2008: Where the presidential contenders stand on climate and energy issues
The online environmental magazine Grist has created a useful chart that compares the candidates' environmental records and rhetoric: <http://grist.org/candidate_chart_08.html>
2008: Bloomberg's not-so-independent run
Bloomberg Moves Closer to Running for President
(Headline, The New York Times, 2007-12-31)
You gotta love it. First Mike Bloomberg was going to run an independent candidacy for president if the Democratic and Republican nominees had "high negatives," i.e., when the conventional wisdom was that it would be Clinton vs Giuliani. Now he's going to jump in if the nominees are "poles apart," i.e., now that it looks like Huckabee vs Edwards or Obama.
So it's safe to say, he wants to run, and he'll find a reason.
The thing is, though, a campaign against Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani made some sense; they are divisive figures with stratospheric negatives. An independent candidate in that situation might hope to be more than a spoiler, as Ross Perot was for George H.W. Bush in 1992.
On the other hand, in many ways Mike Huckabee and John Edwards aren't poles apart, aside from that 40-point IQ spread: for example, both have made ending poverty central to their campaigns, and each inclines naturally to positive campaigning. Both are well-liked, and it is difficult to imagine an independent succeeding against attractive red and/or blue party candidates, as Ross Perot found out when he ran against Bill Clinton in 1992.
Plus, Barack Obama is a bigger conciliator and compromiser than Bloomberg will ever dream of being, so why oppose him?
Anyway, it looks like the Establishment that was displaced by the Bush radicals intends to use Bloomberg to restore the ancien régime (see below, A disempowered Establishment makes its move).
So much for the principled moderate.
(Headline, The New York Times, 2007-12-31)
You gotta love it. First Mike Bloomberg was going to run an independent candidacy for president if the Democratic and Republican nominees had "high negatives," i.e., when the conventional wisdom was that it would be Clinton vs Giuliani. Now he's going to jump in if the nominees are "poles apart," i.e., now that it looks like Huckabee vs Edwards or Obama.
So it's safe to say, he wants to run, and he'll find a reason.
The thing is, though, a campaign against Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani made some sense; they are divisive figures with stratospheric negatives. An independent candidate in that situation might hope to be more than a spoiler, as Ross Perot was for George H.W. Bush in 1992.
On the other hand, in many ways Mike Huckabee and John Edwards aren't poles apart, aside from that 40-point IQ spread: for example, both have made ending poverty central to their campaigns, and each inclines naturally to positive campaigning. Both are well-liked, and it is difficult to imagine an independent succeeding against attractive red and/or blue party candidates, as Ross Perot found out when he ran against Bill Clinton in 1992.
Plus, Barack Obama is a bigger conciliator and compromiser than Bloomberg will ever dream of being, so why oppose him?
Anyway, it looks like the Establishment that was displaced by the Bush radicals intends to use Bloomberg to restore the ancien régime (see below, A disempowered Establishment makes its move).
So much for the principled moderate.
2008: A disempowered Establishment makes its move
David Broder, Bloviator-in-Chief at The Washington Post, is reporting that a "bipartisan group" is considering backing an independent run for the White House, possibly by New York City's mayor, the rare politician who could single-handedly fund such an operation.
The question arises whether the threat to unleash an independent challenger is genuine or if the specter of a Bloomberg candidacy is being used to frighten the big party nominees into line behind the restoration of a deposed Establishment after eight years of policy excesses and abuses of power by the Bush-Cheney radicals. The self-described "centrists" may also hope to prevent American voters, revolted by the corruption and incompetence of the current presidency, from "going too far" and electing a populist peace candidate who will not understand that what is needed is not a change of policy but a change of management.
With the possibility that the reliably status quo candidacies of Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton could be dead as early as next week, the Establishment is waking up to the likelihood that the next president -- be he John Edwards, Barack Obama, Mike Huckebee or Mitt Romney -- may not be as committed as they are to restoring the reins of American power to their dead hands.
How hard these Bush years must have been on them, exiled to endowed chairs on provincial college campuses with nothing to do but watch "Empires Behaving Badly" videos.
