New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

John McCain’s campaign released what is being billed as the first ad of the general election. It is titled 624787 (in reference to his navy issued serial number). The advertisement does not discuss policy so much as the Republican candidate himself. The ad was powerful and it was a good way to introduce him and his story as a naval officer and POW to American’s in a positive light while the Democrat’s continue to spill blood.

Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 28% [?]

According to new polling data from Gallup, “Among people who identified themselves as Hillary Clinton supporters, 28 percent said they would vote for McCain if Obama is his opponent, the March 7-22 Gallup Poll Daily election tracking survey found. The same poll found that 19 percent of Obama supporters would switch sides and cast ballots for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic candidate.”

It is clear that both candidates are slowly bleeding the Democratic party of both moral and finances. The DNC, which was set to trample the RNC last year is now also torn apart by the parties infighting. This also comes on the news that Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid has said DNC superdelegates are working towards a solution to end the party divide. What this back door deal will look like, no one but insiders can be sure. However, if we can value his word then it appears that the Democratic party is not going to allow the race to be resolved through traditional democratic principles or via the popular vote. Many Democrats have already claimed that such backdoor dealing will anger them and possibly drive them away from the nominee if their candidate is not the beneficiary of such compromise. In any case, the Democrats seem to have driven themselves into a dreadful situation.

Popularity: 19% [?]

From Foxnews.com

______________

WASHINGTON — Three U.S. lawmakers made a trip to Iraq that was secretly financed by Saddam Hussein’s intelligence agency during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.

An indictment unsealed in Detroit accuses Muthanna Al-Hanooti, a member of a Michigan nonprofit group, of arranging for the members of Congress to travel to Iraq in October 2002 at the behest of Saddam’s regime.

Prosecutors say Iraqi intelligence officials paid for the trip through an intermediary, and that Al-Hanooti received 2 million barrels of oil for his role.

At the time, the Bush administration was trying to persuade Congress to authorize military action against Iraq.

None of the lawmakers in question was charged and Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said investigators “have no information whatsoever” any of them knew the trip was underwritten by Saddam.

The lawmakers are not named in the indictment but the dates correspond to a trip by Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington, David Bonior of Michigan and Mike Thompson of California.

McDermott spokesman Michael DeCesare told FOX News his boss did not know Muthanna Al-Hanooti and “would not have gone” had he known who paid for the trip to Iraq in the fall of 2002.

______________

Follow the link here for the rest of the story

Popularity: 21% [?]

An interesting article from the Christian Science Monitor (via realclearpolitics.com) discussing the slow but inevitable emergence of the European Super State.

__________________

LONDON - You might want to take that vacation in England just as soon as you can – before its 1,000-year run as a sovereign nation comes to an end.

This winter, 27 nations of the European Union (EU) signed the Treaty of Lisbon. You may think, “Innocuous enough,” as Portuguese-inspired visions of the Tagus River and chicken piri-piri swirl before your eyes.

But for England (Britain, actually) the Treaty of Lisbon isn’t that appetizing. That’s because, if ratified, it will become the decisive act in this creation of a federal European superstate with its capital in Brussels. Britain would become a province and its “Mother of Parliaments,” a regional assembly. And that’s no small humiliation for a country that gave the world English and saved Western civilization in the Battle of Britain in 1940.

__________________

Click here for the rest of the article

Popularity: 17% [?]

The notable economist Greg Mankiw had a very sensible article in the Economic View column of the New York Times regarding Nafta, trade, and this campaign. Its main contentions include:

1. That economists are far more fond of free trade than the general public. For instance:

A 2006 poll of Ph.D. members of the American Economic Association found that 87.5 percent agreed that “the U.S. should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers to trade.”

On the other hand, a minority of the general public (around one in four according to many polls including one mentioned in the article) think that free trade is beneficial to the economy.

2. John McCain has been a constant champion of free trade throughout his career and is the only of the three candidates who will stand strong for the concept as president.

3. The issue of trade has become mired by populism recently and divorced from economics which could lead us towards more protectionist policies.

