Weekend Wrap

December 3, 2007

Just some links to wrap-up some of the themes that wound their way through the weekend talk shows and wider press.

It’s NYtimes.com’s most-emailed story, so you’ve probably read Frank Rich’s Sunday piece - but the salient theme, that Barack Obama is poised to “upend the beltway storyline,” is important because of how it emerges in other contexts.

For example, Garrett Graff in the Washington Post opines about the importance of technology policy for the next presidency and wonders why we’d want someone in office who can’t “work the machine.” He also mentions this interesting fact: “Part of the problem is simply generational. According to the Senate historian, the Senate is the oldest it has ever been, with an average age of 62 during the 110th Congress.” As I’ve said before, Obama is leading the candidates when it comes to tech. policy and as Andrew Sullivan has made clear, the candidate pundits are really talking about when they talk about generational change is Barack Obama.

This all makes me wonder how helpful it is to be billed as the revolutionary candidate? Perhaps it is in the primaries, but my bet is this ’storyline’ kills any candidate who makes it to the big show.

Meanwhile, plenty of talk about the Republicans going after each other on immigration following last week’s debate and The Wall Street Journal [no link, subscription only] does that debacle justice in today’s editorial while getting in their usual pot-shots:

When not fielding questions from Democratic moles at last week’s GOP Presidential debate, Anderson Cooper and CNN had a grand time portraying Republican voters as Bible-thumping, gun-wielding Confederacy hold-outs. On immigration, however, the candidates didn’t need any media help as they continued their descent into self-parody.

Mitt Romney persisted in attacking Rudy Giuliani for turning New York into a “sanctuary city,” an accusation that even the restrictionist editors at National Review have come around to dismissing as “spurious.” Mr. Giuliani shot back that Mr. Romney ran a “sanctuary mansion” as Governor of Massachusetts, because the landscaping company that maintained the grounds of his home employed illegals. Mr. Romney replied that he couldn’t be expected to verify the immigration status of everyone with a “funny accent.” Normally, you’d have to seek out a high school cafeteria to hear such repartee. Well done, gentlemen.

The GOP exception continues to be John McCain, who is calling for reform that balances stepped up border enforcement with a guest worker program for future labor flows. And Mike Huckabee, who’s been rising in the polls, at least tried to explain to Mr. Romney why it’s inhumane to punish the children of illegal immigrants “for what their parents did.”

Interestingly enough, Mr. Huckabee appears to be the only candidate not going after his opponents. He passed up taking down Rudy for the Hampton Fling Security Detail scandal and didn’t battle back against Romney (who said Huckabee lacked vital private-sector experience) in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC Sunday. However, he did a nice job of subtly attacking Mormons, gays, and women when talking about Romney, Giuliani, and Clinton respectively. Huckabee will charm the pants off of an influential minority of this country and it’s comical that these folks think he is fit to lead the US in the global arena.

 Finally, living within broadcast range of New Hampshire, I can assure you the campaign ads are cranking right now - you can get a good wrap-up and review of most of them at Slate’s Damned Spot. Slate’s review of Joe Biden’s latest campaign is favorable, though it took them long enough - it was apparent from the first debate that this should have been Biden’s strategy all along:

joe-is-right.jpg

No Comments » | Biden, Campaign Advertising, Clinton, Debates, Democrats, Huckabee, Immigration, Obama, Religion, Republicans | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

“A Noun, a Verb, and 9/11″

November 3, 2007

Completely sunk in work this week, I missed the debate and a lot of the coverage. Trying to catch up today and most of what’s worth reading is coming out of London. The Financial Times [might need a subscription...] provides excellent commentary and is sure to throw in the above Biden gem:

…it is historically the case that candidates run to their party’s activist extremes to secure a nomination and then run back to the middle to win a general election, so the GOP establishment may be taking the long view that Mr Romney will come to his senses eventually, if he can find them.

