Friday, July 2, 2010
Berdych Advances to Wimbledon Finals (for the Federer haters...)
Tomas Berdych, who beat Federer in a tight, four-set quarter-final match, just casually dismissed 3 seed and world #2 Novak Djokovic, 6-3, 7-6, 6-3, to move into the Wimbledon Finals. While many called his victory over Federer an upset, I disagree. As a Fed fan, I had been worried about the prospect of that match-up for several rounds and was not surprised when Berdych advanced. The 6’5” Czeck bomber has always been loaded with talent but, while he has been inside or just on the cusp of the world top ten for many years, the story line on him is that he’s never quite lived up to his full potential. That seems to be changing. Berdych made it to the semis at last month’s French Open, where he narrowly lost a five-set thriller to Robin Soderling, a match in which he was up two sets to one. While the spread will show Berdych as the underdog in Sunday’s final, regardless of whether he plays world #1 Rafael Nadal or British hope Andy Murray, I think he has at least a fighting chance of landing his first major title.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Follow-up on "Is there trouble looming for Teague?"
Several readers have responded to my suggestion that progressive Democrats have no business protesting Congressman Harry Teague's moderate voting positions, since they failed to mount a credible primary challenger to the first-term Democrat.
Most of these responses argue that my point is either invalid or disingenuous, or both, since, in 2008, Teague did not have the power of incumbency, which gave McCamley a far better shot of defeating him than would be the case today, with Teague being both well-financed by the national Democratic Party and a House incumbent.
A simple example, however, illustrates the limitations of this objection. In Arkansas, incumbent Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln faces a stiff primary run-off challenge from Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter. While Lincoln received the most votes in initial primary balloting on May 18, Halter kept the incumbent under the critical 50% mark, forcing a run-off on June 8. With President Obama, Vice-President Biden, former President Clinton, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (Senate arm of the Democratic National Committee) firmly in Lincoln's corner, Halter faced at least as much, if not more, of a disadvantage in waging his insurgent primary bid to unseat Lincoln as a progressive Democrat would have faced in trying to take down Teague in New Mexico's primary on June 1.
So, I throw the ball back in progressives' court. Where was the challenger?
Most of these responses argue that my point is either invalid or disingenuous, or both, since, in 2008, Teague did not have the power of incumbency, which gave McCamley a far better shot of defeating him than would be the case today, with Teague being both well-financed by the national Democratic Party and a House incumbent.
A simple example, however, illustrates the limitations of this objection. In Arkansas, incumbent Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln faces a stiff primary run-off challenge from Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter. While Lincoln received the most votes in initial primary balloting on May 18, Halter kept the incumbent under the critical 50% mark, forcing a run-off on June 8. With President Obama, Vice-President Biden, former President Clinton, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (Senate arm of the Democratic National Committee) firmly in Lincoln's corner, Halter faced at least as much, if not more, of a disadvantage in waging his insurgent primary bid to unseat Lincoln as a progressive Democrat would have faced in trying to take down Teague in New Mexico's primary on June 1.
So, I throw the ball back in progressives' court. Where was the challenger?
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Progressive Flight from Teague on Health Care?
By: Daniel Balke
Las Cruces area progressives have threatened to withhold support from Congressman Harry Teague over the first-term Democrat’s decision to buck his party and vote “no” in the U.S. House of Representatives’ historic passage of health care reform legislation on Sunday night. Many are frustrated by Teague’s refusal to stand with President Obama in the latter’s hour of greatest need. And while they will happily cast their vote for Democratic Lieutenant Governor Diane Denish in her bid to become New Mexico’s first female governor, they will leave their ballot blank on the U.S. House line in order to protest Teague’s progressive credentials.
This would be misguided for several reasons. First, refusing to vote for Teague is effectively the same thing as voting for Steve Pearce, Teague’s Republican opponent in the November election and a former three-term Congressman from New Mexico’s Second District. The race between Teague and Pearce is expected to be one of the country’s closest and most competitive in the 2010 mid-term elections. In other words, every vote matters. By withholding their electoral support from Teague, progressives would greatly help the cause of one of President George W. Bush’s strongest Congressional allies, who has cozied up to Tea Party activists and vigorously opposed measures close to the progressive heart, including financial regulatory reform, climate change legislation, and, of course, the recently-passed health care bill.
