(take two)

The supposedly straight talking populist John McCain has fashioned his image as a "centrist" in this election by admitting that global warming exists, denouncing torture (while doing nothing to stop it), pulling for immigration reform (while now saying he would vote against it), and favoring expanded federal funding for stem cell research.  But when one looks at the Senator from Arizona’s plans towards the budget we see that he is as far right as it comes in American politics, and his "straight talking express" comes to a complete halt.

On his presidential campaign’s website it states "As president, John McCain will not just talk about fiscal discipline, he will exercise it. The practice of excessive borrowing and deficit spending in Washington must stop."  In modern day American politics this is pretty mainstream, nothing too crazy yet.  But, as they say, the devil is in the details.

The supposedly straight talking populist John McCain has fashioned his image as a "centrist" in this election by admitting that global warming exists, denouncing torture (while doing nothing to stop it), pulling for immigration reform (while now saying he would vote against it), and favoring expanded federal funding for stem cell research.  But when one looks at the Senator from Arizona’s plans towards the budget we see that he is as far right as it comes in American politics, and his "straight talking express" comes to a complete halt.

On his presidential campaign’s website it states "As president, John McCain will not just talk about fiscal discipline, he will exercise it. The practice of excessive borrowing and deficit spending in Washington must stop."  In modern day American politics this is pretty mainstream, nothing too crazy yet.  But, as they say, the devil is in the details.

Anyone who knew American politics knew this was coming.  As Republican strategist Lee Atwater said in an interview with a political scientist, racially charged attacks can no longer be made explicitly, the country has moved beyond that.  They must be made abstractly, such as criticizing "welfare queens" and "high taxes" that finance them.  Now we are faced with the newest version of attack, going after Barack Obama’s patriotism.

I have heard it stated more than once in casual conversation.  When describing white friends or associates, they are referred to as "American".  When describing African-American friends or associates, they are referred to as "black".  The unconscious categorization is clear.  Some people (whites) are real citizens, others (all minorities) are simply additions.  It is like a side of coleslaw with your dinner.  It might bring a little more to your meal, but it is not necessary.  It is not the main course and you can do without it.

Since I used the word in the title and in order to avoid confusion, I think it is appropriate to first define what I mean by "moderate".  The most common usage of this term is the vague and therefore mostly meaningless description of an individual or group that is neither "too liberal" nor "too conservative".  I call this usage vague and meaningless because it is never clear what is meant by "liberal" or "conservative", and consequently there is no way to know when someone has passed the threshold of being "too much" one or the other.  And this is only describing the term as it is used in domestic politics.  In foreign policy we are told that the Saudi Arabian government, one of the most brutal regimes in the world, is "moderate" for no other reason, it appears, than their willingness to generally do what the U.S. government asks of them.

Since "moderate" in it’s present form is either unclear or only self serving to those in power, I think that there is nothing wrong with putting forth a new definition that is both clear and fair.  Some may even say that such a redefining is an absolute necessity.  

Since I used the word in the title and in order to avoid confusion, I think it is appropriate to first define what I mean by "moderate".  The most common usage of this term is the vague and therefore mostly meaningless description of an individual or group that is neither "too liberal" nor "too conservative".  I call this usage vague and meaningless because it is never clear what is meant by "liberal" or "conservative", and consequently there is no way to know when someone has passed the threshold of being "too much" one or the other.  And this is only describing the term as it is used in domestic politics.  In foreign policy we are told that the Saudi Arabian government, one of the most brutal regimes in the world, is "moderate" for no other reason, it appears, than their willingness to generally do what the U.S. government asks of them.

Since "moderate" in it’s present form is either unclear or only self serving to those in power, I think that there is nothing wrong with putting forth a new definition that is both clear and fair.  Some may even say that such a redefining is an absolute necessity.  

I wrote a diary several weeks ago at this site criticizing "counterracism" and demonstrating how it has the same characteristics that help make racism, that thing that the counterracists claim to be fighting, so dangerous.  Namely, it survives on emotion driven arguments that make certain comments or images seem self evidently racist even though there is little to no proof that they really are.  Furthermore, the premise that counterracists often put forward, that there is very little racism in the country and so therefore most of those who bring up the issue of racism must themselves be racist, is contradicted by their innumerable charges of "racist" antics and behavior.

