The Crazies Deserve Each Other

November 26, 2007

So Kucinich suggested that Ron Paul would make a good running mate.

Not quite perhaps what the Unity08 people had in mind…

So we abolish the federal reserve and use the building for the new Department of Peace?

Amusingly, Ron Paul (I suppose we don’t call him by just his last name since then everyone would ask “Paul Who?”) is showing a heck of a lot more motion than Dennis - he’s got an impressive operation. He and Huckabee are seriously screwing with people’s expectations for the Grand Old Party.

No Comments » | Kucinich, Ron Paul | Permalink
Posted by cdog

Gut Credibility

September 17, 2007

Thomas Friedman has a column up on the Times website that seems to be putting the nail in the coffin of his grand aspirations for Arab democracy. It is interesting that he notes that Bush is “delusional” now when he speaks of a “democratic ally” fighting “jihadist extremism”; to my mind the label is apt, but it could just as easily be extended to the larger notion of creating democracy in the Arab world through brute force. What is particularly interesting from the perspective of the 08 campaign, however, is that after outlining three policy points he urges the Democrats to adopt, he maintains that:

 

            the overriding foreign policy message that still comes across from them to many Americans…is that Democrats are simply “anti-Bush, antiwar and antitrade.” Be careful: despite the mess Mr. Bush has made in the world, or maybe because of it, Americans will not hand the keys to a Democrat who does not convey a “gut” credibility on national security.

 

This is a theme that pervades discussion of the 08 presidential campaign—that the Democrats whether it is Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Kucinich, or whoever–do not portray a “tough enough” stance, that they are weak flip floppers on national security–but it still remains somewhat mysterious to me. What precisely are the components of a “gut” credibility on national security? Bush represented himself as just the sort of guy who acts based on the gut, who decides, who takes strong, affirmative, ruthless action against the terrorists over there so they don’t attack us here. And by and large this image was accepted by the public and an acquiescent media even though Bush and his deputy had stayed away from the Vietnam war (the latter admitting to “other priorities” at the time) when they could show their true colors So we have had leadership that was deemed to possess “gut credibility.” But what has that accomplished? Don’t we know better now than before the consequences of judging foreign policy decisions by our leaders on such school yard notions as “this guy talks in a Texan twang and speaks of good and evil and therefore will be better at fighting the terrorists”? If not, then let me reiterate the consequence: wars that not only don’t solve the problem but actually make them worse while the real and dangerous enemies out there proliferate in number.

 

It is fantasy to believe that the Democrats are any less committed to fighting terrorism simply because they do not use the cowboy rhetoric of the current White House occupant. Or that because Fred Thompson has that manly demeanor or Giuliani has that Brooklyn street cred they are born anti-terrorist activists. What matters in foreign policy just like anywhere else are policies pronounced and followed, and judging those policies based on cost-benefit analysis. Is it utopian to expect the average American voter to assess a presidential candidate on those terms? Perhaps—no wait a minute: probably. But what that means is that the media and the intellectual community have to stop regurgitating Republican talking points such as “the Democrats have no credibility on foreign policy” and simply reporting the news for what it is and letting the Republicans engage in misleading propaganda without aiding and abetting it.   

No Comments » | Clinton, Democrats, Edwards, Foreign Policy, Giuliani, Kucinich, Obama | Permalink
Posted by AAH4

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

Digging From Cleveland to China

August 10, 2007

So here’s a tool with some potential (thanks, CM): an issues-based aggregator to help you choose your candidate. I’d say it still needs a lot of work, would like to see it capture more granularity and focus on broader issues while not diving too deep into one issue with contradicting indicators (can’t one oppose the Iraq War AND support the surge?). I’m probably a bit hypercritical of version 1.0 because I’m not too happy with my current ideological choice for president:

[Apparently, I'm voting for the guy in the middle]

My own horror at this new self-awareness aside, I think a sign that the survey is flawed is in the fact that I didn’t mark a single issue as ‘key.’ Not because I lack passion, but because there was nothing on trade, China, foreign policy beyond Iraq/Iran, or issues of both domestic and global economic development. And it makes me wonder if any one cares about economic issues? Well, some do, and here’s a good breakdown of the economic issues addressed at Monday’s forum (courtesy of Dan Drezner). A hint of why questions on economics and China may be a wedge between me and Mr. Kucinich who was probably the most adament ‘blame China’ candidate in the forum:

5)“It means that we are also not running up deficits and asking China to bail us out and finance them, because it’s pretty hard to have a tough negotiation when the Chinese are our banker.” — Sen. Barack Obama. This is the myth that “China holds all the cards.” Look, the Chinese government needs fast growth to hold down social unrest and justify the continued dominance of the Communist Party there. And the most likely cause of a slowdown there would be a slowdown here first. The last thing China wants to do is start dumping U.S. bonds and cause a recession here.

Wait, we share interests with China? They’re not just an evil lender waiting to sink our feet in cement and toss us off a bridge? You mean Dennis Kucinich might be just a little off when he says we need “to take a whole new direction and change trade with China?”

Ok then, that sounds more reasonable. The man from Cleveland is right about a few things, but he has the key issues wrong.

1 Comment | Foreign Policy, Kucinich | 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