McCain endorsements are becoming a trend

Last summer, people thought his campaign was over, just as they believed Fred Thompson would become a frontrunnner. Even recently his ratings haven't been good, far behind (previous) national frontrunner Rudy Giuliani. Now John McCain is looking stronger than ever, his eyes set on winning the ultimate political prize: the Oval Office.

Rudy Giuliani, former national Republican fruntrunner, is endorsing McCain "from the heart". California Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger endorced him after the GOP debate on Wednesday.

McCain is in the lead, eclipsing Romney, who he clashed with strongly on Wednesday.

And the presidential candidates I agree with most are...

Today I quickly tried out the Washington Post's new interactive candidate quiz to see who my views match up with most — apparantly.

For the Democratic version I got a score of 12 for Edwards, 15 for Clinton, 21 for Obama, 1 for Dodd, and, finally, 4 for Richardson, making my ideal candidate Obama. However many of the options are the same, only phrased with different rhetoric (Iraq was the worst). On some issues, such as affermative action and Iraq, none of the options suited my views. Overall, Democratic standpoints were populist, geared towards middle and working class as they warn of rich elite; there wasn't much moderation, or at least as much as I hoped for.

For the Republican (gasp!) version of the quiz, Giuliani (Mr. 9/11) was my candidate, if only because of social issues. On controversial social issues (e.g. abortion), Giuliani is often the only half-decent choice — but then even he takes much of the weight off his back by doing what many other candidates do: say 'leave it to the states'. My specific results were 6 points for McCain, 8 for Ron Paul, 9 for Huckabee, 5 for Romney, 7 for Thompson, and 20 for Giuliani. There were no options I felt comfortable choosing on such issues as overall priorities, immigration, or wealth/taxes. Like the reality of the GOP presidential front, my results were more evenly spread (almost neck-and-neck) than for the Dems. Some candidates have OK views on climate change, but all focus too much on national security and on cutting 'big government' without recognizing any consequences of such cuts.

481 days 'til election

The leading Democrat in the 2008 presidential race, Hillary Clinton, has been dwarfed by her husband, former President Bill Clinton, as the pundits go wild on America's biggest political couple. Let the gender role debate commence. The headline best summing all of this up: "Hillary's man trouble", referring not only to Clinton's attention magnet hubby but to male voters who are, well, sexist. It's sad, not just for America but for the state of our civilization, that even in the richest and one of the freest and most educated countries enough people still have problems with a black or a woman running for political office. A homosexual or atheist wouldn't stand a chance.

I've come to the conclusion that an Obama-Richardson would be a good ticket (Dodd is not bad either, but he is all the more less known).

However much Obama is shallow (see post), Hillary Clinton is robotic — a political chameleon of sorts whose policies seem to sometimes veer to the right, though she pleases as many as possible in her target demographics. Why, again, does she draw so much contempt from conservatives?
Obama and Clinton — the Democratic heavyweights in the '08 race — both try to kiss up to the special interests fueling the Democratic Party and Washington as a whole while imposing a sort of populism seen often enough in campaigns (see: the irrational electorate). This race, like any other in the United States, is fueled greatly by money. Money might not be able to buy you love, per se, but it can sure help launch you into political office!

McCain and Romney are practically bending over backwards for the GOP base(s). McCain, the senior-most member of the race, second-place to Giuliani, faces the ire of the religious right; anger from some moderates and liberals over his diehard support for the Iraq war and the Bush administration's war policy; and bad feelings from Republican Party partisans and anti-immigrant xenophobes over his moderate immigration views and ability to be bipartisan. Being able to jump across the isle and work with the other side is not always a good thing in American politics, oddly enough.

Selling out hasn't really helped Sen. McCain, but former Massachusetts governor and multimillionaire Mitt Romney's sharp-right-turn transformation is far, far more extreme than McCain's ass kissing. Romney is behind in the polls, but has loads of money, which is more than McCain can say. Social liberal Giuliani — though he has been trying his best to please both sides on abortion — still leads the Republicans in the polls; McCain follows. Poll ratings haven't swayed much for the Democrats either. Clinton leads, then Obama, then Edwards. See this post for more.

technorati tags: clinton, hillary+clinton, barack+obama, obama, mccain, giuliani, mitt+romney, america, united+states, election, 2008+presidential+election, politics, democrats, polls, fundraising, republicans,

The final throes of the insurgency: two situations

Firstly, a short-term operation that looks to have an end and objective: the fight against Islamic militants who have taken hold of Islamabad's Red Mosque in Pakistan.

Pakistan's army says an operation to flush out militants from a mosque in Islamabad is in its final stages - 24 hours after troops stormed the complex

Of course the impact the Red Mosque fiasco will have on Musharraf's already, ahem, tarnished presidency will be interesting. The end of the siege, however, is in sight.


Secondly, Bush is asking for more time for the US military operation in Iraq as more and more Americans convert to 'defeatism' every day. Of course the 'surge' will finally start working and under Bush's wise leadership America will win the winnable "war on terror". No true benchmarks or oversight is needed — setting an "artificial" deadline would show that America has lost. It just needs more time, hmm...

