Category: Political

  • Gore > Kerry

    From The Economist…

    Al Gore shines by comparison with John Kerry

    WHERE do Democratic presidential candidates end up? The answer, to judge from recent headlines, is that they go to global gabfests in posh skiing resorts. Al Gore was at Sundance the other week with the likes of Robert Redford, Paris Hilton and various film people who claim they are interested in “issues”. John Kerry was at Davos with the likes of Kofi Annan, Angelina Jolie and sundry slobbering journalists. The skiing was excellent in both places, we’re told; the networking was AU POINT; and the opportunities for meeting HOI POLLOI, other than as conveyors of drinks and canapes, just about zero.

    It is easy to be cynical about the keenness of Messrs Gore and Kerry to discuss “the creative imperative” and other such tosh with their peers. After all, these are men cut from the same cloth, who have spent most of their life hobnobbing with whatever passes for the elite, even occasionally marrying them. They were both bred to be politicians. Mr Gore became a congressman at the age of 28, a senator at 36 and a presidential candidate at 39. Mr Kerry, who grew up thinking that the fact that his initials were JFK proved that he was destined for high office, was a leader of the anti-war movement at 27 (Richard Nixon charitably described him as a “phoney”, but an “effective” one).

    And yet something extraordinary has happened over the past few years: the two men have started to become distinguishable. Mr Kerry remains a professional politician–the perpetual junior senator for Massachusetts, playing the pale thin man to Teddy Kennedy’s florid fat man. Conversely, he has also retained his tin ear for politics. Last week, he not only made the mistake of calling for a filibuster of Samuel Alito that had no chance of succeeding (to have any chance of making this archaic senatorial device work with a Supreme Court nominee, you first need to have demonised your victim); he also made the mistake of making that call from Davos.

    From the perspective of Davos Man, this was doubtless an impressively global stunt (how Ms Jolie must have purred on the chairlift). But in the real world of American politics, it was disastrous. Scott McClellan, George Bush’s normally lacklustre press secretary, joked about it being “pretty serious yodelling to call for a filibuster from a five-star ski resort in the Swiss Alps”. The WALL STREET JOURNAL sniped that Mr Kerry had been “communing with his political base” in Davos. Democrats were furious. They saw it as a transparent play for support from the party’s over-excited activists, the insider turned calculating insurgent (Mr Kerry even wrote about the filibuster on a left-wing blog). Barack Obama, a newcomer to the Senate, said it was silly to oppose a nominee unless you’ve won the hearts and minds of the country. Mr Alito has now been confirmed for the Supreme Court, blue-collar America has been reminded why Democrats are not like them and Mr Kerry has confirmed his position as one of the perennial losers in American politics.

    Mr Gore, by contrast, has morphed into a more interesting figure. The youngest presidential candidate from a major party since William Jennings Bryan, he has now abandoned the life of a professional politician for a portfolio career as part-time businessman and part-time tub-thumper. He calculates that he spends three-quarters of his time running his cable television project, Current TV, a sort of “Wayne’s World” for the digital age. Mockers may point out that most of Mr Gore’s original backers were big Democratic donors, that he had to give up his original idea of founding a liberal alternative to Fox News and that the channel now relies on help from Mr Gore’s political nemesis, Rupert Murdoch. But Current TV has developed into a genuine business rather than a political front.

    It is ironic that a man who was once famous for his stiffness has embraced one of the most fluid forms in media; and rather odd that a man who was robbed of a normal youth by his father’s political ambition (the older Senator Gore boasted of raising his son for the White House) has plunged into youth television. But he has loosened up. Al the politician was wound up almost beyond endurance. (“How can you tell Al Gore from a roomful of Secret Service agents?”, went a popular joke. “Gore is the stiff one.”) The new Al is letting it all hang out. The evidence of this is partly physical: a man who was described as a “fantasy man” by FITNESS magazine in 1992 has ballooned. But it is more than that: Mr Gore is now quite a performer, a man who is no longer frightened of sweating and hollering.