Mr Giuliani’s affinity with the neocons makes more transparent sense. They talk the sort of tough game that is the basis of the candidacy of the man saved from political oblivion, the fate of most New York mayors, before the events of September 11 2001 transformed him into a national figure. As Mr Biden neatly put it in the Democratic debate this week, a Giuliani stump speech consists of three elements – a noun, a verb and 9/11.

I’ll post a longer chunck of that article below - an excellent look at how choosing advisers during the primaries is a lot like choosing a jacket for the debate. But first, more from Britain - The Economist has some numbers and says it will continue to poll thoughout the campaign [click to enlarge]:

economist-you-gov-poll.gif…and the commentary does well to pick-up on the real story from the Republican side:

This makes the race for the Republican nomination extremely hard to predict. As the primaries draw near, will voters learn more about Mr Giuliani and reject him?

And The Guardian delivers a nice scare for Democrats on Halloween:

The Christian right has shown that there is sufficient democratic space for movements to play a role in shaping the political narrative, regardless of who the electoral protagonists are, so long as those movements can prove their clout and exercise their independence.

“Some might compare the religious right to a snake,” a Wichita evangelist, Terry Fox, told the New York Times. “We may be in our hole right now, but we can come out and bite you at any time.” It’s time for progressives to get out of their hole and find some teeth.

As I type, an infomercial for Open the Eyes of My Heart blasts in the background…

Ok, with Halloween over, here’s hoping value voters won’t be scaring me again any time soon - and more from that great FT article:

On economic policy, Mr Giuliani is listening to the siren voices of another group whose time seemed to have passed. They are led by Steve Forbes, unable to parlay his advocacy of flat taxes into the Republican nomination back in 1996, and the like-minded Bill Simon, who lost a California governor’s race to an unpopular incumbent in 1998. At least he is more of a born populist than them.

Comfortably the best assessment of the old Giuliani was provided by Calvin Trillin in his wickedly funny novel, Tepper Isn’t Going Out, about a New Yorker whose avocation is to sit in his car in scarce legal parking spaces, thus driving the city bananas. This was due to be released in the autumn of 2001 but publication was delayed for a year because it was considered too irreverent for those traumatic times.

In it, the mayor of New York has an Italian name (Ducatelli) and very authoritarian tendencies. He wants to be known as Duke (after John Wayne) but the local media insists on christening him Il Duce (after Mussolini). I think the Trillin book should be reissued now as a political tract.

Other pretenders have also attracted some high-profile advisers. Zbigniew Brzezinski, who ran Jimmy Carter’s national security council and has been an effective critic of neo-conservatism, is in the Obama corner, though he is probably a bit long in the tooth to get back into government. An adviser of longer standing, the very smart Samantha Power, now at Harvard, would surely feature prominently in an Obama administration.

John McCain, by no means out of the Republican race, still marches mostly to his own drum, which serves him best. Mike Huckabee does not appear to have anybody notable on board but if he continues to move up in the field he will not lack for foreign policy tutors.

In ancient times, once a nominee was chosen the respective parties would impose policy advisers on him, squeezing out the primary gurus. But the parties themselves are now so sundered that it is up to the candidate to pick a team. Dick Holbrooke knows that better than anyone.

No Comments » | Biden, Foreign Policy, Giuliani, Polls, Religion, Republicans | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

Forgot About Biden? Here’s why.

October 3, 2007

I’m going to take a second to toss a little Love to Joe Biden who, for those of you who don’t know, is a candidate for President of the United States.  This little known fact is in sharp contrast to a little tidbit I caught today in the WaPo stating that between the Mr. and Mrs., there has been at least one Clinton on a televised spot virtually each day for the last month. Shocking.