Republicans are getting very antsy. However the chance of both parties working together — which seems like a foreign idea in the polarized political climate of today's Washington — is small (at best). Iraq has become the issue, and neither party has much of a solution, yet alone unity on it.

President George W. Bush on Tuesday brushed aside the criticism of fellow Republicans over Iraq and demanded the U.S. Congress allow his troop buildup more time to work.

Bush ruled out an immediate change in strategy, even though prominent Republican lawmakers like Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar have broken ranks and called for him to shift course on Iraq.

Defiant in the face of a frustrated American public and Congress, Bush said the 28,000 additional troops he ordered into Iraq have not been in place long enough to gauge results because the final wave arrived only last month.

The president defended his policy ahead of the release as early as on Thursday of an interim report expected to show mixed progress by the Iraqi government in meeting U.S. security and political benchmarks. The report, which is due by Sunday, is bound to fuel further debate about the war.
...
A new USA Today/Gallup poll showed on Tuesday that more than seven in 10 Americans favor withdrawing nearly all U.S troops from Iraq by April. Sixty-two percent said sending U.S. troops to Iraq was a mistake, the first time that number topped 60 percent in that poll.

The surge had time to work. Hell, even I gave it a chance. But Baghdad's security situation is as dire as ever. The "green zone" — normally a US-occupied oasis of security in a sea of violence — is becoming more red by the day. However we have overlooked some of Iraq's successes. Not all of Iraq is as bad as the wider central and southern regions and that is good — American, British, and other troops have done a fine job there and it's been overlooked. But the wider picture reveals an Iraq in turmoil at a nationally and often at a local level. Conclusion: A politically/strategically bottomless, downward-spiraling war with mixed (negative) support at home and abroad.

Oh yeah, and

Meanwhile, the White House threatened to veto the defense policy bill senators were debating, if it is amended to set a withdrawal date. The administration also threatened a veto of the bill for a provision it already contains, giving new rights to detainees at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Delayed reaction

According to the New York Times, the White House may be mulling over the options for the (illegal) detention center at Guantanamo Bay after years of pressure from the UN, a plethora other bodies like human rights groups, and individual nations. It was disputed over such a meeting on the fate of Gitmo ever took place, and whether it was canceled by Bush or another administration figure.

Now the NYT is reporting that the Bush administration is rethinking its stubborn troop strategy in Iraq after unprecedented dissent from within its own Republican Party, which has led to one recent case of a congressperson switching to the opposition Democratic Party. President George Bush has denied that even any preliminary planning for a gradual troop withdrawal from the turmoil stricken Mesopotamian nation is taking place in the White House.

The Iraqis and their government seem to not think US forces leaving is a good idea yet. I do agree, but real benchmarks — not the imaginary, temporizing ones that the Bush administration has conjured up — need to be put in place and the military should focus on the 'hearts and minds' effort, which includes reconstruction and social aid, more heavily than the fighting. Winning hearts and minds will make the hard military effort easier and allow a feasible withdrawal plan, like the Polk-McGovern one or the Iraq Study Group's outline, to be carried out. It doesn't look like America will win, per se in a traditional sense (note this is not a traditional struggle), but at least it will come out more ahead than it will if it continues to loose the support of the Iraqis and the international community while depleting its hard power.

At the same time Bush should get off his high horse of poor Iraq policy the Democrats should stop and think about their reactionary, populist plan for withdrawal, or should I say plans: there is still no unity on Iraq except that what is happening now is not acceptable. If the people and their lawmakers really feel that way, then work out a plan, but not some political snowball to hit the other party with. The White House is far ahead of the Democratic-majority Congress. And the polls indicate that every time the Dems get into a nasty political scuffle with the White House, like with Gonzales or the current transparency and subpoena fight, and makes a big deal about the big bad White House their approval numbers tank. Congress is in more trouble than the White House, even if the latter has worse policies and is worse overall. Congress has more hearts and minds to win at home than it thinks — in that sense the Bush administration is fine. It may have low approval but its legislative counterpart is barely hanging on.

Why don't the Democrats cut the political knifing and move on to passing some good, solid legislation? Contrary to what its political advisers have been advising, taking real action usually looks better in the eyes of the public than inflaming an inter-governmental battle. The Dems seem to be carrying out their own battle plans, not the ones they were elected on. By the time the Democrats have their delayed reaction to what the voters want and what is right, it may be too late. Bush's delayed and still sub-sub-par reactions to climate change, Iraq, and Gitmo are bad enough — it's time for the Democrats to step up, even if that doesn't change their lamentable poll numbers.

Ron Paul: the libertarian Web candidate

Who is he?
A 72-year-old Republican congressman and physician from Texas. Presidential candidate with libertarian stances, with a disproportionate amount of support on the Web compared to in general, where he is not on most polls or in many debates. The libertarian fringe of the GOP's Howard Dean of '08? In short: Ron Paul is a libertarian Web phenomenon

What does he stand for?
American libertarianism and, to some, paleo-conservativsm.

Who are his main supporters?
Many Diggers adore him, as do other geeky (not meant pejoratively) demographics. Also people who hate big government liberalism, but hate freedom-trampling religious right and the Bush administration, etc.

