How to Challenge Democratic and Republican Ideas

Everyone once in a while, I’ll see a passionate defense of third party voting in the general election, even if there’s no chance of them winning. The defense always goes something like this:

Because they work together (along with the media) to effectively-silence debate outside of Democrats and Republicans in elections. And I feel real change will come when a third party candidate wins the Presidency. Not saying McCain and Obama can’t implement “change” but it’s always colored in two-party political paint. No disrespect to those who support Democrats and Republicans.

I think this view is patently ridiculous. Here’s why.

It’s true, there’s only two winnable candidates in the general election. And if we lived in a Parliamentary Democracy, there might be more, or at least have a system where a third party vote is not wasted. So if you want to argue for a Constitutional Convention for that, go ahead.

The reality of the current system, though, is that there’s two entrenched parties. This has proven to not be just a historical quirk, but an entrenched electoral reality. However, what is possible is to dramatically change what these parties stand for. Parties often change what they stand for. In fact, up until 1860, there was even great fluctuation in the names of the parties and identities. Now, that change takes place on a lower level. Republicans today stand for many different things than they did in 1920, for instance. And even now, there’s intense discussion of where conservatism and Republicans go should McCain lose as badly as it seems.

The operative question for people not happy with what the parties stand for should be: How do we change what these parties stand for. Libertarians now should be chomping at the bit to dramatically affect the future of the GOP. But even before now, there’s the question of primaries. Ron Paul did far, far more for the cause of libertarians by running in the primaries than Barr or even Paul himself did by running as a third party candidate.

Third party voting is essentially small scale tyranny of the minority: some people who would otherwise have a preference in the real election that decide to abdicate any choice just to make themselves feel better. The money and resources that are poured into third parties would be far better spent trying to influence the direction of a party, instead of glorifying a vanity campaign by a former government official.

In short, I find the core excuse behind third party voting to be dramatically proven untrue. Anything Ralph Nader wanted to promote through his campaign he probably could have done in such a way as to not siphon votes from Al Gore. If libertarians put more effort into pushing the GOP towards them and not building a wall around themselves and demanding purity, they’d probably be better off too in the long run.

Sphere: Related Content

Abortion: Enough on Roe; Let’s Talk About Casey

A Google Blogs search (arbitrary, I know) turns up 62,919 results for Roe v. Wade. It turns up only 399 for Planned Parenthood v. Casey. That’s about 158 Roes for every Casey.

A regular Google search is similar. There are 2,570,000 results for Roe v. Wade. There are about 67,700 for Planned Parenthood v. Casey. That’s about 38 Roes for every Casey. Better, but still not good.

Why? For all the talk about about overturning Roe v. Wade, it’s not even good law anymore. It has some stare decisis value, but that’s about it. (Precedence, for you non-Latinites.) Planned Parenthood v. Casey is the law. It also has the advantage of being better written and better reasoned.

Casey isn’t referred to for a simple reason: It’s too moderate for both extremes.It’s a slightly complicated case, but here is a brief description:

[T]he Court (5-4) upheld a 24-hour waiting period, an informed consent requirement, a parental consent provision for minors and a recordkeeping requirement, while striking down the spousal notice requirement of a Pennsylvania statute. Invoking stare decisis, the political need for judicial credibility and a consistent Constitutional vision, the Court’s middle wing (O’Connor, Kennedy and Souter), while retaining the “central holding” of Roe v. Wade, overturned its trimester framework and its “strict scrutiny” standard of review, in favor of a new “undue burden” standard, proposed by Justice O’Connor, and a floating viability line where the state’s interest in fetal life becomes “compelling.” Blackmun and Stevens both dissented in part, favoring upholding more of Roe. Chief Justice Rehnquist, with Justices White, Scalia and Thomas, dissented, arguing that Roe had no Constitutional basis and ought to be overturned and that the “rational basis” standard should be applied to uphold the statute. The dissenter’s reasoned that if Roe was wrongly decided, there is no way to justify upholding it. Scalia also authored a dissenting opinion in which Rehnquist, White, and Thomas joined. Crucial to the survival of Roe in this case was O’Connor and Kennedy’s decision to retreat from their prior holdings that the state’s interest in protecting non-viable fetal life was “compelling.” O’Connor’s “undue burden” standard is a pragmatic compromise, allowing limited (and politically popular) state regulation of abortion, yet effectively preserving the general access to abortion that was the goal of Roe.

