no answer.
As I walked to my office (this time a humble Washington state stride) I realized that although this blogger is still voting for W, this election is not as simple as it seems.
Respond |
| I can't hear you over that crowd-control device |
| Posted by Jay Porter at 01:48 PM |
On the Daily Show, I saw footage of Dick Cheney robotically reciting part of the Gettysburg Address for a mic check. It might as well have been Lynne's shopping list for all the emotion he showed. Apparently someone even managed to give Senator Rick Santorum his meds before he went on stage—he talked calmly about promoting healthy marriages among poor people, which I could almost agree with. At least it's better than his fulminating about how giving me the right to marry David would somehow corrode our neighbors' vows.
After a relatively restrained week, it was all the more troubling to see Sen. Zell Miller on the podium with the wild-eyed rage of a backwoods preacher. The media have been pretty tough on him—actually checking the "facts" he shared with America—but given the reaction to Howard Dean's tame-by-comparison scream a few months ago, you would have expected the men in white coats to have appeared to escort Miller off.
Maybe we all know to expect a little bit of crazy talk from a Republican Convention. I have to agree with big-time blogger Atrios, who gave Miller props for doing something nobody thought possible: outdoing "even the original German version" of Pat Buchanan's 1992 "culture war" speech. Yep, it just wouldn't be the GOP we love without a little blind hatred to spice things up.
Just in case you're wondering, the political rhetoric wasn't the only thing that got turned up in NYC this week. I'll be posting later in the weekend about some scary goings-on outside the convention hall… one of my best friends in New York says he spotted the police wielding an "experimental sound weapon." (Editor's note: ABC News reported the deployment plan for the use of an audio crowd control device pre-convention). I'm waiting to see if the mainstream media find this as interesting as I do.
Respond
|
| Remember 2000? |
| Posted by Anna Kleppert at 12:52 PM |
I’ve had some fun poking around transcripts from the Gore/Bush debates of 2000. Those voters still left on the fence should consider themselves lucky that, thanks to the Internet, they’re able to contrast the incumbent’s promises during those debates with what has been accomplished during the last four years.
In 2000, when then-Governor Bush was asked how he would determine whether force was in our nation’s best interest in the context of foreign policy issues, he outlined four imperatives for the use of such force: a pressing national interest, including the consideration of dangers posed to our allies; a mission at hand that could be viewed with clarity; a prepared and willing defense; and the existence of an “exit strategy." Hmmm. Seems he may have been lacking a few of those last year.
“I would take the use of force very seriously,” Bush continued. “I would be guarded in my approach.” Last spring’s rush to war, that cavalier line of attack our president employed was anything but guarded. It was downright cavalier.
Respond |
| Another view of RNC |
| Posted by Stephen Russell at 10:27 AM |
So it’s over. What a week. Every time I turned on the TV I was met with surprise after surprise, fresh concepts and new ideas. My world was shaking at its foundation. Yes, NBC’s early start to the fall season was quite spectacular.
What? A convention? New York? Oh yeah, forgot about that. Sorry.
So, now that the Republicans have finished pandering to their base, what was your impression of the Republicans Take Manhattan 2004?
I posed a question to readers on Monday: Does the Bush campaign’s use of New York City as a political strategy piece amount to exploitation?
I got a number of responses to this post; most of them were angry that I’d even asked the question. But today is Friday -- we heard President Bush’s speech last night, as well as the hundreds (felt like thousands), of references to 9/11 in the days leading up to it. I’d like to know if what I said on Monday still resonates with anyone.
Three things I took away from the RNC: the cross on the podium (message to non-Christians, “you’re irrelevant”); Bush’s speech about what he wanted to do if he is re-elected, but what he “neglected to do the first time around”; and the complete absence of any mention of Osama Bin Laden.
Respond |
| Notes from watching RNC |
| Posted by Matthew Ranger at 08:53 AM |
- Zell Miller continues to stick to a party that drifted away from him long ago. I would say that it is now widely agreed that he is a Democrat in name only and is no longer anywhere near the party's current stance. He seems to be the last of a dying breed. Is it counterproductive for him to stay and try to pull the party back in his direction?
- I noticed that when Pataki was thanking people for their post 9/11 support, aside from New York, he only managed to thank people from swing states. How politically astute of him.