 However, it appears as though Biden is using his status as a Senator (and Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee) to gain a few points on the foriegn policy scoreboard. Biden, along with Leslie Gelb, the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, published an opinion piece in the WaPo entitled, “Federalism, Not Partition” today in response to the continuing debate over how the hell to get out of Iraq. Don’t get too excited…it’s far from groundbreaking and, I will argue, perhaps fundamentally wrong. But hey! At least he’s getting a little publicity, right?

Basic premise of the article: I’m right, everyone else is wrong. The Bush Administration errs egregiously by continuing to support a strong central Iraqi government even as it is now painfully apparent that Iraqi ineptitude and corruption is far too entrenched for the US to fix in the next “four score and seven years.” (Sometimes I like to pick an absurd time frame just for fun!)

Next, those who support partition the likes of which the world hasn’t seen since the end of WWII are also completely off base. After all, the Berlin Wall came down, didn’t it?  Or perhaps India and Pakistan…Nuclear war, anyone?

His argument for federalism is attractive, although it neglects to account for two things:

1.  The idea of the federal nation-state, in a modern era that seems increasingly defined by civil wars and ethnic strife, is obsolete.  People are now defining the borders of their countries, and any “outside-in” strategy from the US, who are essentially occupying Iraq against the will of the people, needs to be somewhat deferential to the desires of the various sects who are perfectly happy to remain completely separate.

2.  As a presidential candidate in an election year where Americans want clearly defined goals, benchmarks, and timetables for getting troops out of Iraq, his argument defeats the purpose. Establishing a strong federalist government in Iraq, which, by his own admission “has no experience with federalism” represents exactly the type of open ended commitment voters do not want to hear.

I’m no foreign policy expert, but it seems to me that sometimes no publicity is good publicity.

3 Comments | Biden, Foreign Policy, Iraq War Stance | Permalink
Posted by hilljunkie

Finding Their Inner-Geek

August 22, 2007

The class of ‘08 isn’t exactly ready to establish a policy platform on Java vs. C++ (nor am I…I have no idea what that means), but we are definitely seeing some major progress this campaign in candidate awareness of tech policy issues. The National Journal presents an excellent overview of candidate positions on everything from Net Neutrality, to spectrum auctions, to how well the campaigns themselves are utilizing web 2.0. That’s fun and important to many of us, but what I find fascinating is how much a candidate’s position on tech issues - or sometimes simply what tech issues they choose to focus on - can tell you about the candidate. I’ll use some excerpts from the National Journal piece to explain:

Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York has incorporated technology into almost every aspect of her policy platform — from using information technology to overhaul health care to likening her plan to build a national, high-speed Internet system to the wiring of America after the development of the telephone and electricity.

This is hardly even a policy stance, this is about infrastructure investment, but it says a lot about the Clinton campaign: think big, stick with the can’t-lose issues, don’t get mired in a technical debate. Just ask the other candidates, right now, you don’t want to argue with this woman.

Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has come out in strong support of network neutrality, a term that describes efforts to ensure equal treatment of broadband content. He is also the only candidate to write the FCC and ask commissioners to use the upcoming spectrum auction to make the Internet more affordable and accessible.

Ever the populist. Sticks with name-brand issues that seem simpler than they really are: make a good name for yourself among the activist left and ignore the dirty work of actually accomplishing the policy objectives.

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois wants to focus on expanding Internet access in rural areas and inner cities, and he has a plan for granting vouchers to low-income households for converter boxes to help them transition from analog to digital television broadcasts.

High-impact, low-commitment (from a policy standpoint). Obama is constituent-focused and wants to be seen as a candidate for progress, giving himself measurable and achievable objectives.

Meanwhile, read on in the NJ piece to see how the second-tier Democrats utilize technology issues as a conduit to get the voter to their real strengths: Kucinich focuses on technology and outsourcing, Biden is concerned w/ technology when it harms national security, and Mike Gravel has refocused his campaign and has an excellent shot at being elected President of SecondLife.