The Constitutional standard as interpreted right now, in short, looks at whether there is an undue burden imposed by a law, and looks at the viability of the fetus as a sign of a compelling state interest. The result of this, as stated, is a medium of regulated abortion, with reasonable restrictions available as is the case in most of Europe.

The opinion spends a lot of thought an energy on this topic and is worth reading if you care about this issue. As is the case with most O’Connor opinions, it is also very well written.

A law student commented on Casey:

The Court in the opinion delivered by O’Connor, while vehemently affirming Roe, upheld most of the statute. In my opinion it is an affirmation only in words. Justice O’Connor says the three essential parts of Roe are upheld: a right of a woman to choose an abortion before viability without undue interference by the State; a confirmation of the State’s power to restrict abortion after viability; and third recognition that the State has a legitimate interest in the health of the mother and the life of the fetus at the outset of the pregnancy.
This undercuts Roe. Here we get our first glimpse of undue interference or undue burden. Casey drops the standard of review from strict scrutiny to an undue burden test. In other words, if a requirement is too much of an obstacle to abortion then it is unconstitutional. The only provision considered an undue burden was the spousal consent requirement. Parental consent and the 24 hour waiting period were upheld along with the dissemination of information about other options.
Justice O’Connor affirmed the State’s power to restrict abortion after viability. Roe was very rigid in a trimester scheme with only a slight mention of viability. This scheme was rejected by the Court, but they did not define viability. Without guidance, the States are left to their own definition. Although anything less than twelve weeks might not hold up, the definition of viability could vary widely in each State.
The third essential part of Roe affirmed by the Casey Court, was not really a part of Roe at all. Roe rejected the State’s interest during the first trimester. In Roe, the mother’s interest in her liberty and choice outweighed any state interest in the life of the fetus. In Casey, the State’s regulatory power over abortions can begin at conception, and do not have to wait until the second trimester.
Casey, while affirming the tenets of Roe, actually weakened it. It now allows for more State regulation during the entire pregnancy and lowers the standard of review for other abortion statutes. The lower the standard the more deference is given to the legislature enacting the statute.

Now, to get to my last point: When you hear liberals defending Roe as the middle ground or conservatives looking at the poll numbers of support of Roe or especially when talking about how Roe is badly written or what not, realize that it’s not even the legal standard anymore. It’d be nice if some politicians realized that the great moderate standard of abortion law that the public has been clamoring for already exists.

And if you want fewer abortions? Change people’s minds. That will take care of the law in good time. If an overwhelming amount of people believe all abortion is murder, the law will change. The Supreme Court will not do the work for you.

Sphere: Related Content

Is There a Singular Reason For McCain’s Problems Campaigning?

Liberal blogger Josh Marshall looks for a “Grand Unified Theory of McCain Crappiness.” I found some of his reader comments somewhat insightful and some others not insightful whatsoever (they were more along the lines of liberal wishful thinking). Matt Yglesias adds that McCain has been coasting his entire political career. I think there’s something to that.

If I were to make a theory on John McCain, it’d be that he only considers issues on the basis of national honor. Complicated issues that blur the lines of honor seem to interest him much less. Take his positions on economics. Aside from previously stating that he knew little about economics, McCain’s generic statements gave a lot distaste to conservatives in the primary. Instead of looking at the economy, McCain focuses on spending. He may not be able to explain the market in terms of honor, but he can explain that spending money irrationally is a breach of honor. It’s also why he does well where he does. His wheelhouse is talking about matters of honor. That’s why he is so compelling talking about the war; most other Republicans would have been doing far worse on the issue, even with recent developments in Iraq, had they been nominated instead of McCain. By contrast, McCain doesn’t consider building or running a campaign as a matter of honor; it’s just an annoying prerequisite to running for office. That’s why he can be so laissez-faire in how he runs things. On Climate Change, by contrast, McCain sees honor in taking the issue on, but doesn’t know enough about the issue to even understand, apparently, if his cap and trade even includes a cap. You can even see this matter of honor is McCain’s campaign logo.

That’s why you see so many high profile issue Republicans as surrogates for McCain. Phil Gramm has to be involved, since McCain himself does not know a lot about the economy.

Obama’s faults seem to be as present, but far more nuanced than John McCain’s large flaw. I’ll discuss Obama’s faults, such as his duplicity, at a later time.