What do you — clearthought — like about him?
He speaks his mind. While I would not likely vote for him, Ron Paul seems to be a voice America needs, especially at a time when dissent is only meant to polarize for political gain, or is squashed. He seems to be an almost purely internet phenomenon. Many have not heard of him, but within the techie circles he is liked more than any other candidate.

Anything else?
This Slate article on "The idiotic GOP effort to silence Ron Paul" is also interesting. Heaven forbid the Republicans support a candidate with rational views and a bit of common sense.

Some Republicans are angry at Ron Paul, the libertarian presidential candidate, for his forthright stance at the Republican debate earlier this week. When George W. Bush repeatedly asserts unpopular opinions in the face of withering criticism, it's seen as a sign of strength and resolve. But when Paul asserted unpopular opinions in a debate, his remarks became the grounds for derision and threats. Paul suggested that the United States' actions in the Middle East—and in Iraq in particular—might have motivated Bin Laden and the 9/11 attackers. Rudy Giuliani immediately jumped on Paul, demanding that he withdraw the comment. Now one GOP official is circulating a petition within the party to remove Paul from future debates. This is silly. Here's why...

Why is he in the spotlight?
Various views and confrontations with the Republican party, as well as Paul being left out of many political events (debates, interviews, etc.) has created some buzz on the internet and in the news. His sensible but blunt views of US policy in the Middle East — e.g. on the cause of 9/11 — have caused many within his party to cast dark glances on him, but those same views have also improved his profile with his main — albeit small — support base.

See also:
Wikipedia
2008 election site
news
House page

technorati tags: ron+paul, 2008+president+election, united+states, politics, digg, republicans

The Republicans' Iraq war demon

The Financial Times speculates on fears within the GOP over self-defeat at home from the defeat abroad in Iraq; that is, the Republican White House's unpopular Iraq strategy is hurting the party in Congress.

Talking to Fox News, the conservative broadcaster, on his visit to Baghdad on Thursday, Dick Cheney said: “We didn’t get elected to worry just about the fate of the Republican party. Our mission is to do everything we can to prevail ... against one of the most evil opponents we’ve ever faced.”

Back in Washington Mr Cheney’s Republican colleagues are showing growing irritation with the vice-president’s Iraq war logic. On Tuesday 11 moderate Republican lawmakers warned George W. Bush that their support for his Iraq “surge” was rapidly running out. Tom Davis, a congressman from northern Virginia, told the US president that in one portion of his House district just 5 per cent supported his Iraq strategy.

The same growing unease applies with even greater force to Republicans in the Senate, who hold 21 of the 33 Senate seats that will be contested in next year’s congressional elections. Many Democrats believe that they could improve their narrow 51-49 Senate majority next year to a filibuster-proof 60 seats or more.

Such is the Democratic party’s confidence that some Democrats are talking of bringing about the same kind of splits in the Republican party that so damaged their own party’s electoral fortunes following the Vietnam war a generation ago.

Bush's political power is another thing getting hit hard because of his unpopularity. Remember: money can buy elections...

Mr Bush managed to raise $10.5m for his party at the event compared to $17m last year and $38.5m the year before. For the first time in many years both the Democratic presidential field and the Democratic congressional leadership are out-fundraising their Republican opponents by about 50 per cent.

In the next 10 days Mr Bush will have another opportunity to demonstrate his immunity to the US public’s backlash against the Iraq war, when Congress sends him its second version of the Iraq and Afghanistan war funding bill he vetoed in its first incarnation last month.

Some of the presidential candidates for 2008 are already distancing themselves from the Bush administration's Iraq war policy.

Nightmare scenario for the Republicans: Democrats take a much larger majority (enough to filibuster) in both houses of Congress in the 2008 election, as well as the presidency. Disillusioned, the party fractures further and their conservative base breaks into religious right and libertarian camps.

Nightmare scenario for the Democrats: No political gain over Bush and his party's mishandling of the war. Because of power cockiness, scandals occur at a massive rate. Loose public confidence and blamed for failings in current state of the war. Anti-war and more hawkish factions duke it out right before the elections, where their majority is lost.

technorati tags: iraq, republicans, GOP, congress, democrats, politics, united+states, usa, bush, 2008+elections, white+house, party+politics

Breaking the GOP mould

Two Republican candidates are starting to try to break free from their party's unofficial but common political principles as the race for the presidency in the 2008 election intensifies. Poll leader Rudy Giuliani is still emphasizing his liberal stance on issues like abortion; and Mitt Romney, seen recently kissing up like many of his peers to the religious right, bashes the Bush administration on Iraq.

John McCain appears to represent a conservative faction, not to extreme. He also still seems content with keeping the status quo on issues like Iraq — many voters won't like that. Just as Giuliani is pro-choice on abortion, and believes in gun control and gay rights, McCain has a traditional American center-right viewpoint on such issues, often not describing his true policy and saying political decisions like the aforementioned should be left to the individual states to decide.

technorati tags: mitt+romney, rudy+giuliani, republicans, 2008+presidential+election, president+US+election, GOP+president, john+mccain, american+conservative, abortion, iraq, bush

Back in the US...

Now that the French presidential election is over, there's another leadership race to focus on. Although it is still far away, the 2008 US presidential election is kicking into gear, with headline-grabbing (inter-party) debates already grabbing headlines — and fundraising through the roof.

Here's an update on what the candidates have been doing...

Romney courts the religious right. Expect more candidates of all stripes to have to do the same (McCain already has), as the religious right demographic is crucial, especially for Republicans.

GOP candidates united on war, divided on social issues in Reagan Library debate last week. Poll leader Giuliani sticks out among social conservatives in the Republican debate.

Fred Thompson, a viable contender or not, has policies much like those of John McCain, whose uninspiring campaign seems to have withered even more. However, John Dickerson points out the problems Thopmson — who seems to have a fair amount of support — and his supporters face, if he indeed intends to run in the race to succeed George Bush.

The Washington Post on Obama and the race gap. Just shows how Americans still focus all too much on race. It shouldn’t matter.

John Edwards gets it right, discredits 'war on terror' politicial phrase.

Campaign-hardened Republicans used to treat the phrase "global war on terror" so casually, even affectionately, that they talked about "the G-WOT," after the four-letter abbreviation used in White House calendars to denote Iraq messaging meetings. Democrats embraced it, too, with John Kerry asserting during his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention: "We are a nation at war, a global war on terror."
But increasingly the phrase is being regarded with hostility by many Democrats, who view it as little more than propaganda, and with a degree of skepticism by some Republicans, who consider it tired and vague. The left lobe of the blogosphere roared its approval in March when the House Budget Committee directed its staff to eschew "global war on terror" and instead use more precise language like "the war in Iraq" and "ongoing military operations throughout the world." And last month the British government announced that it too had retired the phrase.
Now Kerry's former running mate is declaring his independence from a phrase that politicians have been brandishing with brio for more than five years. At last month's Democrat debate in South Carolina, moderator Brian Williams asked the eight candidates: "Show of hands question: Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?"
Senator Hillary Clinton's hand shot up. After hesitating noticeably, Senator Barack Obama joined her. Edwards did not, even though he has used the phrase himself and a policy paper on his Web site refers to "winning the war on terror." And now, in his first interview to explain his turnabout, Edwards tells TIME that he will no longer use what he views as "a Bush-created political phrase."
"This political language has created a frame that is not accurate and that Bush and his gang have used to justify anything they want to do," Edwards said in a phone interview from Everett, Wash. "It's been used to justify a whole series of things that are not justifiable, ranging from the war in Iraq, to torture, to violation of the civil liberties of Americans, to illegal spying on Americans. Anyone who speaks out against these things is treated as unpatriotic. I also think it suggests that there's a fixed enemy that we can defeat with just a military campaign. I just don't think that's true."

The Economist profiles Rudy Giuliani and his campaign.

Hillary Clinton, among others, listed on the Time 100 most influential people "who shape our world" list — yet George W. Bush isn’t?

Obama preaches about fuel efficiency to American auto companies, saying Japanese firms have done a much better job in making their cars more eco-friendly and less energy-relient. A bold move?

technorati tags: john+edwards, hillary+clinton, war+on+terror, 2008+US+presidental+election, rudy+giuliani, mitt+romney, john+mccain, fred+thompson, republican+debate, time+100, politics, barak+obama, race

Finding, and missing, political targets

The religious right demographic will, as usual, play a large role in this election; the GOP is scrambling to find a good, staunchly socially-conservative god-faring candidate. Right now, the leading Republican candidate is Rudy Giuliani, a perfect example of an enemy of the religious right: not very religious, not very socially conservative, etc. John McCain has been making amends with the religious right; for example, kissing up to extremists like Jerry Falwell.

McCain is still far behind his competitors, but what matters is who gets more votes during the election, not a year and a half before. Nevertheless, polls are good indicators, and McCain needs help if he wants to even have a good chance at the vice-presidency. We have been hearing less and less about him too.

In addition, the Democratic party has fissures of its own with, like the Republicans, the Iraq war dividing members and candidates. Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are rivals in both poll numbers and fundraising amounts.

There are also plenty of largely unknown candidates from both sides.

technorati tags: hillary+clinton, barak+obama, rudy+giuliani, iraq+war, democrats, republicans, 2008+US+election, united+states, 2008+presidential+election, demographics, politics, religious+right, poll, john+mccain

Who's leading 2008 election polls?

See new December 2007 polls, days before the Iowa primaries!

Source for party primary polling and (averaged) chart data: Polling Report (various polls) for Democratic '08 candidates.
In most primary polls for Democrats, Clinton seems to have a definite lead over her closer rivals (often scoring in the 30s in terms of percentage), Obama and Edwards. Obama bested Edwards.

Sorce for primary polling and (averaged) chart data: Polling Report (various polls) for Republican '08 candidates.
For Republican primaries, Giuliani’s numbers are quite good. His averages in the 20s or 30s (percentage), with McCain lagging behind in the 10s or 20s. Gingrich and Romney often lag behind runner-up McCain and the leader, Giuliani, with high single-digit percentages. However, in some polls Fred Thompson, who has seen a resurgence in popularity, is at third place with percentages as high as 10 (he is not listed on most polls).