Second, Teague has reliably supported progressive causes. He backed the President’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), voted in favor of climate change legislation that would cap carbon emissions, and has routinely pushed for increased investment in clean, renewable energy technologies in which New Mexico has a comparative advantage, such as solar and wind. Far from a Republican stalwart, moreover, Teague has voted with Democrats 88% of the time, and his occasional unwillingness to vote with the majority has never sunk a major piece of legislation, including Sunday night’s health care vote, which passed with a three vote cushion. The track record is clear: Teague has either voted for, or at least not stood in the way of, progressive initiatives.
Third, a victory for Teague in the upcoming election would give him a freer hand to support progressive causes in future. Today’s political climate is extremely difficult for Democrats, and the Republicans are expected to make big gains in the upcoming mid-terms. Moreover, in Pearce, Teague faces a well-financed politician with wide name recognition and an established electoral base owing to his six years representing the Second District in Washington. In other words, it is unlikely that Teague will ever face a more challenging reelection battle than the way he faced this year. If he triumphs, it is difficult to imagine a Republican challenger unseating him in the near- or medium-term. Such job security would provide Congressman Teague greater ability to support measures more in-line with progressive thinking.
Progressives are understandably frustrated over the centrist line Harry Teague has walked since coming to Congress in January 2009, particularly his refusal to back President Obama’s landmark health care legislation. However, refusing to support Teague in November would provide critical support to conservative Steve Pearce in an election that could be decided by a razor thin margin. Paradoxically, Teague’s success in November depends in large measure on strong turn-out amongst progressive voters, who have now threatened to sit on the electoral sidelines. For those who support a more progressive future for New Mexico’s Second Congressional District, the best move at this point would be to bite their lip and cast a vote for Harry Teague.
Las Cruces area progressives have threatened to withhold support from Congressman Harry Teague over the first-term Democrat’s decision to buck his party and vote “no” in the U.S. House of Representatives’ historic passage of health care reform legislation on Sunday night. Many are frustrated by Teague’s refusal to stand with President Obama in the latter’s hour of greatest need. And while they will happily cast their vote for Democratic Lieutenant Governor Diane Denish in her bid to become New Mexico’s first female governor, they will leave their ballot blank on the U.S. House line in order to protest Teague’s progressive credentials.
This would be misguided for several reasons. First, refusing to vote for Teague is effectively the same thing as voting for Steve Pearce, Teague’s Republican opponent in the November election and a former three-term Congressman from New Mexico’s Second District. The race between Teague and Pearce is expected to be one of the country’s closest and most competitive in the 2010 mid-term elections. In other words, every vote matters. By withholding their electoral support from Teague, progressives would greatly help the cause of one of President George W. Bush’s strongest Congressional allies, who has cozied up to Tea Party activists and vigorously opposed measures close to the progressive heart, including financial regulatory reform, climate change legislation, and, of course, the recently-passed health care bill.
Second, Teague has reliably supported progressive causes. He backed the President’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), voted in favor of climate change legislation that would cap carbon emissions, and has routinely pushed for increased investment in clean, renewable energy technologies in which New Mexico has a comparative advantage, such as solar and wind. Far from a Republican stalwart, moreover, Teague has voted with Democrats 88% of the time, and his occasional unwillingness to vote with the majority has never sunk a major piece of legislation, including Sunday night’s health care vote, which passed with a three vote cushion. The track record is clear: Teague has either voted for, or at least not stood in the way of, progressive initiatives.
Third, a victory for Teague in the upcoming election would give him a freer hand to support progressive causes in future. Today’s political climate is extremely difficult for Democrats, and the Republicans are expected to make big gains in the upcoming mid-terms. Moreover, in Pearce, Teague faces a well-financed politician with wide name recognition and an established electoral base owing to his six years representing the Second District in Washington. In other words, it is unlikely that Teague will ever face a more challenging reelection battle than the way he faced this year. If he triumphs, it is difficult to imagine a Republican challenger unseating him in the near- or medium-term. Such job security would provide Congressman Teague greater ability to support measures more in-line with progressive thinking.