Sphere: Related Content

Review: Barack Obama Biography (Election Update)

The kind people at the Biography Channel were nice enough to provide us with advance copies of the Barack Obama biography that goes on sale at Wal-mart tomorrow.

The forty seven minute DVD covers mainly Obama’s rise to be Senator; a last segment that is added on covers briefly his chase for the nomination (not including his ultimate winning of that nomination). Obama’s biography draws a lot of attraction. At a local Barnes and Noble store yesterday, I found multiple books on Obama’s biography; conversely, there was only one on McCain’s biography, and it was written by the candidate himself (and is really more about his family than simply McCain himself, as evidenced by the name).

A challenge for me in reviewing this is to figure out what the DVD was trying to accomplish. This is not any fault of the Biography Channel, but rather a challenge for me, as I have essentially read everything I could on Obama; thus, I already knew a lot of this information. For people who already know Obama’s life story and have followed the campaign closely, there is not really much to be gained from this. Conversely, someone who wants to look at the DVD to get deep insight into Obama’s character (for instance, figure out why he joined Trinity Church), there is also little to be gained, which frustrated me. Jeremiah Wright is mentioned only in a footnote towards the end, without even mentioning why he was so controversial in the first place. The DVD is very good, though, at telling the story of the rise of Obama while glossing over political questions that really do not belong on a DVD.

The main narrative of the biography is the rise of Obama to give the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. Featuring interviews from his half sister Maya Soetoro-Ng and brother in law Craig Robinson, the parts of a young Obama growing up in Indonesia and Hawaii are really well done. It also heavily emphasizes the outsider status of Obama in terms of racial identity, having grown up in a white family but being perceived as an African American.

I’d highly recommend the DVD for the parts of Obama’s life outside of politics. Whenever the DVD veered into politics at all, it made me cringe, as it made a lot of broad statements that weren’t always necessarily true. The nonpolitical parts, by contrast, are good at highlighting Obama’s background and general worldview. Like Obama’s book, Dreams From My Father, the narrative focuses on his father significantly even though his mother seems to have more directly influenced him. The biography also details the rise of Obama at Harvard Law, focusing on the importance of it, and not as much on the specific details.

It’s important to be honest: This is an introduction to the character of Barack Obama, not a critical study of it. As an introduction, it’s a success, and encourages further research into his positions. For instance,

If you know a lot about Obama, and have read his books, insights on his character from family members and friends such as Marty Nesbitt and political advisor David Axelrod will be interesting. But it’s unlikely to be drastically different from what you have heard, and as the narrative gets further along, David Axelrod seemingly pops up more and more, and it feels like an extended campaign ad. But that’s not to complain. That’s just the nature of this sort of biography. Consider this the cliffnotes version of Obama’s own book. If you want a deeper and more critical look, I’d recommend for starters David Mendell’s book.

The much touted “Election Update” is already outdated - and will be even more outdated come the middle of November, win or lose. I’m a little perplexed at releasing this DVD now instead of then; but as I mentioned above, there’s a strong demand for biographical information on Obama.

However, it may be worth getting just for the footage of Obama walking around a cow at a local state fair, and for the look on David Axelrod’s face when talking about Jack Ryan.

Sphere: Related Content

Behind The Scene At CDP: Bill Clinton Expresses Anger At Richardson And The Media; Turns Off Some Superdelegates

On Saturday, March 30, Bill Clinton addressed California Democrats State Convention.  This speech was not only intended to address the larger question of Democratic party unity, but also an opportunity to woo some of California’s remaining 23 undecided superdelegates.  California has 65 super delegates.  Of these 65, Clinton has the support of 29, Obama has 13 and 23 remain undecided.  During his speech, President Clinton struck a conciliatory and optimistic tone, saying:

“There is somehow the suggestion that because we are having a vigorous debate about who would be the best president, we are going to weaken this party in the fall.

“We’re going to win this election if we just chill out and let everybody have their say.”

However, Mr. Clinton offered a sharp contrast behind the scenes turning off some superdelegates.  Prior to his speech, he met privately with about 16 undecided superdelegates.

At first all was well and then: Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Memo to Voters: None of the Candidates Will Lower Your Gas Prices; A Glance At Clinton’s “Plan”

One of the oddities of current elective politics is not who the media covers, or in what tone they cover them, but rather the insipid approach to issues most people find important. For instance, gas prices. Andrew Leonard wrote about gas prices and the presidential election at Salon earlier this week. To his credit, he states the obvious: Presidents cannot lower gas prices.