    LET IT ALL OUT, AL
    Mr Gore now delivers no-holds-barred broadsides against the Bush administration for everything from Abu Ghraib to warrantless wiretaps. But the former vice-president is at his most impressive on his old passion–the environment. Wrongly or rightly, Mr Gore believes that humanity has only about a decade to fix a “planetary emergency”; and he has spent the past few years roaming the world perfecting his lecture-cum-slideshow on the dangers of global warming, much as Ronald Reagan spent the 1950s roaming America perfecting his speech on the evils of government. Mr Gore was at Sundance to promote a documentary based on his speech.

    Which points to an interesting paradox: Mr Gore is generating far more political capital by breaking the political rules than he did by obeying them. Mr Kerry’s Alito ploy looked brazenly political. But Mr Gore’s new persona (or perhaps, more accurately, his rediscovery of his hidden self) is causing something of a buzz. The party’s cash-rich Hollywood wing increasingly sees him as a liberal alternative to Hillary Clinton; and he is persuading all sorts of people to take a fresh look at Dudley Do Right. None of this means that he is a frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2008. But it does mean that he is far better placed than the junior senator from Massachusetts.

  • Gore Watch

    I haven’t been good about Gore updates, but with the speech last week and book deal this week….People should be watching.

    A book tour is a great way to fake campaign. Perhaps his Global Warmning book will suggest alternative fuels….Iowa may like to hear about that.

  • Truman Q9 Draft 1

    Describe the problem or needs of society you want to address when you enter public service. (If possible use statistical data to define the magnitude of the problem)

    Newt Gingrich surprisingly has a lot respect from this Bill Clinton idealizer and loyal Democrat. Newt and I don’t see eye to eye on the substance of many issues, but I respect his willingness to take the unpopular stance to do what he sees as right. He has a point in some cases. There is a problem with our education system if the US ranks 18th in education effectiveness while spending more than any other country per student. & Now, I disagree with abolishing the Department of Education, but one must respect his reasoned position. There is a reason his outside the box outlook proved successful in 1994.

    Innovation is good for governing. Politicians too often cling to the safe, stale ideas, logrolling to keep their jobs. I suppose a 98% incumbent re-election rate proves their methods work, but the system we have shouldn’t be. Politicians fear being the next Walter Mondale. Not many would suggest running for President proposing higher taxes, but at least he said what he believed the best solution was.

    Society needs Gingrich’s and Mondale’s bringing non-mainstream and not necessarily immediately popular views center stage. The public needs to be informed of alternatives, so voters can actually see differences available to them. Political leaders themselves aren’t helpful when in a presidential debate the biggest disagreement between them regarding foreign policy, during a war in Iraq, appears to be whether to approach North Korea multilaterally or bilaterally.

    The innovative ideas aren’t always the right ones, but without them there is no debate or progress towards better solutions. Citizens grow apathetic when they don’t see an opportunity for real change. There are reasons why voter turnout has fallen over 10% in the past fifty years.

    Choices and opportunities for change need to be made available for progress to happen.

  • Feedback Please

    Okay Political Nerds, give me feedback on the following proposal (It is a first draft)

    Problem Statement:
    The States’ representation on the Federal level of the US government was removed with the passage of the seventeenth amendment to the US Constitution. Thereby, removing “the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.”
    In the previous century, while the State legislatures lost their power over Senate appointments, they were granted influential power, exercised by the redistricting process, over the US House of Representatives during the Reapportionment Revolution of the 1960s. From the end of Reconstruction through 1960, there was an average of 40 seats gained or lost each election by each of the major two parties. This average fell to 16 in the elections from 1962 to 2004. Since the House’s expansion to 435 members and passage of the 17th amendment , the differential, comparative responsiveness between the House and Senate dropped from 3.43% until 1960 to .53% after 1960 . Partially due to political redistricting, the designed democratic responsive nature of the House has diminished.