Its a good article which reaffirms one of the themes that I have been focusing on especially during this campaign: how populism and economic illiteracy is driving protectionist rhetoric and proposals from politicians not entirely limited to the left (will Mike Huckabee please stand up).

Popularity: 32% [?]

In the 1984 Democratic presidential primary the once heavily favored former Vice President Walter Mondale and young, post-partisan upstart Senator Gary Hart were running neck and neck by March. Hart, who was running on the slogan of “new ideas,” had momentum up until a debate in which he was expounding on that phrase. In a rebuttal, Mondale quipped, “When I hear your new ideas, I’m reminded of that ad, ‘Where’s the beef?’” That sound bite was the nail in Hart’s coffin. With New-Deal Dems as his foundation, the former Veep went on to capture the nomination only to be defeated by Ronald Reagan in an electoral landslide.

Twenty-four years later to the month the Democratic presidential primary is similarly juxtaposed. Senator Barack Obama, who has only a third the experience in the Senate that Gary Hart did in 1984, actually has a slight lead in the delegate race, a lead that almost no one would have predicted two months ago. And while Senator Hillary Clinton has essentially been asking for the beef for more than a year now, it appears that this campaign’s “where’s the beef?” moment will never come.

But what is so great about Barack Obama that has prevented him from meeting Gary Hart’s fate? How in the world could this man, who was in the Illinois state legislature just three years ago and would have trouble answering “where’s the tofu?”, overtake the juggernaut that is the Clinton political machine?

The answer is essentially found in the nature of both Hart and Obama’s campaign.

Both senators were underdogs. Both were going up against a candidate with more experience, more institutional support, and more policy expertise and issue familiarity. Both harnessed the power of rhetoric and idealism that reigns supreme among many Democrats. Both appealed to the wealthier, more educated, more liberal, less partisan, less politically needy Democrats, dubbed in this election as “latte liberals.” Winning these voters is almost like a popularity contest, the winner is the one with the blank slate, the non-partisan image, the high-falutin rhetoric, and the cool-kid reputation.

The simple reason that Obama is actually winning this race, while Hart met his demise, is that Obama is more of those things to more people than Hart could ever be. Hart was a popular politician. Obama, on the other hand, has become a phenomenon. The media adores him, celebrities glorify him, and the young and idealistic revere him. A new cult of personality has rallied around Barack Obama, casting him as the savior of a nation without ever auditing him for substance. The sad irony for Hillary Clinton is that she can’t get rid of the guy with the funny name for no other reason than he’s as slick, if not slicker, than the only other politician who has ever been able to overshadow her.

But while “Slick Willy” won two terms by building a coalition, Obama is making headway by rallying the political equivalent of idol worshipers. Rather than center the campaign around a platform, accomplishments, or a track record of any kind, the Senator’s candidacy has been built around his image as a post-partisan messiah–the second coming of Jack Kennedy, perhaps. Serious voters should have ceased to take Obama very seriously when Oprah started going around telling people that Obama “is The One.” They should have been similarly squeamish when they saw a music video called “Yes, We Can!” created independently by about a dozen celebrities consisting of them singing along to an Obama victory speech.

The concept was creepy in the first place, but the fact that the video was created without the sanction of the Obama campaign should also raise alarm. Powerful politicians are supposed to have their own heroic self-image, but when others start buying into that same self-regard it ceases to be cute and becomes just frightening. In the same way it was frightening when at a rally in Texas “The One” interrupted his stump speech to blow his nose and the 17,000 in attendance responded with resounding cheers.

I had the opportunity to witness the phenomenon first hand when I attended an Obama rally in Hartford last month. During his speech, he stopped to toss water and call medical attention to a woman who had fainted in the front of the crowd. I didn’t think much of it at the time, but not too long thereafter, while watching the news, I discovered that the episode was not at all random. In fact, the woman in Connecticut was the sixth to be documented fainting at an Obama stump speech this election season. The severity of the trend has led the Obama campaign to ensure medical teams remain in close proximity to the crowd at all times. It raises the question, how much credibility should a candidacy have when its events feel more like a rock concert than a political rally and it’s fanatics behave more like teenage girls at an NSYNC concert than partisans?