As reported by Broder, the group invading Norman next week is notable for its lack of what Bill Clinton might describe as "change agents:"
For his part, Bloomberg, who has been flirting all year with the idea of running as an independent, may see the meeting as an opportunity to use those who would use him. "As mayor, he has seen far too often how hyperpartisanship in Washington has gotten in the way of making progress on a host of issues," said Bloomberg's press secretary, Stu Loeser. "He looks forward to sitting down and discussing this with other leaders."
Nunn and Cohen went out of their way on talk television this morning to say that the meeting is not intended to generate an independent candidacy, but is about the need to rebuild and reconfigure our military forces, about the risks from nuclear proliferation and terrorism, and about restoring U.S. credibility in the world.
Funnily enough, two of the candidates most likely to be the nominees, Edwards and Huckabee, are issues-oriented and unlikely to be particularly partisan as campaigners or as president. I suspect that either one of them will welcome the support of politicians from any party who are willing to sign on to the particulars of their respective programs.
Voters should be suspicious of a call for a "government of national unity" that is devoid of content, as if the only thing that's important is whether we can't all just get along. If Nunn and his comrades want to get behind someone who supports universal health care and reduced military spending, as the majority of the American people do, it might be easier to take them seriously. But power, unfortunately, not the quality of the lives of Americans, is what is behind rhetoric that equates partisan divisions during what they inflate to "a time of national challenge" with the difficulties faced by Great Britain during World War II.
It's difficult not to conclude that Nunn et al will be content to accept as worthy of the office any White House aspirant who indicates his willingness to welcome them back to the table.
The rest of the story: The Washington Post
New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, has scheduled a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a "government of national unity" to end the gridlock in Washington.The effort is being led by, among others, former U.S. senators Sam Nunn and David Boren. In a letter sent to those summoned to the Jan. 7 session, the once-powerful solons said that "our political system is, at the least, badly bent and many are concluding that it is broken at a time where America must lead boldly at home and abroad. Partisan polarization is preventing us from uniting to meet the challenges that we must face if we are to prevent further erosion in America's power of leadership and example."
Those who will be at the Jan. 7 session at the University of Oklahoma say that if the likely nominees of the two parties do not pledge to "go beyond tokenism" in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party campaign for president.
The question arises whether the threat to unleash an independent challenger is genuine or if the specter of a Bloomberg candidacy is being used to frighten the big party nominees into line behind the restoration of a deposed Establishment after eight years of policy excesses and abuses of power by the Bush-Cheney radicals. The self-described "centrists" may also hope to prevent American voters, revolted by the corruption and incompetence of the current presidency, from "going too far" and electing a populist peace candidate who will not understand that what is needed is not a change of policy but a change of management.
With the possibility that the reliably status quo candidacies of Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton could be dead as early as next week, the Establishment is waking up to the likelihood that the next president -- be he John Edwards, Barack Obama, Mike Huckebee or Mitt Romney -- may not be as committed as they are to restoring the reins of American power to their dead hands.
How hard these Bush years must have been on them, exiled to endowed chairs on provincial college campuses with nothing to do but watch "Empires Behaving Badly" videos.
As reported by Broder, the group invading Norman next week is notable for its lack of what Bill Clinton might describe as "change agents:"
Conveners of the meeting include such prominent Democrats as former senators Sam Nunn (Ga.), Charles S. Robb (Va.) and David L. Boren (Okla.), and former presidential candidate Gary Hart. Republican organizers include Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), former party chairman Bill Brock, former senator John Danforth (Mo.) and former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman.It may be lulling that Boren, who will host the gathering as Sooner president, asserted to Broder that the meet "is not a gathering to urge any one person to run for president or to say there necessarily ought to be an independent option. But if we don't see a refocusing of the campaign on a bipartisan approach, I would feel I would want to encourage an independent candidacy."
The list of acceptances suggests that the group could muster the financial and political firepower to make the threat of such a candidacy real. Others who have indicated that they plan to attend the one-day session include William S. Cohen, a former Republican senator from Maine and defense secretary in the Clinton administration; Alan Dixon, a former Democratic senator from Illinois; Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida; Jim Leach, a former Republican congressman from Iowa; Susan Eisenhower, a political consultant and granddaughter of former president Dwight D. Eisenhower; David Abshire, president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency; and Edward Perkins, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.Honestly, weren't you just as happy when you thought that most of these people were gone for good?