Progressives are understandably frustrated over the centrist line Harry Teague has walked since coming to Congress in January 2009, particularly his refusal to back President Obama’s landmark health care legislation. However, refusing to support Teague in November would provide critical support to conservative Steve Pearce in an election that could be decided by a razor thin margin. Paradoxically, Teague’s success in November depends in large measure on strong turn-out amongst progressive voters, who have now threatened to sit on the electoral sidelines. For those who support a more progressive future for New Mexico’s Second Congressional District, the best move at this point would be to bite their lip and cast a vote for Harry Teague.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Winning in Iraq?
In the Ghetto
Many claims have been made recently relating to our "success" in Iraq. Proponents of these claim, such as John McCain, President Bush, and virtually every annoying conservative talking head, say that the surge has worked, violence is down, and PM Nouri al Maliki is becoming a strong leader and is pushing through political reform in the war-torn country. They also use these reasons as reasons for the United States to continue its occupation of Iraq.
I'm not going to refute these facts. Violence is down, and this downturn indeed came about the same time as we tossed more troops at Iraq. Also, there is less sectarian violence which, to the naked eye, is proof of reconciliation between the hostile factions. This simple article is just meant to point out some of the inaccuracies and deceptions in their argument and try to nudge them back on the right track.
There is no doubt that the surge has brought about a period of relative calm and peace with Iraqi characteristics. But this is a little fallacious. First of all, it's pretty simple to see why the surge "worked." Let's say you have a fire that is getting out of control. So, to combat it, you grab a small water gun that you may have played with at a younger age. As you're squirting water at the fire, you realize it isn't doing anything, and maybe instead of doing it on your own, you should have called the firefighters. But, being the maverick you are, you decide to continue to go it alone and use a fire extinguisher instead of a squirt gun (the extinguisher, by the way, was previously fighting another fire a little east of the new fire). Obviously, this will contain the fire far more effectively than the squirt gun. This is essentially what we did in Iraq. There was rising violence in Iraq and we decided to bolster our troop levels with additional brigades. Only an idiot would think this wouldn't bring violence down. Here's another reason to which nobody seems to being paying attention. Sectarian violence is also going down, so naturally it's due to Mr. McCain's maverick decision to send additional brigades, right? Wrong. Right now, there is essentially a seperator between the warring faction, Sunnis and Shias being put in ghettos (hence the title). As opposed to aiding reconciliation, the surge has actually given Iraq just enough time to be sent back to the post Civil War era US. Instead of growing up as a nation and dealing with its problems, Iraq has said "You go over there, and you go over there. And, if any of you cross this line, NO OIL FOR YOU! COME BACK, ONE YEAR!"
I would like to add one thing, unfortunately, I can't promise any Seinfeld references. America's little dabble in nation building has been, well, just awful. Plus, when we were on the verge of winning it in Afghanistan, our President decided to send troops to Iraq, a country with nothing to do with the War on Terror. Now, Afghanistan is circling the drain and McCain and Bush are busy showing off the new and segregated Iraq. The Iraqi army is now capable of taking over, so what say we hand them a present from us, it's called "Their Country." With all our troops freed up, let's help out Afghanistan instead of occupying Iraq.
Also, my apologies for the title. I couldn't resist.
Many claims have been made recently relating to our "success" in Iraq. Proponents of these claim, such as John McCain, President Bush, and virtually every annoying conservative talking head, say that the surge has worked, violence is down, and PM Nouri al Maliki is becoming a strong leader and is pushing through political reform in the war-torn country. They also use these reasons as reasons for the United States to continue its occupation of Iraq.
I'm not going to refute these facts. Violence is down, and this downturn indeed came about the same time as we tossed more troops at Iraq. Also, there is less sectarian violence which, to the naked eye, is proof of reconciliation between the hostile factions. This simple article is just meant to point out some of the inaccuracies and deceptions in their argument and try to nudge them back on the right track.
There is no doubt that the surge has brought about a period of relative calm and peace with Iraqi characteristics. But this is a little fallacious. First of all, it's pretty simple to see why the surge "worked." Let's say you have a fire that is getting out of control. So, to combat it, you grab a small water gun that you may have played with at a younger age. As you're squirting water at the fire, you realize it isn't doing anything, and maybe instead of doing it on your own, you should have called the firefighters. But, being the maverick you are, you decide to continue to go it alone and use a fire extinguisher instead of a squirt gun (the extinguisher, by the way, was previously fighting another fire a little east of the new fire). Obviously, this will contain the fire far more effectively than the squirt gun. This is essentially what we did in Iraq. There was rising violence in Iraq and we decided to bolster our troop levels with additional brigades. Only an idiot would think this wouldn't bring violence down. Here's another reason to which nobody seems to being paying attention. Sectarian violence is also going down, so naturally it's due to Mr. McCain's maverick decision to send additional brigades, right? Wrong. Right now, there is essentially a seperator between the warring faction, Sunnis and Shias being put in ghettos (hence the title). As opposed to aiding reconciliation, the surge has actually given Iraq just enough time to be sent back to the post Civil War era US. Instead of growing up as a nation and dealing with its problems, Iraq has said "You go over there, and you go over there. And, if any of you cross this line, NO OIL FOR YOU! COME BACK, ONE YEAR!"