The media hasn’t carried itself much better. In a recent study, the non-partisan Center for Media and Public Affairs found that the Senator has received the most favorable coverage of any candidate by a country mile. The study, which evaluated about 800 election stories by the major TV news outlets in December and January, counted 84% of stories about Obama as favorable. Meanwhile, the ever-oppressed Hillary Clinton received the least favorable coverage, with only 51% positive. This shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, for anyone who opens a newspaper, news magazine, or watches a news channel semi-regularly. At least for me, watching the likes of Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, and Wolf Blitzer futilely try to hide their man-crushes becomes unbearable at times.

The media’s fetish reached an apex of sorts in the last debate between the Democrats, hosted by the Obama sycophants at NBC. At one point, Tim Russert essentially asked Clinton a pop-quiz question, testing her familiarity of the political situation in Russia. Then the question shifted to Obama, but at that point the hard part had already been answered for him. Not only was it emblematic of the media’s general bias, but it was also a missed opportunity for them to really test Obama’s issue knowledge. Those paying attention are well aware that Clinton knows all the intricacies of policy and details of geopolitical situations better than anyone. Obama on the other hand, who has not been in a serious elected position for four years even, needs to be vetted.

For all the empty jabbering about change, there has not been a lot of talk about what Obama’s concept of change actually means. The whole notion that Obama is so fabulous because he’s offering change is fundamentally nonsensical. What’s so special about a presidential candidate offering change? Is not the point of almost every campaign–incumbents aside–that they will offer something unique to the presidency?

To the extent of my knowledge, there has never been a candidate who ran on the slogan “A status quo we can believe in.” Moreover, it is not even as if the “change” that Obama is offering is unique in 2008. There is almost no part of his platform that is exceptional when juxtaposed with the other Democrats who ran for the nomination. His domestic agenda is so hard to distinguish from Senator Clinton’s, for instance, that the Clinton campaign has even accused Obama of copying her economic plan.

Allegations of plagiarism aside, there remain absolutely no new political ideas coming from Senator Obama’s head. For those who have actually looked over his policy positions–which I surmise does not include many of his supporters–they will have little trouble deciphering that Obama is little more than a populist proposing a greater government tyranny over the market place. Despite talk of the “audacity of hope,” his campaign has been based on an extraordinary amount of fear: fear of free trade, fear of “predatory lending,” fear of global warming, fear of the price system and a free market in things like healthcare, the list goes on.

People have become so entranced by Obama’s rhetoric that they are failing to recognize the realities of his candidacy. Behind the deep, facund voice, Barack Obama is little more than a Gary Hart with a third the experience. While I realize it may be the political equivalent of little kids discovering there is no Santa Claus, young voters need be told there is nothing substantively special about the glorified Democrat with the funny name. When push comes to shove, an Obama presidency will mean more government, more spending, more regulation, and less freedom. The scary part is that Obama can sell even a useless, tarnished agenda like that one to voters. If he really offered hope and change, he would put his silver tongue to use by advocating market reforms and the roll back of massive government programs that are on track to bankrupting us in the near future. But the fact is he’s not doing that. As such, Americans will need a significant reality check, and quickly, because by November, it will be too late.

Popularity: 52% [?]

With David Patterson being sworn in today as the first blind and black governor of New York, I thought I would back track and drop my two cents on the sex scandal that is responsible for his assumption of the office.

I am typically a believer that personal issues should remain just that even for politicians, and they should be judged on their political ideology and leadership even if they are a bit scummy. In Elliot Spitzer’s case however, the hypocrisy may have been just too stark to ignore. As governor, for instance, he signed a bill upping the penalty for patrons of prostitution, making it possible for johns to go to jail for up to a year.