From Left to Right:

Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas has been active in pushing legislation related to “decency” and regulatory controls on various forms of media. Sen. John McCain this year has sponsored a bill aimed at making the moratorium on certain Internet-related taxes permanent.

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas…has been a vocal opponent of Internet regulation of any type…

Mitt Romney of Massachusetts has been vocal about his opposition to Internet pornography and the need for better protections for children surfing the Internet. And Mike Huckabee of Arkansas received praise while in office for brining e-government to his largely rural state.

Pretty straight forward: only need a policy when it comes to pornography and terrorism, which is about all the Internet is good for anyway. And Giuliani’s my favorite:

 ”Mayor Giuliani believes that the free flow of information on the Internet and the development of new technologies are essential to America’s global leadership in the 21st century,” a spokesman said. “Open competition should be encouraged, and federal government intervention in these areas should be limited to reasonable regulation and vigilant security against those who want to exploit it for illegal or unethical acts.”

Mr. Mayor, whatever you do, don’t forget the three Rs: Rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric. Giuliani’s tendency to equivocate and rely on tough-guy tropes has been covered on this blog and elsewhere and we see above that he can pull this off for any issue.

To be fair, conventional campaign wisdom says the Democrats are the only earthly-party with a geek constituency, hence their more nuanced and focused approach. However, conventional wisdom also allows the Dems to stick to their own little cottage-industries within the wider landscape of technology policy issues, and the absence of engagement from the Republicans leaves voters with a dearth of substantive debate. However, I wouldn’t say the Right writ-large is not engaged in the debate. Full disclosure, I work and study in the field of technologies policy and see plenty of voices and powerful forces balancing what Bill O’Reilly likes to call the Netroots Ku Klux Klan. Makes me wonder if the Republicans couldn’t gain some ground in the netroots community by actually engaging them and getting the backs of their consituents already in the debate. There’s a loose parallel here to the battle over the Latino vote that Bush, Rove, and others think the Republicans are ceding to the Left. When I see the Republicans unsure of whether the YouTube debates are even a good idea, I wonder if they’re not doing the same with the geeks.

1 Comment | Biden, Clinton, Edwards, Giuliani, Kucinich, McCain, Obama, Richardson, Ron Paul, The Others | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

AFL-CIO Forum: Gut Reactions

August 8, 2007

Um, Hillary: “I do not believe that people running for President should engage in hypotheticals.”

Ok, let’s take our time here Hill. Considering your husband introduces you as “the next president of the United States” at every rally, I think everyone is guilty of engaging in hypotheticals here. More to the point: you can’t be a good policy maker without making hypothetical statements. After all, policy is, in essence, anticipation.

Obama: Yup, it’s working. Despite a risky strategy of advancing concrete foreign policy this early in the race - and a risky policy at that - the people are only hearing: “I’ll end the wrong war and bolster the right war.” I’ll say it again, that’s easy to vote for. Unfortunately, I don’t think Obama is turning out to be the glistening public speaker that many had hoped for.

Clinton: Not much to lose, so she’s constantly sharpening her image in the eyes of the liberal blogosphere by scrubbing her campaign trail with the dish-rag that is the Bush administration. This is smart and she does it well.

Edwards: Held strong as the populist candidate despite another Joe Biden surge.

Kucinich and Richardson: A good performance that will garner some funding and press, but no more votes.

Dodd: His message is getting through to no one.

George W. Bush: Remember when people criticized Al Gore for not utilizing the popularity of President Clinton (which of course wasn’t even that high in 2000)? Contrast that with this race where Republicans are avoiding him and the Democrats tonight, every time they stumbled or encountered a tough question, could simply mention Bush and insert some vitriol to make whatever they said sound like music to America’s ears. That’s the kind of unpopularity that opinion polls simply cannot convey.