But Leonard’s piece is an exception. In the explosion of meta analysis of presidential politics, it’s become more chic to talk about what voters are voting for than to write about the reality on the ground. The role of the press and commentators has somehow transformed from what Thomas Jefferson called ” the best instrument for enlightening the mind of man” into a virtual Oracle at Delphi, working only on predictive functions rather than analytical ones. For instance, today Hillary Clinton is actually holding a campaign event at a Pittsburgh gas station. From her press release (which we will post shortly):

Hillary Clinton will visit a gas station in Pittsburgh to discuss her plan to offer relief from skyrocketing gas prices that are hurting the pocketbooks of families in Pennsylvania and across the country. At the Curran Gulf Gas Station, Hillary will be joined by the owner, Jay Curran, gas station employees, and Janice Hodge, a local resident who has been forced to cut back on other household expenses due to the high cost of gas.

Read more

Sphere: Related Content

The Unfortunate Return Of Yellow Journalism

In this video, I discuss the content and tone of 2008 election coverage.  In my opinion, yellow journalism has returned and voters must be cautious, wary and skeptical.  Most importantly, they must demand more…

Part 1 

Part 2 

Sphere: Related Content

Democratic Debate Scorecard

Debate Performance Ranking…

1. Joe Biden
2. Hillary Clinton
3. John Edwards
4. Barack Obama
5. Bill Richardson
6. Christopher Dodd
7. Dennis Kucinich
8. Mike Gravel

* Rankings are from best performance (1) to worst performance (8).

Debate Performance Ranking With Spread…

|Joe Biden| –> |Hillary Clinton -> John Edwards -> Barack Obama| –> |Bill Richardson -> Christopher Dodd| —> |Dennis Kucinich| –> |Mike Gravel|

Sphere: Related Content

Flashback: Barack Obama’s Debate Weakness

Now seems like a good time to highlight one of 2008 Central’s editorials on Barack Obama’s debating skills.  If you haven’t already read it, it’s worth taking a look at as the debate approaches…

Barack Obama’s Debate Weakness

Sphere: Related Content

Editorial: Gore’s Shadow Organization Or Edwards’ Secret Attack On Hillary?

Editorial by: 08 Guru JW & 08 Guru AsC 

With all the buzz about Al Gore lately, we’re interested in delving a bit deeper into the issue.

Timeline…

• Thursday, April 19 - James Carville confidently states that “Gore will run again,” while speaking at Tulane University.  Bill Clinton appears on Larry King and talks about the prospect of Al Gore running for president
• Saturday, April 21 - The Telegraph publishes an article claiming that Gore’s campaign team is assembling in secret.  Drudge links to the article, which is now receiving widespread attention.

What’s going on…?

Well, for starters we believe that the Clinton team was taking an opportunity to further politicize Gore by referring to him as a candidate in such strong terms.  Quietly reminding people that Gore is a candidate, could, should he decide to enter, help undermine the authenticity of his campaign.  So, the Clinton campaign’s actions are understandable and explanable.

Following remarks like the aforementioned, it is then also expected that the press will seize the opportunity to discuss the possibility of a Gore campaign.  Indeed, they did and it is still a topic of discussion today. 

What doesn’t fit so well into this picture is the Telegraph article that really fueled the recent buzz about Gore.  If you read between the lines, the article seems less about a Gore candidacy and more about the ‘unelectability’ of Hillary Clinton.

“Vice-President Gore’s allies believe that Hillary Clinton, 59, the front-runner, is unable to win the presidency.”

Despite the article’s title, “Gore campaign team assembles in secret,” Tim Shipman only provided the following to substantiate his claim:

1) A “meeting” that took place in Boston two months ago

Two months ago, a former Gore aide, Elaine Kamarck, convened a group of former aides in Boston to consider the possibilities of a Gore campaign.

The reference to a meeting that occured two months ago, without any additional information is basically meaningless.  This is filler.  Why didn’t the Telegraphtry to contact Karmack for a quote or information about this supposed meeting.  Also, isn’t it a bit strange that this meeting, which is claimed to have taken place in February, was not referenced in the Telegraph’s article outlining a case for a Gore campaign from February?

2) The fact that Michael Whouley hasn’t signed up with a campaign yet

Among the senior officials not yet committed is Michael Whouley, who was national field director for the successful Clinton-Gore 1992 presidential campaign, national campaign manager for Mr Gore when he stood for re-election as vice-president in 1996, and then a senior adviser to Mr Gore in 2000.