- I was quite struck by the last line of John McCain's speech. "We are Americans, and we will never surrender." It was simple in that it illustrated the administration's attitude on terrorism, but it was complex it that it illustrated what separates us from the rest of the world, and indeed, what separates red America from blue America.
- I noticed that as Bush was talking about our troops and their sacrifices, he was starting to get emotional. His eyes were watering and it felt like he had to push his way through that portion of the speech by sheer force of will. I see that as a testimony to the sincerity of the words and the honest appreciation he feels for our armed forces.
In summary: though is was a great convention, I'd only expect a small bounce in the polls due to the polarized electorate. It will be a tight race heading into the debates, which, minus the capture of Osama Bin Laden or a major terrorist attack, I would expect to be the decisive factor in this election.
Respond - What are your thoughts after the Republican National Convention? |
September 02, 2004
| Now for the real fun |
| Posted by Michael Moretsky at 10:55 AM |
Tonight Bush will give his speech. He will tout his policies and congratulate himself on how successful his presidency is and he will state that he is going to win in November. He will discuss how the world is a safer place, people are happier, and there is a chicken in every pot.
He will be interrupted numerous times by cheers, applause, and standing ovations. He will invite Cheney up at the end of the speech, they will embrace, speak off mike in each others ears, laugh a little, and then hold their clenched fists in the air and wave as their wives dutifully join them at their sides. Yawn. And the Bush and Cheney show will be over. Now the real fun begins.
The end of the RNC for me marks the true beginning of the presidential race. We are now down to the nitty-gritty final stretch where we will be bombarded with ads, polls, and news. Bush and Cheney will no longer be in NYC preaching to their choir in a well-scripted production where accountability to the facts does not exist. I hope they enjoy tonight. It may just be the last good day of their administration.
It was a good show, the RNC. Since it took place in New York I think it is eligible for the Tony Awards. Of course, Cheney does not have the voice of Nathan Lane, but I am pretty sure he is a shoe-in for Best Supporting Actor.
But it is time to see these guys off script. I absolutely cannot wait for the debates. More than anything, I think this shows the true ability of the nominees’ ability to lead, think fast, and adapt to a high pressure environment. Quite frankly, I expect ‘w’ will squirm.
What I have not seen in the last four years is the president being held to task by his opposition while in the same room. It has been rhetoric and platitude being dizzily spun and bounced back and forth via sound-bites and newspaper clippings from one party to the other. But the president has not, as I believe every good leader should, engaged in an active on-going policy debate with those who do not see things as he does. This is essential to good leadership and it is here that ‘w’ has failed.
He has not acknowledged that there is any other way to do things except his own way. He has not acknowledged that many of his constituents do not view the world as he does and we do not necessarily want to live in the world according to George. We are not happy here. Only because he is backed in to a corner by this election will he participate in a debate. ‘w’ does not want to debate. He is afraid to because he knows his policies and actions are not sound and he knows he will not win. In regards to overall charisma and speaking ability he is no match for Kerry.
Once the lights of Madison Square Garden are turned out and the red, white, and blue balloons and confetti are all swept up, Bush and Cheney will be off script, and will need to improvise their way through the rest of the election season, much the way they seem to have made it up as they went along throughout their administration. And we the people are going to pay close attention.
Respond
|
| Getting the job done |
| Posted by Garrett Ryan Ferencz at 10:51 AM |
Three days have passed since the opening bells summoned our country to the Republican National Convention in NYC. The lineup began with a fiery speech of remembrance from Rudy Giuliani and ended last night with the damning brimstone of the Democratic Senator from Georgia, Zell Miller. Virtually every pundit agrees that, at least to this point, the Republicans are getting the job done.
The impact is visible at my office this morning. The hardcore liberals are angry and quiet. The moderates are admitting that Kerry may be too weak to successfully defend our country. The Republicans.... Okay, that's just me, but regardless... I have a bit more spring in my step and I am very excited to vote for our president this November.
However, as I was about brim over with confidence, I saw the liberal counter attack sneaking up behind me. A paralegal in our office, bits of steam rising from his crown, made two points. Firstly, the Republican convention does not represent the party as a whole (a sentiment echoed by a few of my fellow bloggers). And, secondly, Senator Miller's hateful and negative speech is going to backfire.