    Proposed Solution:
    Amend the US Constitution, initiated by “a Convention for proposing Amendments” with the following :
    Amendment XXVIII
    Section 1. The seventeenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
    Section 2. Should a State divide its Representatives by geographic boundaries, such boundaries are to be created and approved by a majority of an appointed group of persons within each State. This group, of an even number, is to be appointed, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, by the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
    Section 3. No State shall send a Representative to the House of Representatives if such Representative is not elected in accordance with this amendment.

    Major Obstacles/Implementation Problems:
    Constituent Objections:
    Voters likely will respond negatively to the repeal of the constitutionally mandated direct election of Senators. However, the State Legislatures can individually establish this democratic process, as at least 29 states had done prior to the 17th amendment’s adoption. Therefore, they can pressure their state level governments for the reestablishment of the process.
    Voters also likely will be wary of Section 3 fearing losing their representation in the US House. However, if their State Legislature cannot come to an agreement upon a successful group, the voters can punish their state legislature via election, which adds incentive for the legislature to come to an agreement.

    Elected Official Objections:
    US House Representatives will probably dislike the actions taken against political redistricting because it will reduce their electoral prospect certainty. However, by going through “a Convention for proposing Amendments”, the House of Representatives is bypassed in the amendment process.
    US Senators will likely oppose the amendment because their constituency could change from the voters to the state legislators. While this is unlikely, because of the expected results from voters’ objections, it is a reduced concern because the Senate is also bypassed in the amendment process.
    Senators and Representatives could politically pressure state legislators to oppose the Amendment and depress its prospects for passage. However, the state legislators, prominent political figures in their respective states, would most likely benefit from Section 2 as their chances for successfully challenging and winning a US House seat improve. Therefore curbing this pressure.

    Implementation Problems
    The largest implementation problem will likely be in the calling of the Convention, since this has never been done before. However, an agreeable procedure could be established through by deliberation of the Speakers of legislatures.

  • Well this hurts the Gore Theory

    STOCKHOLM, Sweden — Former Vice President Al Gore (search) said Wednesday he had no intention of ever running for president again.”I have absolutely no plans and no expectations of ever being a candidate again,” said Gore, who lost the 2000 election to President Bush (search).

    However, Gore did not completely shut the door to political endeavors.

    “I don’t completely rule out some future interest, but I don’t expect to have that,” he said during a visit to Swede

  • 1968 = 2008 Addendum

    Well, last night my Nixon=Gore / JFK &LBJ=Bush was on fire last night. I hadn’t realized how few people I told it to before last night. Anyway, that inspired me to add some Addendums.

    FIRST: Storms
    The last two major Hurricanes to destroy New Orleans:

    Hurricane Betsy & Hurricane Katrina

    Respective Years:

    1965 & 2005

    Which Equate to:

    JFK/LBJ 1st Year of Term 2 & GWB 1st Year of Term 2

    SECOND: Supreme Court
    Nominees to the Supreme Court Associate Justice:

    Bush chose Harriet Myers, his one time legal counsel, as his nominee to the Supreme Court.

    LBJ chose Abe Fortas, his one time legal counsel, as his nominee to the Supreme Court.

    Respective Years:

    2005 & 1965.

    Interestingly, Abe Fortas took his seat on the bench….
    ………………………………………….40 Years Ago Today

    heh, imagine if I actually researched these parallels and not just made them as I pick things up from News or History Classes.

  • IR’s Problem

    Thought of mine expressed pretty well:

    The problem with international institutions is that with well defined state borders, there is no blurring of the states. Therefore, this sections off the people preventing a world democratic state, and the defining characteristics of the players in world government are not the people but the power the state’s themself have. These borders must be slowly deterioted until there are none. Then democracy can happen, and there can be a world government. Steps cannot be skipped for this to work. Therefore, no world government before deterioated borders.