Again, is this really enough to substantiate the claim of the article?  There are plenty of top strategists and Gore allies that are currently available other than Michael Whouley; other people that were and are much closer to Gore.  Why not mention their names?

3) A former Gore staffer who is currently working for the Edwards campaign 

The second aide approached by Vice-President Gore’s allies said: “There is no love lost between Gore and Hillary. They don’t think she can win and they’re probably right. If Gore runs, he’s got a really good chance of getting the nomination. And he has a good chance of pulling off the election, too.”

The former aide, who has himself signed up with Sen Edwards, said: “The question is: where have all the Kerry people gone? The answer for most of them is nowhere. Now ask yourself why.”

Yes, the Telegraph’s principle source for this article is a current member of the Edwards staff, who used this opportunity to talk about how unelectable Hillary Clinton is.  Are you really going to believe that a former Gore aide who is supposedly assembling a team in secret approaches someone who is currently working for Edwards to discuss availability?  This just seems odd. Consider this either/or: Either, this source is a high-ranking advisor in which case the Gore people would have known about the source’s employment with the Edwards campaign OR the source is a low level staffer, in which case his input on this matter is essentially meaningless.

We are failing to see how this article is really about Gore’s shadow campaign team.  Perhaps, it is the case that the article was fueled by the Edwards camp in order to undermine Sen. Clinton?  As of late, the Edwards campaign has been discussing electability and of course, presenting John Edwards as the candidate with the most electability.  Having an article out there that reminds people about Hilary Clinton’s electability issues could help John Edwards.  Perhaps the Telegraph was used because American papers probably would not have published such a claim without a bit more information and/or more credible sources?  Is this tabloid journalism?

If the Telegraph really wanted to make the case that Gore’s team was assembling in secret, perhaps they should have researched, contacted and/or commented on the following top former Gore staffers:

Some Former Gore Folk Seemingly Available… 

• Donna Brazile, Campaign Manager for Gore/Lieberman 2000 - Currently running  & Associates LLC, a Washington D.C. based consulting firm.
• Roy Neel, Chief of Staff to Gore while he was a senator and vice-president, Campaign Manager for Howard Dean - Currently Chairman of the Jackson Group and Director of Blue State Digital.  He was also recently employed by Gore as an advisor (maybe cheif of staff?)
• Craig T. Smith- Field Director for Clinton/Gore 92, Political Director for Clinton/Gore 96, Campaign Manager for Gore 2000, Campaign Director and Senior Advisor for Lieberman 2004 - Currently an Advisory Board Memberat mCapitol Management.
• Michael Whouley, National Field Director for Clinton/Gore 92, National Campaign Manager for Al Gore (1996), Senior Advisor (2000), Field organizer for Kerry/Edwards 2004 - Currently at Dewey Square Group, which he founded.
• Eric Kleinfeld, General counsel for Gore/Lieberman 2000, General Counsel for Dean For American 2004 - Currently a partner at Ryan, Phillips, Utrecht & MacKinnon.
• Lyn Utrecht, Counsel to Clinton/Gore 92 & 96, Counsel to Gore/Lieberman 2000, Counsel to Edwards/Dean/Graham/Moseley Braun primary campaigns 2004, Represented Hillary Rodham Clinton for US Senate Committee - Currently a partner at Ryan, Phillips, Utrecht & MacKinnon.
• Brian Foucart, Deputy Chief Operating Officer for Clinton/Gore 96, Chief Financial Officer for Gore 2000, Chief Financial Officer & Assistant Treasurer for Lieberman 2004 - Curerntly available
• Ron Klain
• Jose Villarreal
• Tina Flourny
• Elaine Kamarck
• Tom McMahon
• Tricia Enright

We think it’s pretty clear that the Telegraph article wasn’t really about Gore.  It seems to be a shot at the Clinton campaign from the Edwards folks.  The bigger questions that remain are: how involved the Edwards people were in the publication of this article.  Did they start coming out of the woodwork after Bill Clinton and James Carville brought the Gore discussion back up?  Did Tim Shipman contact them or was he contacted?  Given the overall lack of substance of this article, we think it’s safe to say that it was put together rather hastily in order to ride the wave of recent Gore coverage.

These are just our observations.

Sphere: Related Content