Gingrich was also not included in some polls, so I averaged up those both Thompson and Gingrich were in. Overall, the numbers lean towards a clear first-place — for the time being — Giuliani, with McCain in second place and Romney in a more distant third. Like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Fred Dalton Thompson has not announced his candidacy yet, but his recent admission that he has cancer leads one to suspect he is getting things off his chest that could hurt him later in his campaign.



Edwards has definitely seen a boost in his popularity as of late, but Obama still looks like a runner-up to clear-leader Clinton. Some polls' inclusion of Al Gore as a choice bumped down Edwards and Obama to an extent. I did not use the polls where Al Gore had a standing, although he usually polled third far below Obama and in front of Edwards by a small amount. In GOP polls without Fred Thompson, Giuliani had a solid win over McCain, who had a solid win over Gingrich, who had a minor lead over Romney.

Remember people participating in such primary polls either are registered with the party or support the party. In these polls, a pollster would not ask a Democrat about a Republican candidate, though in head-to-head and general (national) polls that can be the case.

From national polling during various times of March and late February, some results are surprising.
Source: RealClearPolitics averages of various major head-to-head 2008 presidential candidate polls (e.g. Time, Newsweek, Zogby, Rasmussen).
Giuliani beats anyone — Clinton, Obama, or Edwards — in the head-to-head polls. McCain beats Clinton and narrowly beats Obama. Giuliani’s win over Obama is slimmer than that of his wins over Edwards or Clinton. In the RCP average, Edwards beats McCain; Clinton smashes Romney but Edwards and Obama demolish him with a lead of 20 or so percentage points. Romney may be weak but Edwards does have more head-to-head strength than his overall.

Other party nomination data:
For the GOP nomination from highest percentage to lowest: Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, Romney (Gingrich not included). For the Dems: Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Gore. Gore’s run is extremely, extremely unlikely, especially since everyone is already electioneering more than usual. He has not stated his candidacy and pretty much will not.

Money and fundraising are major issues in this election. In the US one needs a massive amount of money to run a campaign, not that that's the only thing a candidate needs. This race has already broken plenty of records.

technorati tags: fred+thompson, john+mccain, hillary+clinton, barak+obama, presidential+primary, usa, united+states, politics, election+2008, john+edwards, rudy+giuliani, al+gore, mitt+romney, polls, polls+president, democrats, republicans

Briefly: the US's religious right

Whatever political affiliation — if any — one holds, it is interesting to see how the group that has played such a key role in American politics, and elections especially, operates. As I talked about in this post, elite within the religious right in the United States are mulling over who to through their weight behind for the 2008 presidential election.

Who will be the Christian conservatives' Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton?

For years the so-called religious right has gained steam into becoming a very influential group on the US political scene. Over the past decade or so their power has increased even more as the number of fundamentalist evangelical Christians seems to increase; i.e. the US is leaning more right, becoming more religious, or so it seems. It is important not to group all those religious conservatives into one massive stereotype, similar to the one people hold about New York, Hollywood, or the deep South (though all are true to an extent). However, for the sake of political simplicity we group people using words like center-left, conservative, and Democrat; one wonders from whose perspective those labels often come from. Not all evangelicals are conservative, not all conservatives are evangelicals. Nonetheless, people like James Dobson, a radical evangelical leader, are, in my view, harmful to America politics. They mix religious with politics, with disastrous effects for all of us. Why did the Republican Party choose to target these voters, this seemingly nutty (but not always so) demographic? Just for that: the votes.

There are tens and tens of millions of fundamentalist Christian conservatives, and if a religious leader tells many so devout to vote for a certain person, they'll vote. If a political group caters to their often immoderate policies, they'll support that group. They are much more involved than the many moderate political apathetics in the United States. Until they decide to vote in greater numbers (hopefully for the right person), the GOP will wreap in the benefits of a more radical group. This is not to say Republican policies are always marketed towards the religious right. There's always some political trickery, or so it seems.

Even in a White House run by an evangelical president there has been ample evidence the GOP is just playing the religious right, tricking them into voting then giving only superficial results in return. That's why we saw the crazy attempts to outlaw flag-burning and gay marriage before the election. It is those seemingly politically mundane issues — well, not gay marriage, but still — that fires up many Christian conservatives. Another view is the Republicans and conservatives in Congress were trying to side step more gray-area issues like immigration and focus on topics people would have strong views on, especially conservative views from the religious right when those views seem to dominate policy on topics like homosexual marriage. That is, it is easier to find someone who would speak against gay marriage and elect you because of your anti-gay stance than someone who is pro-gay marriage and would push their views. Either the GOP, the apathetic potential voters, or the religious right will have to change course to change the course of who controls the US political demographic, the prime voter targets.

technorati tags: religious+right, conservatives, republicans, white+house, united+states, politics, in+the+news, gay+marriage, christians, voting, electorate

Religious right split over '08, unsure of candidates

Following the Democrats' win in the 2006 midterm elections, there was speculation of an impending fracturing of the thus-solid Republican Party. Though that has yet to happen, the GOP's quite conservative, adamantly religious supporters do seem to be going through a phase of conundrums over the 2008 presidential elections. Funny how there's all this fuss over an election almost two years away.

