Sunday, September 25, 2011

CSPAN Video 6: McConnell and Campaign Finance



Republican Senator Mitch McConnell discusses the DISCLOSE Act of 2010.  He argues that it violates the First Amendment and that the Democrats are motivated by a partisan desire to insulate Democratic incumbents against criticism.  An interesting take on this proposed piece of legislation.  Worth a view.

CSPAN Video 5: Doyle Talks Campaign Finance



Kenneth Doyle, of BNA Money and Politics Report, breaks down the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United and discusses the current state of campaign finance law.  He mentions the difference between hard and soft money.  It's a timely discussion that surely involves the 2012 White House race.

CSPAN Video 4: Public Financing


Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, talks about public financing of elections.  McGehee calls public financing "out of date" and mentions that some candidates have opted out of accepting public financing.  Interesting segment.

Freeman, Cain, Race, and Election 2012

During an interview on CNN on Friday, legendary actor Morgan Freeman called the Tea Party and its members "racists" since they are standing ready to implement whatever means necessary to "get this black man" removed from the Office of the Presidency.  Freeman has been known to make racially charged allegations in the past, and this most recent comment is unsurprising.

I'm sure that the Tea Party has its share of racist members; after all, racism is still alive in America and some of Obama's critics are surely motivated by race, but I find it difficult to label the entire Tea Party movement as racist.  

GOP candidate Herman Cain (the topic of a previous blog post) responded strongly to Freeman's allegations.  In an interview on Fox News, Cain maintained that critics of the Tea Party (including Freeman and others who maintain that the Tea Party is racist) are "so short-sighted in really understanding what the whole Tea Party citizen movement is all about."  I think Cain is onto something.  I've been to a Tea Party rally; and while I think the movement is really a distraction, there are many genuine members who possess finely articulated criticisms of Obama--criticisms not motivated by race.  The movement is comprised of demoralized Americans.  Neither the Democrats nor many Republicans have responded to their concerns; even Left liberals like famed academic Noam Chomsky has cautioned against ignoring the criticisms and concerns of Tea Party members.   

Freeman's comments and Cain's response bring up an interesting question: is it possible to have a thorough and honest discussion of race and politics?  More to the point, should we ignore all criticisms of Obama, labeling them and his critics as "racist?"  Surely the answer is no, but then why is race constantly raised in the election?  

The answer is obvious: race has a political benefit, and Obama's advisors know that they can capitalize on the so-called racism.

In that same Friday interview, Freeman said that the Tea Party's success "unnerves" him because "it just shows the weak, dark, underside of America."  I'm confident that many Americans would agree with him.  

According to Newsbusters.org, Obama's "poll numbers continue to sink" even among "Jews and African-Americans." An increasing number of Americans have adopted the view that the Obama administration remains paralyzed, unable to address the problems that plague domestic America in 2011.    

Is Cain the "Conservative alternative" to Barack Obama?  As the campaign season continues on, it will be interesting to see what role race will play and where Cain will be in the scheme of things.  

The Tea Party has played a crucial role in American politics over the last two years, but is the movement a net benefit or a net loss?  Judging from election results, they have helped propel Republicans into various offices; but they cannot seem to shed the allegation of racism.  Will the Tea Party help the GOP on a national stage, in 2012?  

To secure the Republican nomination, the candidates will have to pander to this movement, but how successful will the Republican candidate be at possessing broad-spectrum appeal during the national campaign?

  

Saturday, September 24, 2011

Fallout from the Republican Debate

On Thursday, September 22, the Republicans held a debate in Orlando, Florida.  All attention was focused on Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, the two men who, according to the major organs of state power (the mainstream media), are the front runners for the Republican nomination.  While there were a few notable moments, the debate was largely an unqualified yawn; the night was mostly comprised of rehashed debating points and soundbites from previously debates.

Both Romney and Perry did, however, haggle over the issue of Social Security--a program that has remained on the debating platform since, at least, the '64 Johnson-Goldwater race.  Candidates--specifically Republican candidates--love to capitalize on this social program and have been doing it for decades.