For his part, Bloomberg, who has been flirting all year with the idea of running as an independent, may see the meeting as an opportunity to use those who would use him. "As mayor, he has seen far too often how hyperpartisanship in Washington has gotten in the way of making progress on a host of issues," said Bloomberg's press secretary, Stu Loeser. "He looks forward to sitting down and discussing this with other leaders."
Nunn and Cohen went out of their way on talk television this morning to say that the meeting is not intended to generate an independent candidacy, but is about the need to rebuild and reconfigure our military forces, about the risks from nuclear proliferation and terrorism, and about restoring U.S. credibility in the world.
Funnily enough, two of the candidates most likely to be the nominees, Edwards and Huckabee, are issues-oriented and unlikely to be particularly partisan as campaigners or as president. I suspect that either one of them will welcome the support of politicians from any party who are willing to sign on to the particulars of their respective programs.
Voters should be suspicious of a call for a "government of national unity" that is devoid of content, as if the only thing that's important is whether we can't all just get along. If Nunn and his comrades want to get behind someone who supports universal health care and reduced military spending, as the majority of the American people do, it might be easier to take them seriously. But power, unfortunately, not the quality of the lives of Americans, is what is behind rhetoric that equates partisan divisions during what they inflate to "a time of national challenge" with the difficulties faced by Great Britain during World War II.
"Electing a president based solely on the platform or promises of one party is not adequate for this time," Boren said. "Until you end the polarization and have bipartisanship, nothing else matters, because one party simply will block the other from acting."The most telling indication of the group's intentions comes from former senator Cohen, however. "The important goal all of us share," he said, "is to get government back to the center." In plain English this means, "we're going to wrest power from the Bushite whackos and take it safely back in our hands, where it belongs."
It's difficult not to conclude that Nunn et al will be content to accept as worthy of the office any White House aspirant who indicates his willingness to welcome them back to the table.
The rest of the story: The Washington Post
Our Battered Constitution: FBI Prepares Vast Database of Biometrics
One billion dollar project to include images of irises and faces.
by Ellen Nakashima (The Washington Post, 2007-12-22)The rest of the story: The Washington Post.
Clarksburg, West Virginia - The FBI is embarking on a $1 billion effort to build the world's largest computer database of peoples' physical characteristics, a project that would give the government unprecedented abilities to identify individuals in the United States and abroad.
Déjà Vu: The return of HUAC
A little over a half century ago, the Feds held hearings around the country in an effort to uncover, expose and punish "disloyal" Americans. The most irresponsible of these vigilantes were the members and staff of the House Un-American Activities Committee. If the current, Democratically controlled House has its way, a similar operation will be at work in 2008.
by Peter ErlinderThe rest of the story: CommonDreams.Org
...Under media radar, the Democrat-sponsored "Prevention of Violent Radicalism and Homegrown Terrorism" bill (H.R. 1955) passed the House at the end of October by a vote of 404 to 6. The bill was tagged as noncontroversial by the House leadership and is pending before the Senate. For those senators and citizens who remember history, the bill should be controversial, indeed.
Promoted as a relatively innocuous public safety measure, the bill directs money to the Department of Homeland Security for research on homegrown terrorist-Americans in our midst. While this may seem to make sense, the way the bill describes the "hidden enemy," and the powers inherent in the 10-member investigative commission it establishes, should raise concerns among Americans who remember history, no matter what their political leanings.
According to the bill, "homegrown terrorists" can be anyone who " intimidate(s) or coerce(s) the United States government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social belief," a definition broad enough to include Americans who organize mass marches on Washington to "coerce" changes in government policy."
2008: Why Ron Paul isn't the Republicans' Mike Gravel
The question is asked, by the same people surprised by the rise of Mike Huckabee, why Ron Paul is still around. He's polling in single digits, he's way outside the GOP mainstream, yet he's raising more money than an internet IPO and there is a handmade "Who Is Ron Paul?" sign on every light pole in the country. Here's why:
1) He opposes the occupation of Iraq in particular and liberal imperialism in general.
2) He energizes those dissatisfied with the sorry quality of the Republican candidates. Unlike his cohort:
4) A $10 contribution via PayPal is a relatively easy way to Stick It to the Man.
5) He has a blimp. Who doesn't love a guy with a blimp?
1) He opposes the occupation of Iraq in particular and liberal imperialism in general.
2) He energizes those dissatisfied with the sorry quality of the Republican candidates. Unlike his cohort:
a) He's honest. Wrong on nearly every count, but not disingenuous about where he stands.3) He inspires romantic longings. David. Don Quixote. Robin Hood. The Lone Ranger.
b) He's intelligent. Wrong on nearly every count, but able to make a case for most of his program.
c) He's articulate. Speaks clearly and to the point.
d) He's consistent. Ron Paul of today is Ron Paul of twenty years go.
e) He would actually dismantle the federal government: the revenge of generations of Republicans who voted for smaller government and got bloated bureaucracies and massive deficits instead.
f) (Did I mention?) He's against the war.
4) A $10 contribution via PayPal is a relatively easy way to Stick It to the Man.
5) He has a blimp. Who doesn't love a guy with a blimp?
Media: Skewed political news
Skews is an experiment in political news aggregation. Members submit articles, blogs, podcasts, videos and anything else that qualifies as news. The pieces are submitted from the Left or the Right, and the news is laid out in two columns, one red, one blue. Visitors get to decide how far the news is skewed off center. As a mechanism for evaluating how well the media is doing, the site is pretty useless -- there are no professional standards being applied, just feelings, but it does give you some insight into the mindsets of both sides, and it's a convenient place to turn up news you might otherwise miss, whether it's Huckabee: Gitmo is too nice or PBS Star Bill Moyers Uses She-God To Raise Funds for Leftists.
"...If you want to know what people think about what you read, if you want to know how the same issue is presented by different News sources, even if you want to know how Skewed you are then Skewz is the place for you....."<http://www.skewz.com/>
2008: Huckabee Watch
Keep up with the Mike Huckabee saga with the Huffington Post's Huckabee Watch:
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/mike-huckabee>
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/mike-huckabee>
2008: GOP Hopes Hang on Huckabee
I have been saying for some months that there is only one likely Republican nominee: the Other Man from Hope.
Christian conservatives are not alone in feeling uncomfortable with the idea of a president who is a practicing Mormon, and Mitt Romney's prospects are not enhanced by the image he has contrived of a man with no ideas or beliefs that aren't fungible, that, as Gertrude Stein said of Oakland, there is no there there. And, the polls notwithstanding, the prospect that the ethically challenged, socially moderate, thrice-married, cross-dressing, one-issue Rudy Giuliani would be the GOP candidate, while entertaining, was preposterous. But if not the cult member from Massachusetts nor the whacko from New York, then who? The John McCain of 2000 would have mowed down this year's stunted crop of Republican presidential wannabes, but the latter McCain is too compromised, too burdened by his support of Bush's occupation of Iraq, and probably too old, to seize the prize.
Unlike the Democrats, any one of whom would make a credible candidate, the only Republicans willing to waste their time trying to live down George W. Bush's record are, with one exception, third rate back-benchers (Tom Tancredo) and ideologues (Ron Paul). The exception, of course, is Mike Huckabee, an out-of-work former governor who had everything needed to be a viable candidate -- a modest, unassuming personality, an engaging wit, a natural constituency within his party, a moderate record in office (he actually may be that elusive political Bigfoot, the heretofore chimerical compassionate conservative) -- except money. The inadequacies of the three major candidates encouraged Republicans to forage elsewhere for a leader -- thus the under-amped entrance by Fred Thompson, but there was really nobody else to lead the band than the bass-playing former minister from Arkansas.