Keith Olberman: Should moderate all of these. Not that he’s ‘asking the tough questions’ or anything, but realistically, the best a moderator can do in this overly-scripted age is to move things along, lighten it up every once in a while, and not be annoying throughout. Olberman gets dangerously close to violating the last rule, but on the whole, he seems completely natural in this most unnatural of roles as the contemporary moderator. Oh, and he does it all while sitting down. Has Anderson Cooper ever sat down?

2 Comments | Biden, Clinton, Debates, Edwards, Foreign Policy, Kucinich, Obama, Richardson | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

WhoseTube? Debates I

July 24, 2007

Some thoughts on this ‘historic, unique, and first of its kind debate:’

*CNN did an amazing job playing the middle man who fucks up a perfectly good deal.

*I bet Joe Biden will get some nice play for his performance tonight. He deserves it. I respect that he has a plan. Tonight’s viewers will respect that too, but they’ll get bored by his ‘I have a plan’ speech, which is the extent of his schtick. Meanwhile, I would like to hear him describe how his plan on Iraq is going to play out and how a no-fly zone in Darfur will impact the Sudanese government.

*If I’m a speech writer, campaign manager, or debate junkie, Hillary makes me horny. She seemingly executes every response just as her team drew it up and somehow doesn’t make you want to strangle her for it.

*Obama vs. Edwards: Who will win the fight for the populists? Being that Hillary has at least 35% of the primary votes locked-up, this is a worthwhile fight because it will determine who will still be around late in the primary to have a shot at overtaking Hill. That doesn’t make it any less awkward watching them battle it out.

*Richardson: Had a good night. If Obama/Edwards is the fight for the ‘working man’ and second place among the Dems, then Richardson/Biden is the dual for the policy wonk and third. Biden may have made up some ground in this dual tonight, particularly with Richardson advocating for ‘everybody out of Iraq in 6 months.’ As ridiculous as this is, I was still impressed w/ Biden’s ability to debunk it in the space of this revolutionary forum (insert smiley faces and acronyms that imply laughing out loud at ‘revolutionary forum’).

*Huh, turns out the revolution will be televised…and filled with cynical asides about equal time.

*[Question to Hillary Clinton] “The Arab states believe women are second-class citizens, what makes you think they’ll take you seriously?” Another bonus of the format: gives a sense of what Americans are really thinking. As ridiculous as this question and its premise are, it should be just as valuable to the candidates as the audience. Meanwhile, let’s keep in mind CNN and the geniuses who brought you ‘Crossfire’ and ‘The Situation Room’ are choosing these questions.

*Mike Gravel: Would be much more productive to have him making the YouTube videos.

*Biden wins for best outro answers, meaning they fit perfectly into one of CNN’s outros in the post-debate analysis. I’m thinking specifically of his answer to the ‘in God we trust’ question (”the coin has it right”) and the gun question (”if that’s his baby he needs help” - something like that).

*Democrats need to shut the fuck up about the Iraqi parliament going on vacation. My personal opinion is that the charges of Iraqi politicians not being incentivized are baseless, and beyond that, I think pot-shots at those in charge in Iraq are a bad move politically.

*I’m wondering how Hillary Clinton can NOT take a private jet to California.

*Um, was John Edwards serious w/ that coat comment. By the end of this revolutionary debate I lost track of what was ironic.

*If anyone can use footage from this debate in mash-ups or for other purposes, then Mike Gravel needs to use Anderson Cooper in his next campaign ad and convince his base that it is CNN he’s running against.

*Final analysis: Joe Biden may not be in the eight, but he did earn his category tonight; Bill Richardson didn’t lose any of the ground he gained in the last few weeks, which is a real accomplishment for him; the other candidates should now be convinced that Hillary Clinton is not going to fuck this up, they will actually have to defeat her; hopefully this whole YouTube thing has CNN thinking they could save money and just outsource the Cafferty File.

*You asked, they answered - how could this have ever happened without CNN…I mean YouTube.

No Comments » | Biden, Clinton, Debates, Edwards, Obama, Richardson, The Others | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett