Newt Gingrich verse John Kerry

While I have to admit I was disappointed there wasn’t more conflict, the debate between John Kerry and Newt Gingrich was well worth the watch.

More important, in my opinion than the words of the debate, were the implications. The fact that Gingrich stood up saying, "there has to be, if you will, a green conservative [with] a willingness to stand up and say, 'All right, here's the right way to solve these' ... rather than get into a fight over whether or not to solve it," has meaning. He didn’t fight Kerry over the basis of whether or not global warming is an issue but instead brought it back to a conservative ideal; let the market fix the problem.

While Kerry is just trying to bring light to this issue, Gingrich is setting up a bid for the President. Along with his upcoming book “A Contract With the Earth” he has wrote “Saving Lives and Saving Money” on the issue of healthcare. Healthcare and the environment are typically Democratic issues that Gingrich is trying to steal from them. In the end Kerry, while supporting his issue, was helping Gingrich start forming his liberal issues with conservative solutions agenda.

What does this mean for middle America? Gingrich is one of the architects of Contract with America. He led the charge to retake the House from Democratic control after a generation. Is he just playing the strategy game or is he becoming more moderate? Based on his solutions I think it’s a mixture. Regardless, it makes this election cycle much more interesting to watch, and Gingrich hasn’t even declared his intentions yet.

In defense of the fad

I had been meaning to respond to Kristine's post about Obama for some time, but in order to do my response justice, it would need to be longer than comment at the end. And so Kristine, in fair defense of "the fad":

While I agree that the question of "electability" is a phenomenon that is unprecedented before the Information Age, I believe that Obama is very likely to be a Lincolnesque candidate because of factors you do not address in your post.

First, you say that the "age of electability based on charismatic leadership is over" but do not support this assertion in anyway. I think particularly after seven years of an administration lacking in charisma, diplomatic progress, and frankness with the American people, an well-spoken outsider would be very well-received by the masses. Furthermore, despite the sleuth of past politicians you compare to Obama, you neglected one very notable example--an obscure, young, and inexperienced senator from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy. Kennedy was the youngest and least-experienced presidential candidate of his time, yet he had the right message at the right time, and in the end that is all that mattered.

I went to see Barack Obama speak at George Mason University on February 2nd. It was the first political rally advertised by Facebook alone. The venue, George Mason's student union, which is about the size of a small shopping mall, surged beyond capacity (and likely beyond fire standards) and was full to the brim with people hoping to hear a snippet of his message. This was eight days before he would officially announce his candidacy, and already a few thousand people, some coming from across the country, were packing into a small space to hear what he had to say. Because the space was so small, and not really designed to accommodate such a crowd, only about one-fourth of the attendees could actually see him. I could only see him fraction of the time through the legs of a tv cameraman's tripod.

I went because my girlfriend is from Chicago and is a full-blown Obama zealot, but I remained a skeptic. However, as I stood staring through the tripod I realized that what he was saying was exactly what I had been waiting and dying to hear for seven years, and I was not the only one. There were tears in the eyes of young people around me, and what was perhaps most remarkable was that his message was not only “vote for me,” and “my policies are better than their policies.” His message was one of empowerment for young people hoping to make an impact on their future and the future of their country. Remember “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”? And his inexperience didn't bother me in the least. In fact, after hearing him cite his positions and statements denouncing the War in Iraq, lobbyist corruption and the disappearance of a middle-class--before being elected--I found it a positive mark that he was not associated with the Congress of the last seven years, made up of rubber-stamp Republicans and do-nothing Democrats.

One of those do-nothing Democrats was Hillary Clinton, now in trouble for her tight-rope balancing act on her position on the war. In this way, she is no different from John Kerry. And like all the other Democrats who voted for this war, she will eventually have to admit this decision was a mistake or be left behind. Knowing what I know about red states, having lived in Kansas for 18 years, I know that absent a total Republican melt-down, she will win in none of the states Kerry lost in ’04, Ohio included regardless of how well she has been vetted.

Buying Campaigns..