The Big Tent
My first thought was the irony of the objection to the Republican’s big tent. The GOP did not put up obscure and irrelevant politicians; instead they presented the ex-mayor of New York City, the governor of California, a sitting Democratic senator, and Vice President Dick Cheney. Without exception, all four of these men are significant leaders of our nation, who have a direct impact on the policy in the sphere of their influence. Perhaps more significant. though, is the ideological diversity they represent on issues like abortion, gay rights, and gun control. A stark contrast, to the Democratic party's convention, which highlighted Hillary Clinton, Al Sharpton, and a liberal from Massachusetts.
A Sensitive Nation
It also amazes me that our country has become so sensitive that there is actually a debate over whether one should name the other candidate directly during a convention. Seriously, a debate on whether or not you can talk about someone's record, call a spade a spade, and a liberal senator...well a liberal senator! If our children can survive the kind of junk that is now allowed on television, the fighting we see on reality TV, then surely we can listen to a speech like Zell Miller's and reintroduce our public lives with some zest and flavor. After all this is not a beauty pageant, but a race to decide who is going to lead the strongest nation on earth.
Respond
|
| From one blogger to another: |
| Posted by Ian Stewart at 10:46 AM |
Hola, fellow blogger Liming.
Wow. An actual undecided voter. I feel like we should be doing some taxonomy on you, Voticus Pendulus (minus the killing and the painful pokey pins). You do realize you’re worth your weight in gold (or at least candidate mailings) for the next few months? How much was that guy (bet it was Nader) offering you? (Libby’s post)
So, if we, the intrepid Bloggy Bloggers are going to help you, we need some more info to give you a hand. I’m hoping to construct a “waterslide of logic” that will splash you down in the left side of the pool…but before that, I must repeat just how rare and important you are.
Undecided and (potentially?) independent voters are the front axle to this Model T we call America. In Washington, for example, there are roughly equal numbers of R’s and D’s (well, allright, a few more D’s lately). And then there’s some people who say they are an 'Independent,' but when knocked on the head with the ball a few times, they move left or right. That leaves a paltry 5 or 10% who you represent. In the end, all the campaigns are flirting to convince you to take them to the dance. And, *not* targeting you with this analogy, if you do, they’ll definitely score.
So, are you In Fact an Indie? Let’s begin the diagnosis…what do you like about Bush and Kerry?
|
| Zell Miller = the new Maggie and Scoop? |
| Posted by Carl Gipson at 08:26 AM |
It will be interesting to see how Democratic Senator Zell Miller’s speech at the Republican National Convention will be portrayed in the years to come. Though a bit over-the-top, Miller’s portrayal of the moving-ever-leftward Democratic party ought to inspire many Democrats to reassess what they really stand for and the type of candidate they need to nominate to lead their party in the future.
Not too long ago I would have eagerly voted for Democrats Warren Magnuson or Scoop Jackson, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say the two Washington political stalwarts would be categorized as at least as moderate a Democrat as Miller, if not a Schwarzenegger/Giuliani-type Republican.
What will the impact of Miller’s speech have on the undecided electorate? Anyone who knows anything about Senator Miller knows he’s now a Democrat in name only. Still, you got to hand it to the Republicans for including him in the national spotlight. A masterful move certain to bring a payoff for the president.
Respond
|
September 01, 2004
| The friend who won't vote |
| Posted by Anna Kleppert at 11:14 AM |
I have a friend who is not voting this year. He has historically leaned Republican and he voted for Bush last time. This year something has changed. My friend is neither indifferent nor apathetic; he's just frustrated. He feels his views are not well represented by W, and he takes moral issue with some of Cheney's recent public and private choices.
So he's opting out. He expressed to me that he does not want to participate in a "lesser of two evils" decision, and finds it sad and disheartening that many of his Democratic friends are doing just that. Which is true. How many times have I cringed when a friend has started talking about the appeal of Nader's platform? Many. Not because I don't agree with his stances on issues such as health care and the Patriot Act. To the contrary, I think he expresses some of my chief frustrations, and I am drawn to the idealistic campaign he's running. I cringe because I am worried.