I would like to add one thing, unfortunately, I can't promise any Seinfeld references. America's little dabble in nation building has been, well, just awful. Plus, when we were on the verge of winning it in Afghanistan, our President decided to send troops to Iraq, a country with nothing to do with the War on Terror. Now, Afghanistan is circling the drain and McCain and Bush are busy showing off the new and segregated Iraq. The Iraqi army is now capable of taking over, so what say we hand them a present from us, it's called "Their Country." With all our troops freed up, let's help out Afghanistan instead of occupying Iraq.
Also, my apologies for the title. I couldn't resist.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Prisoner Swap in Israel; and Biofuel Reduction Urged
Israel/Lebanon Swap Prisoners
"In the presence of a UN representative," the government of Israel and the Islamic movement of Hezbollah signed an agreement under which Hezbollah would give up two soldiers it captured during the 2006 conflict, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser who are believed to be dead by the Israeli government, in exchange for five Lebanese prisoners. Among the prisoners being handed over to Hezbollah is Samir Qantar, who was imprisoned in 1979 for his actions during a raid. He is believed to be involved in the murder of three Israelis (including a policeman and a child). Also, Israel is exhuming the bodies of fighters who were slain during the numerous years of conflict between the two battling sides. The leader of Hezbollah added he would "provide information on missing Israeli airman Ron Arad."
So, what does this mean on lasting peace between the two belligerent camps. Hopefully, this may lead to an easing of the tensions, a theoretical détente, on Israel's northern border. There are many complications to a possible peace between Israel and Hezbollah. First of all, it's kind of hard to just give up the fight to which you have dedicated your life. That's a given. A more concrete reason would be Hezbollah's ties to various other radical groups who are always working hard to fight against Israel. United by their hatred of Israel, Hezbollah, a radical Shia organization, has provided military training and financial support to Hamas, the radical Sunni group fighting Israel in the Gaza Strip. Currently, Hamas holds an Israeli prisoner of its own, soldier Gilad Shalit. Hamas controls the Gaza Strip, and, despite the recent ceasefire, Israel and the militant group continue to exchange acts of violence. Finally, Iran, a country which has incessantly opposed Israel and also very Shia, and Hezbollah are, to put it lightly, good friends. If Israel can somehow establish a peace deal, hardlinersin Israel might believe it's lending credence to a peace deal with Iran.
There are many occlusions to a peace deal with Hezbollah. However, for the sake of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the entire Middle East, we can only hope that they can form some kind of peace deal. Unfortunately, this a very, very unlikely scenario.
Biofuels Barred?
The President of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, discouraged rich countries from growing crops, that could be used as food, for fuel. Speaking at the G8 summit in Japan, Mr. Zoellick berated the US and EU for using corn and rapeseed for fuel. The Secretart General of the UN Ban Ki Moon has also blamed biofuel production for the food shortage.
While the EU and Japan also bear responsibility for this crisis, seeing as how I live in the US, I'm going to focus on the hypocrisies of the US policy on trade and hunger. The United States claims to be the greatest nation of the world, the world's policeman, and various other trite, arrogant labels made by, quite frankly, trite arrogant people for, most likely, the only country to which they have ever been. However, isn't it true that, as the world's policeman, shouldn't we not only be fighting the "evil-do-ers" of the world, but be aiding the citizens of the countries where we are fighting these bad people. Instead, we are fighting the interests of the poor people abroad and bickering over the patriotism of various presidential candidates.