Political campaigns in the US have increasingly cost more and more every election cycle. A study by the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity found that consultants were paid a total of $1.85 billion for their work on political campaigns and that "media consultants, who handle advertising and give strategic advice, received 65 percent of all money spent — roughly $1.2 billion."

The second largest amount, $298 million went to direct mail consultants. Another $59 million went to fund raising consultants. This study includes 34 Senate races, 435 House races and the two contenders for the White House.

All of this adds up to large sums of money being spent to buy the support of the American public. These enormous amounts lead to candidates spending large portions of their time fund raising and getting up close and personal with special interest groups.

This means that the 2008 presidential campaign and it's wide open primary contests, which are already in full fund raising mode, will cost even more. And where does all the money go? To consultants telling the candidates how 'to reach the people.'

The possibility of the candidates forgoing public funding in the general contest for the first time in its history may change presidential campaigns forever. Without any public funding, and the limits placed on fund raising that come with it, costs are likely to sky rocket out of control.

And where does this leave the middle ground American? Only time will tell, but it is unlikely to help their plight to be heard.


http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3666161
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6451239,00.html
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/03/17/
in_candidates_dash_for_cash_romney_scrambles_to_get_out_front/
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070315-082220-6994r.htm
http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx

Link to another blog post

I needed to respond to a post for another class and it ended up being posted on this blogs main site. It's about Obama and his chances for President.

http://politicalgrind.com/2007/02/26/the-obama-equivalent/

I have to respectfully disagree.

Obama’s campaign looks exactly like a fad.
The age of electability based on charismatic leadership is over. The extensive vetting process that candidates now have to endure exposes every aspect of a candidate’s life, but more importantly the 24 hour news cycle makes mountains over what a casual observer might call a mole-hill. This causes a phenomena where even when the public might not mind a certain weakness (namely a lack of experience) that weakness is talked about over and over and over changing the publics mindset over time. So while they may be moved be a speech, they are changed by those facts that are repeated, and the soundtrack of Obama will sound increasingly like a broken record of “inexperience.”

While some like to try to compare him to Lincoln, who was inexperienced when he became President the comparison is an ill-fit. It’s not that both were not underdogs, nor is it that both were not charismatic and visionary- but the comparison lacks any historical perspective in terms of the development of the media. Lincoln didn’t carry on his campaign with 24 hour satellite coverage and a media entourage. Becoming President these days is no quiet matter; it is an extravaganza of people and events, interviews and photo-ops, and each time Obama slips, the American people will be there to watch the newbie fall. But where the Lincoln-Obama connection doesn’t quite take, there are other public figures against whom Obama can easily be measured.

In some respects Obama is reminiscent of Senator John Edwards in 2002/2003. He is attractive, well educated, and seems to appeal to a broad base. However, in the end most Democrats didn’t feel like Edwards could seriously contest President Bush because he didn’t have enough experience.

Obama is also similar to Governor Howard Dean in the past election. Dean was the big story for many new cycles because he was revolutionizing the internet campaign and using youth voters to an extent never seen before. But Dean peaked too soon. His campaign began as a visionary one and fell apart when the crushing weight of having to propose policy as a front runner was brought to bear. Once the weakness of his charming rhetoric was stripped away the democratic voters were left with a bold relief of a man who simply didn’t seem electable.

Obama may invigorate some part of the youth vote as Dean did in ‘04, but that certainly does not ensure him the primary much less the election. Even if the youth vote brings him within sight of winning a few primaries national statistics suggest that youth voters across the nation are as split down the middle as all other voting groups- forcing Obama to focus on issues and not demographics.

But back to a poor comparison: Obama and Bill Clinton. Obama is no Bill Clinton. Clinton was and still is a charismatic, political force. Clinton ran at a time when all other serious Democratic challengers couldn’t get their names out of the race fast enough because then President H. W. Bush had one of the highest approval ratings in history. Obama has serious challengers that have far more resources and experience than he. But most importantly his biggest challenger, Hillary Clinton, has already been vetted in the campaign process and will likely not have anything new come to light in this presidential campaign.