The New York Times:

A group of influential Christian conservatives and their allies emerged from a private meeting at a Florida resort this month dissatisfied with the Republican presidential field and uncertain where to turn.
...
For eight years and four elections, President Bush forged a singular alliance with Christian conservatives — including dispatching administration officials and even cabinet members to address council meetings — that put them at the center of the Republican Party.
...
The conservative concern may also be an ominous sign for the Republican Party about the morale of a core element of its political base. Conservatives warn that the 2008 election could shape up like 1996, when conservatives faced a lesser-of-two evils choice between a Republican they distrusted, former Senator Bob Dole, and a Democrat they disdained, President Bill Clinton. Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family later said in a speech to the council that he voted for a conservative third-party candidate that year rather than pull a lever for Mr. Dole.

The Council for National Policy was founded 25 years ago by the Rev. Tim LaHaye as a forum for conservative Christians to strategize about turning the country to the right.
...
In addition to doubts about their ability to generate enough money and momentum, each candidate who addressed the group also faces initial skepticism from one faction or another on issues like immigration, trade, taxes and foreign affairs.

Current staunch very conservative possible candidates (all are GOP):
Former Sen. Rick Santorum (Penn.)
Sen. Sam Brownback (Kansas)

Additional, less staunch; still religious but lesser known potential candidates:
Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (Arkansas)
Gov. Mark Sanford (S. Carolina)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (Cali.)

More moderate, flexible 'conservative frontrunners':
Sen. John McCain (Arizona)
Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani
Former Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.)

I'll be developing the above list as things move along, and I will work on making one that goes more in-depth to the potential candidate's qualities. In addition, expect a similar list for Democratic/liberal — though the two are far from synonymous — candidates.

The Christian right and far conservative elements of American politics might well need to choose the lesser of two evils. If there ends up being a race between a moderate, ever-so-slightly left-leaning Democrat and a moderate Republican, they'll need to choose the latter. Not doing so might do harm to the GOP candidate like liberals choosing Ralph Nader in several elections put their votes for him instead of the Democrat (Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004). I wonder, though, if it was many in the religious right with conflicting feelings over the Republicans' recent political moves and assumed hostility from the party that was the actual cause of the GOP loosing the 2006 election. (It was probably a decent combination of factors, including the latter.) In addition, it is virtually impossible for an independent to win an American presidential election. All the odds are against them, not least the electoral system!

technorati tags: religious+right, conservative+christians, gop, republicans, democrats, evangelicals, 2008+elections, politics, news

Nonbinding resolution on Iraq finally passes in House

Amazing, all the fuss over a non-binding measure against President Bush's Iraq troop 'surge'. One minute the Republicans are scrutinizing the Democrats for restricting the vote to this resolution; the next they are saying how insignificant it is. They are contradicting themselves over the weight of the measure because they know it is politically symbolic and practically useless at the same time. They have been debating this resolution since earlier in the week.

The Senate's debate was clogged up by political and parliamentary junk from both sides of the isle. Earlier today I watched the slightly senile Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) saying how the Dems are being so mean now that they are majority. He must have forgotten the Democrats have had the majority for, oh, about a month and a half versus the GOP's eight year reign.

Washington Post:

Capping four days of passionate, often angry debate, the House delivered President Bush its first rebuke since the Iraq war was launched nearly four years ago, voting 246 to 182 to oppose the administration's planned deployment of 21,500 additional combat troops to Iraq.

Seventeen Republicans joined 229 Democrats to approve a resolution that expresses support for U.S. combat forces but opposes the additional deployments. Two Democrats opposed the measure.

Although nonbinding, both proponents and opponents predicted the consequences of the vote would be enormous as the debate came to a close yesterday with a crescendo. Democrats claimed it would begin to turn the political tide so decisively that the president will have to begin bringing U.S. forces home, while Republicans warned darkly that Islamic terrorists will be emboldened at the expense of not only American lives but also America's way of life.

The Republican argument is totally meant to scaremonger and use the element of fear and 'way of life' to captivate those ignorant enough to cave in. It has been used for the entiredy of the debate.

What does the passing of this resolution really mean? Further wedging between the Bush White House and Congress, as well as a morale fall for the GOP — though neither is set in stone.

technorati tags: bush, democrats, republicans, house+of+representatives, congress, iraq, ted+stevens, surge, iraq+troop+surge, nonbinding+resolution, politics, news

Further killing the debate on Iraq

Surely stinting the debate on issues as serious and urgent as presidential power — in re to Bush thinking he can be "the decision-maker" on every aspect of Iraq he pleases — and Iraq policy is not a proper move by a major party in a democratic republic. Right? Right?

The Republicans in the Senate are stalling the debate on Iraq.

A long-awaited Senate showdown on the war in Iraq was slammed shut before it even started last night when a nearly united Republican front voted to stop the Senate from debating a resolution opposing President Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional combat troops into battle.