The hypocrisy shouldn’t come as to much of a surprise for a politician as arrogant as Spitzer. It was not just prostitution where he sought to intrude on people’s private lives and dealings: it included was music advertisers, banks lending to the less wealthy, and individual companies like AIG as well. And yet, he thought he was above the laws that he created and enforced.

But while Spitzer’s sexual escapade was individually scummy, there was nothing fundamentally sinful about it the social sense. Spitzer and the prostitute’s actions did not harm anybody, they did not coerce anyone, nor violate anybody’s rights. The arrangements of their relationship were voluntary and mutual. Of course my reasoning brings into question the illegality of prostitution, but it deserves such examination despite popular opinion being for the ban.

I find the legal status of prostitution strange because while sex is legal when its free, it isn’t when it costs money. I can think of no other good or service on the market whose exchange is legal when it’s free, but illegal when there is a monetary fee attached. Moreover, prostitution could be made substantially more safe if it were legalized. By bringing the industry out into the light, there would be better checks on infected prostitutes and STDs.

Next, much of the defense of anti-prostitution laws I’ve been hearing in the past week’s relates to the exploitation of women. This invites a two-pronged response: first, it does not constitute exploitation when women chose to venture into the industry themselves–as is mostly the case. Second, when a prostitute is indeed exploited–coerced, harmed, etc.–who is she going to go to for help? The police? Not as long as prostitution is illegal. Because prostitution is illegal, all the “exploitation” remains in the dark, and the woman exploited remain unprotected. If the practice was legal however, these woman would have the same protection anyone else does, and thus would be substantially safer.

If people really wanted to demote exploitation of women, they would make prostitution legal, as a means of granting women who chose to engage in it equal protection under the law.

And that’s that single most important issue at hand amidst the ado about Elliot Spitzer.

Here is a column elaborating on the things I am talking about from the opinion pages of the Chicago Tribune.

Popularity: 31% [?]

This from today’s NYT:

For years, William Zammer Jr. has relied on 100 seasonal foreign employees to turn down beds, boil lobsters and serve cocktails at the restaurants, golf course and inn he owns on Cape Cod and in nearby Plymouth.

This summer, however, the foreign workers will not be returning, and Mr. Zammer, like other seasonal employers across the nation, is scrambling to find replacements.

“It’s a major crisis,” he said. “We’re very short on work force. We’ll be looking at opening a little later, closing a little earlier, looking at how we do our menus.”

Mr. Zammer is caught up in a Congressional standoff over immigration overhaul that is punishing employers who play by the rules and that, advocates of change say, could cost small companies billions in lost business.

In an effort to win support for a comprehensive immigration overhaul, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and its allies have blocked voting on legislation that would allow employers to rehire foreign seasonal nonagricultural workers independent of a 1991 quota.

As a result, the government is limited to issuing the 66,000 seasonal work visas set when the visa program, known as H-2B, became law — 33,000 for winter workers and 33,000 for summer workers. Last year, more than 120,000 foreign workers entered the country on H-2B visas.

The consequences of stricter quotas on immigration are pretty clear but not often talked about in political debate regarding the issue. Less immigration, be it legal or illegal (in this case its legal), will mean a smaller, less diversified labor force and rising costs for businesses. Economist (and food critic) Tyler Cowen attributes the growth in quality and value in the restaurante industry in recent years to the immigration boom.

In the more macro sense, more immigration makes our economy more productive by making more labor available and enhancing our ability to divide labor in this country. Simple enough, no?

But now rising anti-immigration sentiment is beginning to take its toll at a troublesome time for the economy, and it will take its toll directly on the pocketbooks of American consumers in the form of higher prices of goods and services.

Weighing the value of illegal immigration is a matter of costs and benefits: how the productive labor reaped by the economy compares to the losses attributed to wealfare benefits, etc. The thing is that the complaint about illegal immigration from Republicans generally amount to “it’s illegal.” But then, if it were legal would it be okay? The Democrats don’t even take much of a stand on the issue, which is why businesses such as the one in the article are in trouble now.

As far as I see it, as long as immigrants don’t consume a large amount of welfare benefits they unequivocally add to our economy and legislative stalemates should not stop that from happening. The result is that we feel the worst of consequences–the ones that no one is even talking about.

Popularity: 29% [?]

In all honesty, I am getting very sick of how the Obama campaign calls foul when someone even makes the most basic observation about his skin color. We already know that 9/10 African-American’s nationwide have voted for him in the Democratic Primaries held so far-so if they are so willing to confront and identify with Obama’s race, why isn’t he himself?

______________________________________________

Here are some quotes from the video of his sermons-

“The government lies, the government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color, the government lies, and the government lies!”

“Barack knows what it means to be a black mean living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people, Hillary can never know that, Hillary ain’t never been called a N****r.”

“Hillary is married to bell, and Hillary has been good to us; no he ain’t, bill did us just like he did Monica Lewinski, he was riding dirty.”

“The government gives them the drugs, gives bigger prisons, passes the three strike law and then wants us to sing god bless America? No no no, not bless America, goddamn America! That’s in the Bible, for killing innocent people, god damn America for treating its citizens as less than human.”

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and the black South Africans and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done over seas is now brought back into our own front yards.”

“If they don’t find weapons of mass destruction they gona do just like the LAPD and plant them some weapons of mass destruction.”

_________________________________________________

Well apparently, he has been confronting his race and his personal identity with his long time close friend and Reverend, Jeremiah Wright. After hearing Wright’s comments it would be an understatement to call them objectionable; they are down right despicable, racist, sexist, and anti-American. They are some of the most offensive comments I have heard from anyone this close to any political candidate. Not only did Wright marry Michel and Barack Obama in his church (a sign of the couples close relationship with the minister), but according to the Huffingtonpost.com, he is an official member of the Obama campaign staff. He is a sitting member on Obama’s African American Leadership Committee. Now, we can all expect Wright to loose that post quickly after these videos were leaked online, but what does it say about Obama that he was on his committee in the first place? It is apparent that Obama has known about these remarks, again he has been a member of the Chicago based Church for over 20 years.
I would not be raising this as an issue if a. the remarks were not so offensive, b. Obama did not have him as part of the official campaign, and c. if Obama and his staff did not accost anyone who raises Obama’s skin color in any way shape or form.

According to Reverend Wright, all things being equal, his followers should vote for Obama simply because of his skin color. Now explain to me how that isn’t playing the race card, especially when he is an active member in Obama’s campaign?

I do not mean to demean Obama’s accomplishments (which are however lacking compared to those of say Bill Clinton, John McCain, or Mitt Romney), but lets be serious for a second-Obama was not part of the generation of struggling and oppressed African American’s fighting for their most basic forms of human dignity. He is no Martin Luther King, he never marched in the streets with water guns and attack dogs violating his natural rights. No! Barrack Obama did not grow up facing race riots in Watts or KKK killings in Mississippi; instead he attended one of the most prestigious private schools in the country. Obama went to the exclusive Punahou preparatory school in Honolulu, Hawaii. The school has had over $50 million in recent renovations and has received massive contributions from alumni such as AOL founder Steve Case. It does not sound to me like that child hood education is reminiscent of what most minority students face in their early years, especially considering the location of exotic Hawaii where the mixed racial population meant that people would likely have not even noticed Obama’s skin color.

His father left when he was only 2 and he spent several years raised in a single parent household (I too live in a single parent home, does that hardship also qualify me to be the commander and chief?). He spent several years in Indonesia (something his campaign claims gives him foreign policy experience; does that mean my summers in Greece also qualify me to rule the free world?) and later returned to Hawaii to live with his grandparents while finishing his secondary education.

In his own memoirs, he claimed that he tried using drugs to cope with his identity crisis, according to Jeremiah Wright however, it is the US government who provided those drugs to Barrack Obama so as to subjugate him because of his race. If Obama’s campaign says that by not dropping Ferraro from Hillay’s campaign, that Hillary was endorsing and condoning Ferraro’s racist remarks, then wouldn’t it be fair to say that by not dropping and disowning Wright that Obama is endorsing the theory of a massive government conspiracy to subjugate African-American’s?