The economy is tough right now, and this downturn is mostly caused by the price of oil. As a result, many are looking toward different renewable resources for our energy crisis. Unfortunately, we are making two mistakes. The first has to do with these "renewable resources" to which we're attempting to turn. Instead of investigating reasonable solutions like nuclear plants, wind and solar energy, and batteries with longer lives, we're taking crops, which could be used to feed the world, and turning them into fuel. This is taking food off the tables of millions of people and putting it into our cars. The second mistake is with our trade policy. As a country, we purport to be supportive of not only free trade, but of the plight of millions of poor farmers and workers around the developing world. However, as we continue to support agricultural subsidies, we are doing neither. Subsidies go against everything for which free trade stands. Also, with cheap US imports, poor farmers in the developing world and their slightly more expensive crops are plunging further into poverty. Until the US changes its policy, nothing good will happen to these poor people.
"In the presence of a UN representative," the government of Israel and the Islamic movement of Hezbollah signed an agreement under which Hezbollah would give up two soldiers it captured during the 2006 conflict, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser who are believed to be dead by the Israeli government, in exchange for five Lebanese prisoners. Among the prisoners being handed over to Hezbollah is Samir Qantar, who was imprisoned in 1979 for his actions during a raid. He is believed to be involved in the murder of three Israelis (including a policeman and a child). Also, Israel is exhuming the bodies of fighters who were slain during the numerous years of conflict between the two battling sides. The leader of Hezbollah added he would "provide information on missing Israeli airman Ron Arad."
So, what does this mean on lasting peace between the two belligerent camps. Hopefully, this may lead to an easing of the tensions, a theoretical détente, on Israel's northern border. There are many complications to a possible peace between Israel and Hezbollah. First of all, it's kind of hard to just give up the fight to which you have dedicated your life. That's a given. A more concrete reason would be Hezbollah's ties to various other radical groups who are always working hard to fight against Israel. United by their hatred of Israel, Hezbollah, a radical Shia organization, has provided military training and financial support to Hamas, the radical Sunni group fighting Israel in the Gaza Strip. Currently, Hamas holds an Israeli prisoner of its own, soldier Gilad Shalit. Hamas controls the Gaza Strip, and, despite the recent ceasefire, Israel and the militant group continue to exchange acts of violence. Finally, Iran, a country which has incessantly opposed Israel and also very Shia, and Hezbollah are, to put it lightly, good friends. If Israel can somehow establish a peace deal, hardlinersin Israel might believe it's lending credence to a peace deal with Iran.
There are many occlusions to a peace deal with Hezbollah. However, for the sake of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the entire Middle East, we can only hope that they can form some kind of peace deal. Unfortunately, this a very, very unlikely scenario.
Biofuels Barred?
The President of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, discouraged rich countries from growing crops, that could be used as food, for fuel. Speaking at the G8 summit in Japan, Mr. Zoellick berated the US and EU for using corn and rapeseed for fuel. The Secretart General of the UN Ban Ki Moon has also blamed biofuel production for the food shortage.
While the EU and Japan also bear responsibility for this crisis, seeing as how I live in the US, I'm going to focus on the hypocrisies of the US policy on trade and hunger. The United States claims to be the greatest nation of the world, the world's policeman, and various other trite, arrogant labels made by, quite frankly, trite arrogant people for, most likely, the only country to which they have ever been. However, isn't it true that, as the world's policeman, shouldn't we not only be fighting the "evil-do-ers" of the world, but be aiding the citizens of the countries where we are fighting these bad people. Instead, we are fighting the interests of the poor people abroad and bickering over the patriotism of various presidential candidates.
The economy is tough right now, and this downturn is mostly caused by the price of oil. As a result, many are looking toward different renewable resources for our energy crisis. Unfortunately, we are making two mistakes. The first has to do with these "renewable resources" to which we're attempting to turn. Instead of investigating reasonable solutions like nuclear plants, wind and solar energy, and batteries with longer lives, we're taking crops, which could be used to feed the world, and turning them into fuel. This is taking food off the tables of millions of people and putting it into our cars. The second mistake is with our trade policy. As a country, we purport to be supportive of not only free trade, but of the plight of millions of poor farmers and workers around the developing world. However, as we continue to support agricultural subsidies, we are doing neither. Subsidies go against everything for which free trade stands. Also, with cheap US imports, poor farmers in the developing world and their slightly more expensive crops are plunging further into poverty. Until the US changes its policy, nothing good will happen to these poor people.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Betancourt Back; The Impotence of the AU; and My Take on Obama's Veepstakes
Betancourt Returns
After more than six years of captivity by the leftist rebel group FARC, former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt has been rescued by Colombian authorities. Along with fourteen others, including three American defense contractors, Betancourt was released and is in reportedly "very poor health." Her release was a cardinal point of French foreign policy.