A day of posturing, finger pointing and backroom wrangling came to nothing when Democratic and Republican leaders failed to reach agreement on which resolutions would come to a vote and which would be subject to a filibuster. Republicans insisted that the impasse soon would be broken, but after Democrats came up 11 votes short of the 60 needed to break the filibuster, a solution was nowhere in evidence.

"It is clear their actions are not driven by getting votes on Republican proposals. They are driven by a desire to provide political cover for President Bush," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said. "They can't rubber-stamp the president's policies in Iraq any more, so they've decided to stamp out debate and let the president's escalation plan proceed unchecked."

I find it amazing that the GOP is still keeping a strong movement (i.e. not too fractured); protecting Bush even though many of his policies cost tens of Republican seats in Congress.

However I must cut the Republicans some major slack, for one reason: the Democrats did not play fair — at all. Not that the Republicans were high and mighty in their rule, of course they were not, they bullied and exploited, but this kind of behavior from the Democrats does not help anyone, not least the poor state of American politics. The article continues...

For their part, Republicans said they had no intention of avoiding the debate. They simply wanted a fair hearing on their own proposals.

"This vote this afternoon should not be misunderstood. This is a fairness vote," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said.

The Democratic leadership gave Republicans a choice: Allow all four resolutions to come to a vote, with a simple majority needed for passage, or debate and vote on just two resolutions, Warner's and McCain's.

Glad to hear the Dems are making the most of their majority; they better cherish these two years...

Even if there was a 'debate', it would make a freshmen polisci 101 class discussion look like what a debate should be. It is no secret I favor a parliamentary system for general governance and the legislature itself. One of the reasons: debate. I have watched my share of CSPAN and CSPAN 2, as well as watching Congress in real life, to know the US is not included as one of the countries that enjoys an ample level of debate and intellectual discourse that allows proper actions to be taken by the legslative body of a government based on the democratic system. Within the hallow chambers of the Senate and House of Representatives, here and there are some good debates, but it is largely political posturing or offering up a nonsensical motion to declare how great it was Florida State won the college football game (I'm not joking on that one). Is this how the government of the world's sole superpower is supposed to act? Is this how any country's government is supposed to act?

Still I do not like the fact that this kind of anti-discussion finger-pointing do-nothingness is occurring, especially on the important Iraqi issue. See the voting statistics here.

The Democrats' childish moves and frustrating motives in this latest incident shows they are not that much of an improvement on the previous Republican majority. I will be compiling a report card for the 110th Congress to check up on their progress — or lack of progress — soon.

Both the people and politicians of America face a choice: have a debate over Iraq or continue the ignorance and denial, lack of integrity and democracy, that is so corrupting the politics of the United States and the lives of Iraqis as we speak. Debate, not Ann Coulter hate-speech style or George W. Bush one-sided rhetoric style, is needed — honest debate over the facts and issues. This isn't playground politics, the decisions Congress makes are important. It should start living up to its role, and the American people to theirs.

Update: BBC News has an easier-to-follow, more concise article than the quotable Washington Post article above.


Song stuck in my head right now: "Starlight" by Muse.

technorati tags: bush, iraq, congress, republicans, democrats, news, politics

Good riddance, Bill Frist

I name current US Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist loser of the day (or two days since it applies to today and yesterday). Yesterday, it was reported that Sen. Bill Frist, who give up a cushy political position in the GOP and powerful US Senate seat representing Tennessee in this last election in order to run for president, will not run for president. As a reminder, Frist still has his job until the new Congress — with a Democratic majority — is sworn in this coming January. Frist was far in front of front runner Sen. John McCain in a Republican straw poll and is very firmly on the political right. Sen. Frist is no friend of human rights, and is anti-immigration, meaning he is more conservative than President George W. Bush on the immigration issue and at least as conservative on most all others. Frist agrees with the president on most all issues with the excepton of immigration and possibly the separation of powers/executive power issue, where the Bush is obviously for immense White House power. No surprise, he uses a biblically assorted quote in his announcement:

"In the Bible, God tells us for everything there is a season, and for me, for now, this season of being an elected official has come to a close. I do not intend to run for president in 2008," Frist said in a statement -- his only planned comment on the decision.

... possibly to overshadow his ethics problems. There are plenty of other people who can fill his shoes, so he lost his chance. Good for America, bad for him.

technorati tags: frist, democrats, republicans, gop, president, mccain, 2008, presidential, election, elections, bill+frist, congress, senate, usa, united+states, news, politics, clearthought, in+perspective, loser+of+the+day, people

A Lott of hype?

"Lott's return to leadership shows party independence from Bush":

In the four years since he was forced to resign as majority leader after making a racially insensitive comment, Lott, 65, has assailed the Bush administration for its handling of the war in Iraq and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and voted for legislation opposed by Bush...

Bush criticized Sen. Lott's racism, Lott criticizes Bush's incompetence — it is fighting fire with fire alright. How's it party independence? Many congresspeople attacked Bush's dealings with Hurricane Katrina and her aftermath; many people attacked Lott's seemingly racist (segregationist) comments too. The GOP has already shown some of its scorn for Bush administration policies, but its tagged along with the White House for one reason: reelection. While they may not like the people who are strongly against stem cell research, it gets them votes to stand by a president who seemingly is one of those people. America the beautiful... next up, Beltway lobbying!