My point by bringing up Barack’s past is not to suggest that he was some rich and entitled young man. He had to work hard to transfer from Occidental to Columbia and he had to have displayed talent in becoming the head of the Harvard Law Review. Despite this, it is clear that Obama has played the race card. He cannot be the man who transcends race in one sentence, while in another is pandering and fully excepting the support of someone who espouses black nationalism.

John McCain recently came under fire for having the support of an evangelical Christian support him who believes that it is America’s duty to destroy Islam. There is one clear difference-McCain is not an active member of Rod Parsley’s church, he and Cindy were not married by him, and Parsley does not sit as an active member on his campaign.

Before Obama calls for one more staff resignation or formal apology because of what someone says about his race, he needs to disassociate himself from this radical and racist Reverend once and for all. Unless he does that he will remain the biggest hypocrite of this campaign. He is permitting Wright and others like him to advertise him as an African-American who understand their hardships and their pain, while at the same time he says to white America that he transcends racial boundaries. His childhood makes it apparent that he has little in common with the average American, let alone oppressed minorities; for his Reverend to suggest otherwise is despicable and a disservice to the hardships that civil rights activists fought for.

Popularity: 44% [?]

In an interview with the Daily Breeze, Ferraro said, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.” Unlike most people who seem to apologize immediately after injuring the sensibilities of either the Obama or the Clinton campaign, she is battling the media in an attempt to explain what she meant. Whether or not this works out for her in the end we will only know in hindsight, but despite the offensive nature of her comment, there is some truth to what she has said.
The Daily Breeze reports that she went on to say, “Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world, you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up,” Ferraro said. “Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”
Perhaps one of her more notable comments was, “In all honesty, do you think that if he were a white male, there would be a reason for the black community to get excited for a historic first?” Ferraro said. “Am I pointing out something that doesn’t exist?”
As a Clinton supporter, she raised another point that many women often point out; “Sexism is a bigger problem,” Ferraro argued. “It’s OK to be sexist in some people’s minds. It’s not OK to be racist.”
Perhaps what Ferraro said that was not reported by the Daily Breeze is most telling; on today’s O’Reilly factor she said,
“If I were not Geraldine Ferraro, if I were Gerard Ferraro in 1984, there is no way I would have gotten the nominee for vice president.”

It is evident that much of the excitement around Hillary Clinton’s campaign has to do with her gender; it should be equally evident that part of the excitement behind Obama’s campaign is because of his gender. Anyone who argues that his race has nothing to do with his success must not be aware that he received 9/10 black votes in Mississippi; if he were not of African descent that would not happen and he would have lost the race in Mississippi too Hillary Clinton who one every other demographic. Let us not pretend that race and gender do not play a role in this election, anyone who is that ignorant obviously has no respect for the long history of discrimination against African-American’s or women and does not comprehend the suffering and oppression that both groups suffered and in many instances still bravely face. Barrack Obama is not an experienced executive, or even an experienced legislature. However, he (in part because of his race) gives hope to millions of people who’s ancestors were oppressed and for that reason they feel a connection to him; while people should vote based on issues, many do vote based on racial, gender, or ethnical identity.

I do not condone the way in which Ferraro made her statement, she denigrated Obama by not giving him credit for tapping into a previously unexploited collective consciousness for “hope and change,” or for his oratory and forensic abilities. Despite this, for the Obama campaign to claim foul every time someone mentions the fact that their candidate is not of Western European decent is in itself racist and absurd. Obama cannot take 9/10 black votes and claim that race has nothing to do with his campaign (also did anyone else notice his slight southern accent when campaigning in SC and Mississippi?). On the same note, how can Hillary, who has commented about the “all boys club” and made other obvious complaints about her gender attempt to distance herself from Ferraro?
Ferraro seems to be the only Democrat willing to stand up to the double standards that both the Obama and Hillary campaigns espouse. It is about time some others do the same.

Popularity: 26% [?]