Huckabee, despite his new poll numbers, doesn't have a lock on the nomination, though. He's still way behind in the money game, although their are signs that he is enjoying a fund-raising surge. His lack of foreign policy experience is a liability. The party's anti-tax ideologues think he's a closet New Dealer. There are political skeletons in his armoire, including a Willie Horton-ish case of a gubernatorial pardon gone bad (parenthetically, I find it painful to watch progressives gleefully deploying the same techniques against Huckabee that the perfidious George H.W. Bush campaign used to smear the admirable Mike Dukakis -- surely it would be better politics to decry Huckabee's inexperience and discredit his off-the-wall economic ideas -- among other things, he'd replace the progressive income tax with a national sales tax -- than to further legitimize gutter politics). And Romney isn't out of the race -- most of Huckabee's surge has come from Giuliani, whose candidacy has begun to circle the bowl.
But as I argued a couple of months ago (Déjà vu all over again?), this agonizingly protracted and criminally costly nominating process will have been worth enduring if it comes down at last to a contest between John Edwards and Mike Huckabee, with vice presidential candidates of the caliber of, say, Bill Richardson and Chuck Hagel. Such a competition would be issues-oriented and civil out of all proportion to our custom, with the voter permitted to choose between clear and contrasting visions of the nation's future, both -- surprising in itself -- focused in their way on making the American Dream available to everyone. In contrast, a brawl between Hillary Clinton and Giuliani/Romney, I fear, would be muddled and brutish in the manner to which we are so painfully habituated, with an outcome unlikely to disturb the rest of even the lightest sleeper in the luxuriant bed of the status quo.
An Edwards-Huckabee match would also discourage New York's mayor, Michael Bloomberg, from declaring (not necessarily a good thing: the mayor in his own way can be relied on to lay a soothing hand on the fevered brow of our politics), since a contest between between candidates of modest mien and low negatives would make it unlikely his independent run could exceed that of a Ross Perot-style spoiler.
Be sure to read Frank Rich's The Republicans Find Their Obama in yesterday's New York Times for a fuller discussion of the Huckabee phenomenon.
See also, New poll shows big shake-up in GOP race (CNN, 2007-12-10)
Christian conservatives are not alone in feeling uncomfortable with the idea of a president who is a practicing Mormon, and Mitt Romney's prospects are not enhanced by the image he has contrived of a man with no ideas or beliefs that aren't fungible, that, as Gertrude Stein said of Oakland, there is no there there. And, the polls notwithstanding, the prospect that the ethically challenged, socially moderate, thrice-married, cross-dressing, one-issue Rudy Giuliani would be the GOP candidate, while entertaining, was preposterous. But if not the cult member from Massachusetts nor the whacko from New York, then who? The John McCain of 2000 would have mowed down this year's stunted crop of Republican presidential wannabes, but the latter McCain is too compromised, too burdened by his support of Bush's occupation of Iraq, and probably too old, to seize the prize.
Unlike the Democrats, any one of whom would make a credible candidate, the only Republicans willing to waste their time trying to live down George W. Bush's record are, with one exception, third rate back-benchers (Tom Tancredo) and ideologues (Ron Paul). The exception, of course, is Mike Huckabee, an out-of-work former governor who had everything needed to be a viable candidate -- a modest, unassuming personality, an engaging wit, a natural constituency within his party, a moderate record in office (he actually may be that elusive political Bigfoot, the heretofore chimerical compassionate conservative) -- except money. The inadequacies of the three major candidates encouraged Republicans to forage elsewhere for a leader -- thus the under-amped entrance by Fred Thompson, but there was really nobody else to lead the band than the bass-playing former minister from Arkansas.
Huckabee, despite his new poll numbers, doesn't have a lock on the nomination, though. He's still way behind in the money game, although their are signs that he is enjoying a fund-raising surge. His lack of foreign policy experience is a liability. The party's anti-tax ideologues think he's a closet New Dealer. There are political skeletons in his armoire, including a Willie Horton-ish case of a gubernatorial pardon gone bad (parenthetically, I find it painful to watch progressives gleefully deploying the same techniques against Huckabee that the perfidious George H.W. Bush campaign used to smear the admirable Mike Dukakis -- surely it would be better politics to decry Huckabee's inexperience and discredit his off-the-wall economic ideas -- among other things, he'd replace the progressive income tax with a national sales tax -- than to further legitimize gutter politics). And Romney isn't out of the race -- most of Huckabee's surge has come from Giuliani, whose candidacy has begun to circle the bowl.