While it may sound in bad taste, this is a major blow to FARC and its attempts to get their jailed guerillas released. In order to gain leverage in negotiations, FARC has used Betancourt as a bargaining chip. However, now, not only have they lost that leverage, this allows Colombian President Alvaro Uribe to continue his military offensive against the group. Betancourt's captivity had put pressure on Mr. Uribe to negotiate with FARC, something he has resisted in the past.
This setback adds to the many FARC has faced recently. Among other things, FARC has lost its longtime leader, Manuel Marulanda, along with two other members of its seven man ruling body. That said, the group still holds more than forty hostages and continues to ravage the country.
AU Apathy
We all know of the death and destruction spread by the militias supporting Robert Mugabe's Zanu-PF. Mr. Mugabe has been defiant of international calls for him to either hold free and fair elections, form a coalition government with his opponet Morgan Tsvangirai, or just step down. Today, leaders of Africa met for an AU summit, giving them a chance to chastise Mr. Mugabe and dragoon him into doing one of the aforementioned actions. With this opportunity, these prominent African leaders...
BLEW IT! Yes, in the first window to pressure Mugabe, there he was, sitting in the chair for Zimbabwe. Despite the rise of the AU as a legitimate union of a continent rising out of the muddle of its past, it has shown ineffectiveness when dealing with Zimbabwe, feebly bowing to Robert Mugabe. In the resolution that was approved by the AU, it weakly called for a unity government, failed to call the elections illegitimate, and lionized the "efforts" of Thabo Mbeki to break a deal. However, Mr. Mbeki's policy of "quiet diplomacy" has been largely fruitless and he has shown a stubborn relectance to issue even the mildest criticism to his neighbor, Mr. Mugabe.
The future of Zimbabwe is continuing to worsen. The rightful winner of the first round, Mr. Tsvangirai, is now hiding at the Dutch Embassy, his life in danger. He is, rightfully, denying any attempt at a unity government until he is declared the winner of the presidential campaign. As shown by the AU, international leaders are unable or unwilling to intervene or even condemn the actions of Mugabe. So now, Zimbabwe's hopes rest on the actions of the west. However, any action would definitely require UN approval, and China and Russia are going to veto any sanctions. Also, military intervention, even with UN approval, is very unpopular. The outcome of any military action could be devastating for Zimbabwe. Until action is taken, the people of Zimbabwe will continue to languish under hyperinflation and Mugabe's oppressive regime. Even more tragically, anyone who attempts to flee the situation faces vehement xenophobia in their new location, especially in South Africa.
Veepstakes
If past trends hold true in this election, Barack Obama will choose his running mate in the very near future. In 2004, John Kerry chose John Edwards on July 6th. In 1992, Bill Clinton chose his ultimately more successful running mate, Al Gore, on July 9th. So, the question is, who will be Obama's number two. I've narrowed my guesses down to five people: Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Joe Biden, retired General Wesley Clark, former Senaor Sam Nunn, and, my longshot pick, former House Majority and Minority leader Dick Gephart.
Bill Richardson
A perfect candidate on paper. He is a latino, he has loads of foreign policy experience (he has negotiated with numerous world leaders and dictators), he was an Ambassador to the UN, he was Secretary of Energy under Bill Clinton, he is a popular governor of a swing state, and he is a pro-gun, pro-penalty western moderate. However, there are some downsides. His tenure as Secretary of Energy was plagued by the Wen Ho Lee scandal which might take away some of his credibility on energy and national security issues. His support of medical marijuana might hurt the Obama campaign among moderates. Finally, two minorities on the same ticket may cause even more trouble with working class whites.
Joe Biden
Mr. Biden's VP prospects have been somewhat dismissed by the media while he could be a superb number two. He is a Catholic, which is a demographic that Obama has had trouble with in the past. His longtime membership with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would help Obama with his biggest problem, his lack of experience. Biden took a prominent role in the Balkans conflict and influenced then President Bill Clinton's policy toward the region. However, he adamantly supported Bush's policy with regards to Afghanistan and Iraq, although he repeatedly called for more troops in Afghanistan. Fortunately, he has reversed his position on Iraq and now advocates a draw down of US troops. Another problem for the Senator is his geographic location. Despite Delaware's longstanding affinity for conservatism, I doubt he will help expand the electoral map.