Plus, it is not out of the ordinary to find a racist (allegedly) US politician — or just one who makes dumb comments (*cough* Sen. Kerry *cough*)

technorati tags: lott, bush, trent+lot, president+bush, gop, republicans, katrina, congress, politics, news, current+affairs, In+Perspective, clearthought, usa, united+states

Some news in brief...

Maybe I'll post more later.

Something I have been waiting for — it was swept under the carpet until after US midterm elections — is the James A. Baker III-led nonpartisan Iraq Study Group. They will probably offer, like the 9/11 Commission, some good advice only to be ignored by the president and unknown by the public (not that they can't read it, multiple factors, societal and political, surround the public ignorance on such matters). Bush meets members of Iraq Study Group:

President George W. Bush cautioned Democrats wanting to reduce the U.S. troop presence in Iraq to consider conditions on the ground as he met on Monday with a bipartisan group expected to offer a plan for changing course in Iraq.

The group's work has attracted great interest from both parties after the opposition Democrats' sweeping victory last week that gave them control of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Injecting a note of caution into the possibility of a major shift in strategy, Bush said: "I believe that it's important for us to succeed in Iraq, not only for our security but for the security of the Middle East, and that I'm looking forward to interesting ideas."

On the same topic (news from yesterday but all the more relevant today), the Iraq Study Group may have some good options to offer:

After meeting with President Bush tomorrow, a panel of prestigious Americans will begin deliberations to chart a new course on Iraq, with the goal of stabilizing the country with a different U.S. strategy and possibly the withdrawal of troops.

More politics. Man, Rove has a lot of nerve! (This article has a lot of great metaphors, by the way.) "Rove remains steadfast in the face of criticism":

For a man still climbing out of the rubble, Karl Rove seemed in his usual unflappable mood.

The Architect, as President Bush once called him, has a theory for why the building fell down.

[Rove retrieved] a single sheet of paper that had been updated almost hourly since the midterm elections with a series of statistics explaining that the "thumping" Bush took was not such a thumping after all.

The theory is this: The building's infrastructure was actually quite sound. It was bad luck and seasonal shifts in the winds that blew out the walls -- complacent candidates, an ill-timed Mark Foley page scandal and the predictable cycles of history. But the foundation is fine: "The Republican philosophy is alive and well and likely to reemerge in the majority in 2008."

Rove encouraged [(challengers to his political forecasting formula)] with supreme confidence. "You are entitled to your math, and I'm entitled to the math," he told a National Public Radio interviewer who suggested Democrats might win.

The question is, did Rove really believe the sunny optimism he resonated leading up to the elections, or did he know all along that this past midterm would not result in the GOP getting a grade A?

UPDATE: I can picture the partly laid-off Dateline NBC staff, doing a show called "Inside the mind of Karl Rove: the architect, the sorceror" or "To catch Bush's brain, the Karl Rove story", trying to probe the mystery that is the somewhat-placid and underpaid presidential adviser. Rove is slightly under-credited too; he is probably just one of the politicians doing it for power and glory... what happened to those guys? K-street, that's what happened — immense lobbying and special interest groups.

technorati tags: quotes, news, politics, foreign+policy, current+affairs, iraq, middle+east, iraq+study+group, rove, Bush, White+House, United+States, Republicans, Democrats, clearthought, us+elections, elections, midterm+elections, dateline, nbc, in+perspective, karl+rove

Chummy with the 'enemy'

GOP and Dems, Bush and Pelosi, 'thumpin' and...
A follow up to the second part of this post about President George W. Bush's altering attitudes towards the American political scene.

See here and here for more on the president's seemingly superficial political change. By the way, he met with House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi.

And the Republicans are not too friendly* with the Democrats regarding their loss...


*For all those who don't know what The Onion is, it is a satirical news publication. Do not take it with even a grain of salt ;)

technorati tags: pelosi, bush, politics, news, in+perspective, clearthought, nancy+pelosi, house, democrats, republicans, bush, president+bush, american+politics, thumpin

Moody partisanship; feelings on the elections

An array of moods extracted from opinion pieces (not necessarily the moods of the pieces themselves)

Glum (NYT op-ed)

Though the assembled reporters were hardly glum, conservatives of every stripe can console themselves by considering the limited scope of the Democrats’ midterm sweep.

Giddy (Brooks article)

Why am I weirdly happy? I’m a conservative. Many people I know and admire lost tonight. And yet somehow this strikes me as a good night for the country.

Rush Limbaugh pissed off/apathetic (multiple feelings expressed) at Republican losses. Apparently the raving irrational 'conservative' commentator is angry at the 'nonpartisan' and non-"conservative" Republicans. The article actually makes less sense than most of his works but it has raised some eyebrows. (By the way, that guy talks a lot [of nonsense]!)

The way I feel is this: I feel liberated, and I'm going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried.

A final word from that David Brooks post:

All in all, an end to the era of base-mobilizing politics and a victory for the center (albeit with a Democratic tilt). Nancy Pelosi seems to understand this. She’s striking a bipartisan pose, not a triumphalist one. We’ll see if it lasts.

[tagname]