Over the last two days, media outlets have been noting that Perry has, apparently, slipped in the polls; he had previously enjoyed a comfortable lead over Romney.  Various reporting agencies have maintained that Romney is closer to Perry than before the debate.  Yahoo, for example, published a story on how even Herman Cain has enjoyed a surge in popularity and support since Perry's poor debating performance.  The consensus seems to be that Perry was not on his A-game during Thursday's debate, and his less than stellar performance is reflected in the most recent batch of polling results.  To be sure, it is much too soon to declare Perry's demise or to herald Romney's ascension.

In the Florida straw poll, Cain secured 37.1%, while Perry captured 15.4% and Romney obtained 14%; these results definitely show a narrowing of Perry's lead over Romney.  Interestingly, Rick Santorum came in with 10.88%--a surprising performance.

I'm fascinated by the media's apparent interest in Herman Cain.  This "interest" surely predates Cain's performance in the Florida straw poll.  What accounts for it?  Inquiring minds want to know ...

Yahoo, in publishing an AP story, reported on Saturday that Perry was busy in Florida and Michigan attempting to demonstrate that he is the strongest of the Republican candidates.  If Perry manages to pass the Conservative "litmus test" (and secures the GOP nomination), how will he successfully court moderates and liberals?  In other words, how will he build a winning "coalition" of supporters?  His record in Texas surely leaves much to be desired--for both conservative and liberals, not to mention moderates.  What is his strategy?

On Friday, Rasmussen released a poll that showed Romney leading in New Hampshire, followed by Perry and then Paul--yes, that Paul ... nice that they aren't ignoring him for once.  Romney is said to have  39% "of likely New Hampshire primary voters"--amounting to a comfortable lead.  Performing well in New Hampshire is always important during the primary season.  It'll be interesting to see how Romney ultimately performs in New Hampshire.

Saturday, September 17, 2011

CSPAN Video: 3 Reasons to Repeal the Electoral College


Former Senator Birch Bayh, of Nebraska, identifies three reasons for why the Electoral College system is un-democratic and argues that it should be replaced by the more democratic National Popular Vote.  The debate over the pros and cons of the Electoral College rages on today, as supporters from both sides articulate their positions; Senator Bayh remains a major player in the debate, as this video shows.    

CSPAN Video: What Is the Electoral College Certification Process?


Michael White, of the National Archives, explains the process of Electoral College certification.  He goes into some depth on how Electoral votes are accepted by the Congress and how members of the Congress could register an "objection" regarding any individual Electoral vote.  Pretty fascinating minutiae.  Worth a look!

CSPAN Video: How to Remove the Electoral College


A caller asks how the American people should go upon removing the Electoral College.  Rob Richie says there are several current options under consideration.  John Samples cautions against hastily and unconstitutionally changing the system.  It's interesting to see how these two well-informed men--Richie and Samples--respond to the caller's query.

The GOP, the MSM, and Ron Paul

Glenn Beck, one of the malignant voices of the New Right, has joined the choir of Republican pundits in condemning Ron Paul and the movement that he has courageously birthed.  Beck, once again, reveals his intellectually rigidity--his inability to entertain a differing political scheme.  In Beck's world, the ideal "Republican candidate" is one who believes in perpetual war (i.e., invasions and occupations of several countries) and bankocracy.  Paul, to his credit, doesn't fit Beck's political order and is condemned for it.  But Beck's dislike of Paul borders on psychotic hatred.  Paul disrupts the consensus that is often adopted by the Republican order; while the candidates may disagree on the subtle points on this-or-that policy, they are in fundamental agreement on the essential parts.  Paul challenges that consensus in a gentlemanly (yet profound way).