And if Obama does make it through the primary it appears he would likely be running against Senator John McCain, an older, more experienced, more respected war hero. While McCain would look incredibly old next to a young and vigorous Obama, McCain is extremely popular with moderates and is seen as a man who would unite a divided country. Imagine the evening news after a debate where John McCain simply turned to Obama on an issue and said “You’ve still got a lot to learn.” And ultimately that may become the epitaph of the Obama campaign, “You’ve still got a lot to learn.”

This race will ultimately come down to the administration’s record and that may help Obama if he does win the Democratic nomination. However, he has a long road ahead of him and while people feel he is the newest and greatest thing now they may feel very differently in a year and a half. Think of how long other candidates like Ralph Nader, Allan Keyes, or Geraldine Ferraro looked promising? America’s attention span is just far too short for a candidate whose greatest asset is a knock-out smile and an inspiring voice.

--Kristine

Are the Democrats really any different?

During the midterm elections the Democrats made many promises to 'change things' and 'get things done' unlike, they claimed, the Republicans had done in their time in power. By working with the Republicans, and compromising undoubtedly in the middle of what either party wants, the middle of the political spectrum where most Americans are would be best served.

But is it in the Democrats best political interest to work with the Republicans? No. If they want to better their chances for 2008 the Democrats can’t work hand in hand with the Republicans because it will anger their base. They need to fight the Republicans tooth and nail, and win. However, this means two more years of partisan politics which will leave Congress’s hands tied resulting in nothing substantive getting done.

Congress has never been known for being overly coherent and productive. The Founding Fathers didn’t mean for it to be. Congress was designed to be slow and methodical so that radical changes could not regularly shake up our system of government. Yet, Congress hasn’t been doing any of the work of the people, not in the past two years under the Republicans and from the looks of things not in the next two years under the Democrats. Congress is doing the work of their own respective political parties in hopes of bettering their chances for reelection, just to further this ongoing cat and mouse game that does nothing but leave the moderate Americans hopeless with no where to look for optimism.

--Kristine Miller

Presidential Politics: Huckabee Claims He Won't Scare Moderates

Presidential Politics: Huckabee Claims He Won't Scare Moderates

Welcome to America in the Middle

Welcome to America in the Middle, a forum created to discuss and promote the advancement of a moderate America. The 2004 presidential election was one marked by extreme divisions in the United States electorate. Anger points were put forth by each side in an attempt to create a dichotomy in America. For the war, pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay marriage--If you were any of these things you were a Red-state conservative. Against the war, pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-gay marriage--Any these things meant you were liberal and from either the Northeast, West Coast, or Lake states. In reality, America's political views have always been more diverse, and even in November 2004, most Americans were some shade of purple. However, a jaded America was forced to decide between an the admittedly highly conservative incumbant administration and supposedly the "two most liberal senators in Congress (Fox News)."

Luckily, two years changed everything. The 2006 mid-term elections were an overwhelming victory for the Democrats who unseated the Republican majority, but it also marked a giant leap towards the middle, from American voters frustrated with a corrupt rubber-stamp Congress, a war with no perceiveable end, new highs in the deficit, new lows in health care, and a failed immigration policy that had not been firmly addressed by either party in a decade. Americans came from both sides of the two-tone political spectrum to a center that had not been represented for six years.

For proof of this, look no further than to the self-positioning of '08 presidential contenders before and after the election. Hillary Clinton, formerly liberals' leading lady, reiterated her support for the war but denounced it's "mismanagement" to make herself more conservative. Senator Sam Brownback, from my homestate of Kansas, who before the mid-terms was the ultra-conservatives' pick for the Republican nomination, based on his dedication to his extreme positions on social issues, has now denounced the troop surge in an attempt to balance himself to the new apparent national opinion. The only unfortuante exception in this political metamorphisis has been John McCain, who, in an effort to make himself palatable to the extreme elements of his party, has come out in stringent support for Bush's "surge," and has likely scuttled his presidential hopes at the same time.

One thing is certain, that without any incumbant running for presidential nomination, this will be the most open election since the Cold War. It will be one worth watching, and we will be watching out for the America, caught in the Middle.