Wesley Clark
There is no doubt what General Clark will bring to the ticket. He has actually commanded troops, going over John McCain's head. He was a supporter of Hillary Clinton and might help in party unity, bring over some of Mrs. Clinton's former supporters who are hesitant to support the "in-experienced" Obama. One downside of his candidacy are his remarks regarding the military experience and qualification of John McCain which received criticism from both McCain and Obama.
Sam Nunn
One of my favorites, Sam Nunn has many years of experience. He served in the Senate for 25 years and as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee for eight years. He is a moderate Democrat who has broken from his party on social and economic issues. This could help Obama reach out to disaffected Republicans and Reagan Democrats. Finally, he is from Georgia, a state that has been put in play by Barack Obama. However, his moderate to conservative positions could put him and Obama at odds with the Democratic party base.
Dick Gephart
The former majority leader of the House, Mr. Gephart is very popular with the labor movement. This characteristic could help with Reagan Democrat, union members who have shown reluctance to support his candidacy. However, he isn't a very popular choice for VP, and, as I said before, he isn't a very likely choice.
I would like to respond to a comment on my last post by "lp." I agree with your thoughts, this PUMA phenomenon isn't very significance and will lose much of its prevalence in the coming weeks as they go through the five stages of grief and inevitably reach acceptance. I also agree with your belief that it is a media created event. It is just another example of the media seeing a "shiny object" and making a big deal out of it.
Thanks for your comment, please keep reading.
Friday, June 27, 2008
"Election" in Zimbabwe; The Emergence of the "PUMAs"; and John McCain's Waitng Game
Mugabe and His "Election": End to the Zimbabwean Campaign, Beginning of the International Campaign
Today, according to my intense calculations, Robert Mugabe will win the "election" in Zimbabwe. This is a hollow victory, as very few individuals are planning to recognize the results of the so-called election. Mugabe has led a campaign of violence that has forced opposition candidate Morgan Tsvangirai to not only withdraw from the race but seek safety from the Zanu-PF militias that are beating, torturing, and killing innocent MDC supporters throughout Zimbabwe.
The run-off held today was described best by Mr. Tsvangirai as Mugabe "desperate for the illusion of legitimacy." Zanu-PF militias rounded up Zimbabweans who would otherwise have boycotted the election, and forced them to vote. And, in the voting booths, only those prepared to face violence voted for Mr. Tsvangirai, because they knew anyone who voted for him would be tracked don and harmed. Plus, in what could be a conspiracy meant to drive me crazy, the American media barely even mentions it. MSNBC.com, a website that I use regularly, has only a small link on its front page, buried underneath pictures of the Obama/Clinton unity rally. On CNN.com, even in the international version, a small link reads: "Mugabe rival: Opposition rival intimidated." They would've put this link on their US front page, but too much space was taken up by these three particularly important stories- "3 teachers accused of sex with students," "Colorado stamp has Wyoming mountain," and "Review: Wall-E is a classic." Now, while I know the Zimbabwean humanitarian crisis doesn't have sex, mountains, or funny robots (the big three), I think CNN could've made some space.
Now, the question is what happens next? Will the UN impose sanctions against Zimbabwe's already broken economy? Will the AU attempt to pressure Mugabe to change his ways? Who knows, all we can do is wait.
PUMAs, Not Just Shoes
There has long been concern that the Democratic Party will not unite after the long, hard fought primary fray. Today, in an attempt to put their differences behind them, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton appeared in an event in Unity, NH. The event was so steeped in symbolism, it was less of a campaign stop and more of a John Steinbeck novel. However, some are not impressed.
An organization, PUMA (Party Unity My Ass), has emerged as a group of Hillary Clinton supporters stubbornly refusing to vote for the man she lost to, Barack Obama. Most likely, these supporters will vote for the Republican presumptive nominee John McCain, however, some will vote for Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, or other third party candidates. Not only are these people just ignorant, but they are making a charade of our democracy. The only thing worse than someone not voting is someone voting out of protest or poor information. I can only imagine what the oppressed people in Zimbabwe who yearn for a functioning democracy would have to say to these people.