But as I argued a couple of months ago (Déjà vu all over again?), this agonizingly protracted and criminally costly nominating process will have been worth enduring if it comes down at last to a contest between John Edwards and Mike Huckabee, with vice presidential candidates of the caliber of, say, Bill Richardson and Chuck Hagel. Such a competition would be issues-oriented and civil out of all proportion to our custom, with the voter permitted to choose between clear and contrasting visions of the nation's future, both -- surprising in itself -- focused in their way on making the American Dream available to everyone. In contrast, a brawl between Hillary Clinton and Giuliani/Romney, I fear, would be muddled and brutish in the manner to which we are so painfully habituated, with an outcome unlikely to disturb the rest of even the lightest sleeper in the luxuriant bed of the status quo.
An Edwards-Huckabee match would also discourage New York's mayor, Michael Bloomberg, from declaring (not necessarily a good thing: the mayor in his own way can be relied on to lay a soothing hand on the fevered brow of our politics), since a contest between between candidates of modest mien and low negatives would make it unlikely his independent run could exceed that of a Ross Perot-style spoiler.
Be sure to read Frank Rich's The Republicans Find Their Obama in yesterday's New York Times for a fuller discussion of the Huckabee phenomenon.
See also, New poll shows big shake-up in GOP race (CNN, 2007-12-10)
The Law: the abdication of consitutional responsibility by the judicial branch
Law Is Everywhere (pdf) by Owen Fiss is a remarkable essay from the Yale Law Journal on the ability -- and the necessity -- of the courts to uphold the rule of law in the face of attempted usurpations of power by the executive, based on the experience of Israel, a country far more threatened by terrorism than the United States. <http://yalelawjournal.org/117/2/fiss.html>
Political Action: StandUpCongress.Org
"StandUpCongress.Org is a 'one-stop-shop' for Americans seeking information and tools to move Congress to take a stand to end the war in Iraq and prevent an escalation of war into Iran. The website is organized by the Win Without War coalition and allied groups, and our mission is to help you sort through the political labyrinth on Capitol Hill and give you the information you need to make a difference and move Congress to re-deploy US troops from Iraq." The "take action" button at the top of the homepage links to an "Action ToolKit" of information and opportunities for pressuring legislators, including fact sheets, talking points, how-tos on grassroots organizing and handling the press, and so on. <http://www.StandUpCongress.Org/>
2008: Edwards wins the NPR debate
Too bad the National Public Radio listener makes up such a small percentage of the electorate.
For the first time in this election cycle, the Democratic
presidential candidates held a real debate: there was no studio audience, no television cameras, no Lightning Round -- only three topics: Iran, China and immigration, and no dumbing down. No sound bytes, either. The candidates actually had a thoughtful discussion about serious issues facing the country, and you actually had to listen to get it.
In his coverage on Salon, Walter Shapiro said there "is a wonderful Al Smith-era retro quality to staring at a radio dial for two hours and -- an even bigger bonus -- Anderson Cooper and CNN will not be in charge of the questions."
John Edwards was the clear winner, and not only because Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama spent so much of their time taking potshots at each other -- this might have been a profitable moment for the very junior senator from Illinois to have adopted a Reaganesque there-she-goes-again stance. Edwards stayed above the fray and came off as the more, well, presidential. The Fix at the Washington Post picked Edwards as the winner by "demonstrating that he does indeed have some heft on foreign policy."
CQ Politics has the "mosts and bests" and Examiner.com has quoted highlights, so there are quick ways to find out what happened. The entire debate is available as an NPR download, and a transcript of the exchange is available from the New York Times. NPR's coverage is here.
If as many people were paying attention to the issues as are following the horse race, we'd be headed for a far different outcome. There remains one candidate among the leaders who sounds like a Democrat. Let's hope enough voters get to hear exchanges like tonight's before they pull the lever (or push the button or swiss the chard or whatever it is they're going be required to do) on primary day.