"No, no, no!" I protest. "We've got to get Bush out of there. He's got to go! We must band together, we must unite, does anyone remember 2000?" I wail, and then listen to how pathetic I sound. Evidently my idea of democracy has gone the way of the dinosaur (or better yet- the independent candidate). I don't think Kerry embodies many characteristics of an ideal national leader. His foreign policy stances do not resonate with me, or with many of my liberal friends. Maybe some conservative Republicans are getting riled up about the sanctity of marriage, but international peace as an institution is one of my own "hot-button" issues. It is in this department and several others that I feel Kerry is not best representing my own interests. He was certainly not the candidate I was zealously following during the democratic caucuses. Yet I'm voting for Kerry, and I have no question about it. I have resigned myself to the "Anybody but Bush" mentality, and I'm sticking with it, for better or worse.
What can this mean? I've seen much written about how fabulous it is to see Democrats united for a common cause. But the truth is we do not agree on the issues in any sense. We all have very different concerns that, to us, are the most pressing. But W has polarized us, for better or worse, and I now feel forced to vote for a man who does not excite me. This is not reviving my faith in democracy.
What can it mean when so many people who will vote Democrat this fall will, truly, be voting against the Bush administration instead of voting for the Kerry platform? I think it just means that while we'd like to think of ourselves as idealistic Democrats who stick to our guns and vote for whomever we think will best contribute to the common good, we've put some of those ideas aside for 2004. We've taken the bait. We're willing to subjugate some of our personal "hot-button" issues for the overarching common good of seeing Bush out of office. Not only will replacing Bush add to our own country's well being, but it will add to the world's as well, and I think that's why we're standing by Kerry. We've joined the bandwagon and I don't think any of us are getting off.
Anyone else out there choosing to opt out of this year's elections? Tell us why. |
| Grand Old marketing |
| Posted by Stephen Russell at 09:45 AM |
Check out Bob Herbert’s piece in Monday’s New York Times.
Herbert's got it right. Let’s not expect anything new from the GOP convention, just like we weren’t surprised by the Democrats a few weeks back.
This is a week-long advertisement for the Grand Ol’ Party: well planned, scripted, and rehearsed. If you don’t have cable, you get three hours of live coverage this week (unless you watch PBS, and here’s hoping you will) that won’t be rehashed by the network news before broadcast. If anyone who watches this convention is at all surprised or even (gasp!) swayed by any of the speeches in the coming week, please let me know.
Also, take a gander at Allen and Broder’s Washington Post (reprinted in today’s Seattle Times) piece on Bush’s leadership style.
Some words used by sources for the article to describe the president’s leadership/decision making : “workmanlike” “no curiosity, no policy fire” “intellectually lazy” “not very analytical.”
Three things that I took away from this: that the President’s decisions tend to be made with a very small, controlled, group of advisors (what is described in the article as a “closed loop”); that once the president picks a basic course, he will be resolute in sticking to it; and that the president makes quick “gut” decisions after hearing a minimum of information on the subject.
When I read this, I asked myself: How would I react to a boss with this leadership style? I would find it exceedingly frustrating. If you were not part of the inner circle that Allen and Broder describe, your knowledge and opinions might not matter. If you were in the inner circle and had access to the president, you would end up not only filtering the important information that your boss would need to see, but doing the analytical work that your boss won’t do for himself.
Finally, the fact that the president left no question as to the influence of conservative Christianity in his decision-making process, as well as the fact that many of his decisions are made from the “gut,” leads me to see presidential decisions coming not from a well thought-out plan of action, with many sides and viewpoints assessed and included, but from a very personal, individual belief system deeply informed by personal faith. It’s a little too unsettling.
Best line from last night’s Daily Show: “To call this convention manipulative is to call Marcel Marceau a little quiet.”
Respond
|
| Still trying to sell that soul |
| Posted by Libby Liming at 08:23 AM |
Shockingly, I received just one response to my earlier post about "selling my political soul." (By the way, sir, I appreciate your response very much). I just want to clarify - I am not selling my vote.
I still am unsure whom I'll be voting for, but that's beside the point. I want to know what the merits/pitfalls of choosing a party would be. I want to know if I can just remain an independent. I want to know if I should just stay with choosing a candidate on his/her merits and voting records like I have been, or vote on straight ticket like some people I know (i.e. vote for solely Republicans or Democrats.)
Respond |
|
|
|
|
|
October 2005
|
|
| S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
| 2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
| 9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
| 16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
| 23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
| 30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top