Beck's dislike of Paul mirrors the mainstream media's (MSM) hatred and its profound refusal (perhaps, inability) to address Paul and his policy positions.  About a month ago, the great Jon Stewart dedicated a segment of his "Daily Show" to examining the MSM's habitual refusal to acknowledge Paul and his growing support.  The MSM's continued usage of the term "top tier" quickly became overtly Orwellian to me.  Even if you disagree with Paul root and branch, you must admire the man's consistency, intelligence, and calm demeanor.  The man is ignored at nearly every crossing and, yet, still soldiers on with a geniality that's unmatched.        

What troubles me about this Ron Paul situation (because, yes, it is a situation) is that we're witnessing a not-too-subtle reduction in what's presented and discussed.  Paul offers an alternative to the status quo; at any rate, he makes you think--and think seriously.  His role is essential to democratic discourse ... to the essence of democracy!

Not long ago, Politico ran an interesting article discussing how the so-called Republican "front-runners," Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, were "running out of time" to garner support and money.  Discussions of the Republican primary consistently revolve around this Romney-Perry grouping: who is more "Conservative," who can rally the base more, who can generate more donations, etc. Bachmann gets some attention, but it quickly reverts to Romney-Perry, Romney-Perry.  And where's Paul?  Somewhere on the sidelines, holding the towel.  

Ron Paul clearly sticks out at these Republican "debates."  His policy analysis and concomitant positions are decidedly out-of-step with the party's hierarchy.  Each of his fellow candidates snicker at him when he discusses foreign intervention and assorted other topics, like drug reform and corporate assistance.  So, perhaps, it isn't just the MSM that wants to see Ron Paul returned to his Congressional district in Texas.  You can add the GOP to the list of people and entities that dislike Paul.  If the power centers dislike Paul, maybe he is on to something worthy of exploration and DISCUSSION.





 

Pew Research Poll on the Parties

On September 12, the vaunted and reputable Pew Research Center released the results of a poll on the ideologies of the two major American political parties: Democrat and Republican.  According to Pew, 23% of those polled responded that the GOP was "Very conservative," up from 18% in June 2010.  A mere 22% polled responded that the Democratic Party was "Very liberal," down from 26% in June 2010.  Only 7% identified the GOP as "Liberal," while 11% identified the Democratic Party as "Conservative."  Pew is quick to note, however, that "Overall, perceptions of the parties’ ideologies are little changed from June 2010" (when they last conducted a similar study). 


What I found most fascinating was the results of "Partisans Rate Their Own Ideology," a section of the poll dedicated to measuring how "party loyalists" identify ideologically.  Unsurprisingly, 74% of registered Republicans identify as "either conservative (55%) or very conservative (18%)."  In the Democratic camp, 41% identify as moderates, 32% say liberal, and 23% claim allegiance to a conservative ideology.  I was surprised by the 23% declaring themselves to be conservative Democrats.  I recall reading some years ago about the Reagan Democrats in both Pennsylvania and Ohio, but I would be shocked to learn that they account for this 23%.  Really: what makes for a conservative Democrat?


On a fundamental level, I have long been skeptical of polls that measure ideological leaning.  If you oppose abortion but support gay marriage, are you to be considered a "conservative?"  If you support abortion but oppose gay marriage, are you to be considered a "liberal?"  How much stock (i.e., value) should we invest in political labels, anyway?  If you are a true "moderate" (you adopt positions on individual issues, without an ideology to "dictate" your allegiance on all issues), shouldn't you also be a registered "independent?"  


If you are a Ron Paulian, where do you fit in this anachronistic left-right political division?  


The Republican primary season is when the party faithful show up, to cast their vote for the most dogmatically rigid Conservative--a phenomenon that is not all too surprising.  For this reason, each one of the Republican candidates endeavors to adopt the title of "Mr. (or Mrs.) Conservative."  Their ads and rhetoric are aimed at those polled who identified as either "very conservative" or "conservative" (whatever that terminology means).  


As the political primary season progresses, it will be interesting to see how political labels and terminology help to frame the discourse and the audience's conception of the candidates.   I mean, they all seem very conservative, to me.