Another shocking thing about this group and people like them is the ignorance. A majority of the PUMAs are women, who are vexed over the purported "sexism" that led to the debasement of Hillary Clinton and her campaign. And yet, they are voting for John McCain, a man with a 1% rating from NARAL, indicating a strong anti-abortion stance. If, and this is a big if, John McCain gets elected and Roe v. Wade gets overturned, what will happen to all the unplanned babies that will be born to unprepared and unready parents just because the mom didn't trust Obama and his "lack" of experience. This election is about more than petty grudges, it's about the future. And, on the very, very, very off chance that a PUMA is reading this, shame on you.
Mac's Minatory Muddle
Republican presumptive nominee is digging himself into a rut. He is trying to attract both sides to his campaign, using nebulous language to describe his plans. Because of his problems with the conservative base, he is desperately trying to fashion a base out of mismatched sects of the political compass. However, as more comes out about his true beliefs, it will be fun (at least for this political junky), to watch these haphazardly formed alliances melt away like cardboard boxes in a thunderstorm.
All folksy similes aside, let's look at these various factions of the McCain coalition. McCain is trying to pick off indignant Hillary Clinton supporters (see above). He has been pursuing two groups: women and middle class whites. All Mr. McCain has said about Mrs. Clinton lately is how great she is, how hard she fought for women's rights, and how misogynistic the media is. However, I can only envisage how surprised these fairly liberal, mostly pro-choice women will react to, as I mentioned above, Mr. McCain's 1% rating from NARAL.
As for the working class, white, union members who so actively supported her campaign are now a little confused about Mr. Obama's patriotism and national defense credentials. Now, McCain is playing up his war record and his "chase bin Laden to the gates of hell," attitude and using the standard issue b.s. conservative attack against the liberal elite who want to spread gay marriage throughout the Middle East, after ceding half of America to al-Qaeda, of course. However, other than the fact that the complete second half of the last sentence is a completely false representation of the Democratic Party, McCain is attempting to run as one who cares about working class while supporting every free trade agreement ever, with or without environmental or labour regulations. This is quite the troubling fact for the union members fighting for their jobs. And, if he panders to them and adds environmental and labour regulations, he will lose the economically liberal wing of his party.
On a similar note, he is trying to walk the tight rope between the conservative free market solution and the liberal regulation solution. He is trying to please everyone all the time based on who he talking to at the particular time. However, he's not asking anyone or anything to sacrifice, and that's what it's going to take to reduce emissions. While profit motivates many people to innovate, there's only so far it can go. And, he advocates pouring oil on our oil addiction, which would help gas prices in only 5 years or so and destroy our environment starting the day we start to drill. It's just not happening.
It's also interesting to see him discuss the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. McCain believes that the reason why we should stay in Iraq is because the Iraq government is capable of carrying out missions on its own and is starting to function as a government. Fine, Mr. McCain, then, let's start to pull out and give them the responsibility of taking care of their own country. Also, he says he's strong on national defense and on terror, however, the terrorists are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taleban is resurgent and, with our resources being poured into Iraq, we do not have the money, man power, or equipment to arm the Afghan military or take them on ourselves. Obama understands this, Mr. McCain does not.
Finally, the final point. This one is particularly hilarious to me: the myth of McCain being a "deficit hawk." While it is true McCain defies the common practice of earmarking and has led the crusade against pork barrel spending, this money which he is trying to keep the government from spending pales when compared to the money we've borrowed from China to pay for the war in Iraq. Plus, as opposed to taxing the people with the means to pay for it, Mr. McCain is cutting their taxes, driving our deficit to all time highs. Now, with the deficit and China rapidly growing and the only think shrinking is the value of our dollar, who's paying the price for "economic prosperity": the American middle class. While I am firmly against protectionism and the economic policies brought up by Alexander Hamilton in the early days of our country (the American School), they do bring up a point: deficits are fine only if you have the means to pay them off. If we want to go into the red, that's fine, but we better be able to pay it off through not only cutting government spending, but raising a few taxes too.
Anyway, all I'm saying is, as soon as all these facts come out, we're going to see the McCain campaign crash and burn and it may be anywhere from a 20 delegate win for Obama and a complete blowout, up to a 100+ delegate wash, very 1964-esque.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