Barack Obama’s campaign and many of its supporters criticize Hillary Clinton for continuing on with the campaign despite her having little chance of passing the Illinois senator in pledged delegates.  As I have argued in prior posts, I believe this line of argument to be disingenuous and ethically wrong, for millions of voters, including those in the crucial and large states of Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, have yet to have their say, and if the shoe was on the other foot, it is near certain that these same people would be arguing for their candidate to stay in the race.

After pointing this out, many then resort to criticizing Clinton’s political tactics, and say that if she was running a more clean and decent race they would have no problem with her staying in (please see the comments on my prior post for examples).  It is her claims that Obama may not be fit to be Commander in Chief (while McCain is), or "as far as she knows" Barack is not a Muslim, or trying to get the delegates from Michigan and Florida seated based on their votes in January, and other comments and actions that are the problem.  I will not defend or justify these, for I do not agree with or advocate them.

Many of Barack Obama’s most fundamentalist followers are so unintentionally ironic, it makes you wonder whether you should laugh or cry.  These individuals, who claim to be ushering in a "new day" in politics, have the same victim mentality, paranoia, and hysteria as the most conservative Republicans.

I have seen arguments ranging from "Hillary is trying to sabotage the Democrats so she can win in 2012", to "Hillary is destroying Barack Obama and the Democratic Party", to "Diebold may be why Clinton does so much better in primaries than caucuses", to "Rush Limbaugh is the reason why Hillary won Texas, he told Republicans to vote for her", to "Obama represents a revolution", to "Barack can win 47 states in the general election".  The list is endless.  Yet many of our world's most pressing problems get little mention.

It never ceases to amaze me how politicians’ die hard supporters can consistently be so intellectually inconsistent and never appear to realize it.  

It was not very long ago that many followers of Barack Obama, including Frank Rich of The New York Times, were mocking Hillary Clinton and her campaign for disregarding the results of so many states that did not go in her favor (as they should have).  Now it is many of these very same people who are trying to disregard the results of millions of other voters.  For instance, there were countless diaries on DKos and commentaries around the Internet in the last days arguing that Senator Clinton should drop out of the race before the contests in Ohio and Texas (and therefore also Vermont, Rhode Island, Wyoming, Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Mississippi, Montana, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Oregon).  Now, even after Senator Clinton carried 3 of the four states last night (the Texas caucus still outstanding) calls are again being made for her to step aside.  In short, these people are saying that none of the states mentioned above matter.

This is my second installment in a series of blogs examining exit polls from this year’s primary contests.

In both the 2004 presidential election and the current campaign there has been much talk about the "youth vote" (defined as those between the ages of 17 and 29).  Although many have spoken about the phenomenon itself, few have actually explored the numbers to see how this year’s youth turnout compares to the last election.

It has been widely reported, quite accurately, that the Democratic contests thus far have had record turnout.  However, these large numbers of voters have been across all age groups, not just the young.  Therefore, for the "youth vote" to have any real importance in a discussion about political participation, outside the obvious energy these individuals create and the policy implications of their involvement in the process, there would have to be a significant difference in the share of the vote they represent, not just their absolute numbers.

This is my second installment in a series of blogs examining exit polls from this year’s primary contests.

In both the 2004 presidential election and the current campaign there has been much talk about the "youth vote" (defined as those between the ages of 17 and 29).  Although many have spoken about the phenomenon itself, few have actually explored the numbers to see how this year’s youth turnout compares to the last election.

It has been widely reported, quite accurately, that the Democratic contests thus far have had record turnout.  However, these large numbers of voters have been across all age groups, not just the young.  Therefore, for the "youth vote" to have any real importance in a discussion about political participation, outside the obvious energy these individuals create and the policy implications of their involvement in the process, there would have to be a significant difference in the share of the vote they represent, not just their absolute numbers.

There has been much written about the impressive fact that Democratic voters have been coming out in much larger numbers than Republican voters this primary season, even in traditionally "red states".  When more Democrats than Republicans came out in the conservative strongholds of South Carolina, Georgia and Virginia, I began to question whether the optimism this turnout provided was perhaps a bit misplaced.  Would the Democratic Party really be able to compete, or even win, such states?  Since I did not want to wait until the fall, I decided to review history to see if it left any indication of the predictive value of such numbers.

Since the elections of 1992, 1996, and 2004 all had incumbent presidents in the election, the only two recent elections that were remotely comparable to 2008 (where both parties had fairly competitive races) were 1988 and 2000.  Unfortunately, I could not find data on the Internet regarding the former (if anyone finds a link, please let me know).  I therefore checked primary turnout for the latter.  The results were relatively surprising.

Barack Obama’s campaign for the presidency is suppose to be about recognizing that we are "one America" and to bring in a new era of "reconciliation" and "unity".  The message, in a single word, has been about "hope".  These are no doubt generally fine words and ideas.  But when judging any individual, especially a politician, we should spend more of our energy determining what they say and do, rather than what they say they say and do.  Remember, George Bush supposedly has a "freedom agenda", but the actual facts, such as his government supporting a coup to overthrow a democratically elected leader (Chavez in Venezuela), sanctions on the Palestinians for voting the wrong way, and key diplomatic, military, and financial support to one of the worst tyrannies on the planet (Saudi Arabia), say something else entirely.

I read this book a couple of months ago, "The Writing on the Wall", a "what if" novel that takes place following the 2008 election.  Although the characters are fictional, the president in the book, Jim Whitman, is obviously based on John McCain.  At the time of my reading I thought, "Too bad for the author this guy isn’t going to win...and good thing for the country."  The writer, Hannes Artens, imagines a scenario where religious zealots and big business interests within the Republican Party combine to essentially force the president into war with Iran.  Not to ruin the ending (although it is mentioned in the prologue), but this results in an atomic war between Pakistan and India and a massive world recession, along with other events that I will not name here.  

I know that the likely Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, has spoken a lot about wanting to eliminate "the politics of fear", but we must face the fact that fear cannot be removed from the human experience.  As I pointed out in prior diaries, Senator Obama himself recognizes this, and uses it in his campaign proposals and speeches...

When I wrote Barack’s middle name
All of the readers and writers came
They left a comment and voted in my poll
Oh, how I wish I was now a troll

It is so lonely writing about John McCain
Duncan Hunter has more fame
Now 10 comments is my modest goal
Oh, how I wish I was now a troll

Perhaps, I think, there is just no one here
But quickly I realize it is that they don’t care
For I have less hits then "pie" in some poll
Oh, how I wish I was now a troll

The umpteenth blog with "Yes We Can"
Has just attracted its umpteenth fan
As I sit and wait, a lonely soul
Oh, how I wish I was now a troll

It is not uncommon for those who find themselves under the boot of injustice to recognize it most.  Therefore, it is not surprising that on Daily Kos, where a preponderance of readers and writers are progressives and/or Democrats, that we hear a lot about the undemocratic "superdelegates" in the contest for the Democratic nomination.  Especially when it appears that most at this site oppose Hillary Clinton and support Barack Obama (as do I), for it is likely that if the superdelegates help anyone it will be the former at the expense of the latter.  

Although we hear less about it today, there is also the issue of the electoral college, which put a conservative Republican into the White House even though he did not win the "popular" (also known as "the actual") vote.  Once again, it is no surprise that little complaint is heard about this undemocratic institution from those who benefited most recently from it (conservatives and Republicans), and the little criticism we do come across comes from Democrats and progressives.  

But there is another problem, this one in the Republican Party, that we should draw attention to as well.

There are many out in Daily Kos Land and across the country who are seriously considering voting Republican in the general election or sitting it out entirely if their preferred candidate does not win the primary.  Two days ago I wrote a diary outlining the key differences between the leading Republican candidates and both Democratic candidates, in the hope of showing these individuals how foolish that decision would be.  Many people stood by their intention to carry out one of these two alternatives by stating they would do so in the event that superdelegates put one of the candidates (usually Hillary Clinton) over the top "against the will of the majority of Democratic voters".  This was justified "on principle" in order to "save our republic".  I am sure many Ralph Nader supporters in felt the same way in 2000, when they stated that "The Democratic Party and Republican Party are indistinguishable.  We are here to save our republic and give voters a real choice."  Did putting George Bush in the White House help our democracy at all?  Of course not, if anything it set it back.  So, why is this argument emerging now when it can be dismissed so quickly?

There was a poll two days ago on Daily Kos that asked if people would support the eventual Democratic nominee even if it is not their preferred primary candidate.  Though of course the poll was not scientific, a majority of over 200 voters said that they would either vote Republican or have to seriously think about what they would do.  I am writing to give these people a slap on the face.

If you are thinking about not voting at all in the event that your favorite candidate loses or contemplating voting for John McCain or Mitt Romney instead, you are either A)unaware of the differences between the parties (and therefore history) and similarities between the Democratic candidates or B) What is called a "qualities" voter.  You should not take pride in being either of these.