See also, Latest Iowa Power Ranking: Edwards On Top Again (Huffington Post, 2007-12-03), Edwards Takes Step Back as Two Others Slug It Out (New York Times, 2007-12-05) and
Edwards sees opportunity in Clinton-Obama spat (CNN, 2007-12-05).
For the first time in this election cycle, the Democratic
presidential candidates held a real debate: there was no studio audience, no television cameras, no Lightning Round -- only three topics: Iran, China and immigration, and no dumbing down. No sound bytes, either. The candidates actually had a thoughtful discussion about serious issues facing the country, and you actually had to listen to get it.In his coverage on Salon, Walter Shapiro said there "is a wonderful Al Smith-era retro quality to staring at a radio dial for two hours and -- an even bigger bonus -- Anderson Cooper and CNN will not be in charge of the questions."
John Edwards was the clear winner, and not only because Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama spent so much of their time taking potshots at each other -- this might have been a profitable moment for the very junior senator from Illinois to have adopted a Reaganesque there-she-goes-again stance. Edwards stayed above the fray and came off as the more, well, presidential. The Fix at the Washington Post picked Edwards as the winner by "demonstrating that he does indeed have some heft on foreign policy."
CQ Politics has the "mosts and bests" and Examiner.com has quoted highlights, so there are quick ways to find out what happened. The entire debate is available as an NPR download, and a transcript of the exchange is available from the New York Times. NPR's coverage is here.
If as many people were paying attention to the issues as are following the horse race, we'd be headed for a far different outcome. There remains one candidate among the leaders who sounds like a Democrat. Let's hope enough voters get to hear exchanges like tonight's before they pull the lever (or push the button or swiss the chard or whatever it is they're going be required to do) on primary day.
See also, Latest Iowa Power Ranking: Edwards On Top Again (Huffington Post, 2007-12-03), Edwards Takes Step Back as Two Others Slug It Out (New York Times, 2007-12-05) and
Edwards sees opportunity in Clinton-Obama spat (CNN, 2007-12-05).
Universal Health: Almost 1 in 5 Americans Going Without Health Care
The single greatest tragedy of our kleptocracy is the needless pain, suffering and deaths inflicted on American citizens by the rapacious health insurance industry. Of the people who presume to lead us as president, only Dennis Kucinich has shown a willingness to take on the insurance companies. A new report by the CDC offers up-to-date testimony to the enormity of the problem.
The full Health, United States: 2007 is available at <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/>.
Money, availability of care and lack of transportation combine to limit access, CDC report findsThe rest of the story: U.S.News
by Steven Reinberg (US News/HealthDay News, 2007-12-03)
Almost 20 percent of Americans, or more than 40 million adults, can't afford or access needed health care, according to a new U.S. government report released Monday.
Access to health care is the focus of this year's Health, United States, 2007 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It shows that one-fifth of Americans couldn't afford one or more of these services: medical care, prescription medicines, mental health care, dental care, or eyeglasses.
"People tend to equate access to care with insurance," said report author Amy Bernstein, chief of the analytic studies branch at the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. "But access to care is more than insurance."
"People assume that if you have health insurance of any kind that you're okay, but that's not the case," she added.
Among the other barriers are locales without enough doctors, lack of transportation to doctors and clinics, and shortages of such organs as kidneys for transplants.
That means that even when people "have health insurance there are still disparities," Bernstein said.
In 2005, almost one in 10 people aged 18 to 64 years old reported not being able to afford prescription drugs and almost 10 percent said they postponed getting the medical care they needed.
The full Health, United States: 2007 is available at <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/>.
Blogs: Islamic Law in Today's World
A useful addition to the blogosphere: Islamic Law In Our Times - A Realistic
Assessment of Islamic Law in Today's World by Asst. Prof. Haider Ala Hamoudi of University of Pittsburgh School of Law. <http://muslimlawprof.org/>
Assessment of Islamic Law in Today's World by Asst. Prof. Haider Ala Hamoudi of University of Pittsburgh School of Law. <http://muslimlawprof.org/>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
