Fred Thompson has quietly tiptoed to the top of the polls among potential republican candidates. He’s gotten tons of free media by “considering” running, and avoided too much scrutiny by staying of the campaign trail and out of the debates. He polls well in part due to his acting career, playing a district attorney on Law and Order. The strong but politically mindful DA seems like an affable guy, although his real positions on the issues are still largely unpublicized.
Thompson’s columns provide some insight. He has in fact been quite prolific recently (it almost suggest a ghost writer and the needed for publicity before a campaign.) His leanings are actually a bit more … extreme … than his grandfatherly appearance and acting job would suggest.
Thompson favors a ridiculously high amount Presidential Power. He suggests that “there was nothing wrong with firing eight U.S. attorneys.” That’s a minority opinion to be sure. The Justice Department seems to have involved political calculations in its firing decisions, a no-no. The runaround congress received in its investigation showed an indifference to checks and balances, and neared perjury. Thompson however, considers these firings routine presidential decisions, and objects to the congressional meddling. His call for a “strong president” makes one a little wary to give him the seat of power.
You can take pride in American power, but Thompson goes a step further. Unilateral action is sometimes necessary, but world regard is an important component of US foreign policy. Happy allies are needed to facilitate military action, to further our global goals diplomatically, and to bolster the power of our military deterrent effect. Countries are imperfect, and some are even hypocritical in their complaints to America. Thompson, however, goes too far in suggesting that “we ought to look at a lot of the complaints as a badge of honor.” Angering the world as much as the USA does isn’t exactly honorable, even if it isn’t despicable in every instance.
Iranian proliferation is a serious global concern, one that requires nuance and caution. So far diplomacy has only provided a shield under which nuclear development has continued. However, a military strike, for numerous reasons, would fail. It is unlikely a strike would destroy all the Iranian nuclear program, it would enflame the middle east, damage global oil supplies, in the end risking a massive increase in terrorism, and a collapse of the global economy. An attack may one day be necessary, may be able to be pulled off without catastrophe. However, for now the crisis is not that urgent, and America needs a more nuanced approach. Perhaps a future leader shouldn’t off handedly suggest that it is futile “sit down across the table from these guys.”
It’s early, and if he finally decides to officially run, Fred Thompson will have plenty of time to explain his positions. However, early indications indicate he is a bit more hawkish than his TV persona might lead people to believe.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Monday, June 4, 2007
Is Any Democratic Candidate Winning on Iraq?
Offense can help win elections, but with all the finger pointing on Iraq, is anyone even making sense? The debate on Sunday highlighted absolutely nothing about the war. Everyone opposes it; everyone blames everyone else for sending and keeping American soldiers in Iraq. And when the smoke clears, none of the frontrunners seem any more palatable discussing the war.
John Edwards came out firing at Clinton and Obama for voting soflty on the war fudning bill – charging a lack of leadership. Am I the only one confused as to why a pre-vote press conference is a necessary component of leadership? So the two senators voted quietly. Maybe that was a political blunder, but does it show a glaring character flaw? Most voters aren’t going to pull the trigger on this elusive ‘lack of leadership.’
Edwards is also continuing his political gamble of admitting a mistake in voting to originally authorize the use of force in Iraq. The risk: does he come of as genuine. If Edwards can seem genuinely reformed and likeable, this gamble pays off and he becomes a strong anti-war advocate. If the move is perceived as showmanship, Edwards comes off as cheap, boyish and not an anti-war bulwark. Being as Edwards is having trouble shedding his trial lawyer elitism, this gamble runs an especially high risk.
Obama defend his (and by association Clinton’s) quiet vote. He counter charged that he has always been against the war, and Edwards only recently recanted his authorization. While factually true, Obama doesn’t seem any more attractive by pushing someone else into the slop. Plus, with Edwards claiming he made a mistake, exactly how meaningful is the charge?
Then Obama makes the empty gesture of asking the others to not “play politics” with the war. Don’t forget, Obama uses the war on the campaign trail as much as the others. So what exactly is he wishing for? Iraq is the campaign issue of the present, a massive foreign policy question with huge domestic ramifications. It seems the war would be the most logical place focus political energy, in an age where the candidates and the media “play politics” with literally everything.
Then there is Hillary Clinton, doing her best impression of being above the fight. Her tactic: blame Bush. Exactly how much distance can she get from blaming the soon-to-be lame duck? Firstly, all the candidates and the Democratic voting base are already in agreement on Bush. Secondly, bashing Bush doesn’t exactly reassure those who are upset with Hillary for originally authorizing the war or continuing the fund it. Lastly, the ‘above the pack’ strategy would seem much more effective if Hillary could keep her own dirty laundry out of the press.
Oddly, the candidates with the most sensible tactics are those with the least strength. Kucinich is ready to blame congress (along with Bush of course) for the war, and is keeping his story simple in opposition to the war in any form. Biden took a stable stance defending his vote for funding as essential to protect the troops.
Its early, tactics will change, and perhaps a candidate will be able to come across as smart, strong and likeable on Iraq. But for now, the Democratic field is plain petty. As the front runners scramble to blame each other and/or Bush for our foreign policy shortcomings, they don’t seem very presidential. For now the campaigns are showcasing drama more than leadership. The opportunity seems great for someone to prove him or herself better than the rest, and no one stepped up.
John Edwards came out firing at Clinton and Obama for voting soflty on the war fudning bill – charging a lack of leadership. Am I the only one confused as to why a pre-vote press conference is a necessary component of leadership? So the two senators voted quietly. Maybe that was a political blunder, but does it show a glaring character flaw? Most voters aren’t going to pull the trigger on this elusive ‘lack of leadership.’
Edwards is also continuing his political gamble of admitting a mistake in voting to originally authorize the use of force in Iraq. The risk: does he come of as genuine. If Edwards can seem genuinely reformed and likeable, this gamble pays off and he becomes a strong anti-war advocate. If the move is perceived as showmanship, Edwards comes off as cheap, boyish and not an anti-war bulwark. Being as Edwards is having trouble shedding his trial lawyer elitism, this gamble runs an especially high risk.
Obama defend his (and by association Clinton’s) quiet vote. He counter charged that he has always been against the war, and Edwards only recently recanted his authorization. While factually true, Obama doesn’t seem any more attractive by pushing someone else into the slop. Plus, with Edwards claiming he made a mistake, exactly how meaningful is the charge?
Then Obama makes the empty gesture of asking the others to not “play politics” with the war. Don’t forget, Obama uses the war on the campaign trail as much as the others. So what exactly is he wishing for? Iraq is the campaign issue of the present, a massive foreign policy question with huge domestic ramifications. It seems the war would be the most logical place focus political energy, in an age where the candidates and the media “play politics” with literally everything.
Then there is Hillary Clinton, doing her best impression of being above the fight. Her tactic: blame Bush. Exactly how much distance can she get from blaming the soon-to-be lame duck? Firstly, all the candidates and the Democratic voting base are already in agreement on Bush. Secondly, bashing Bush doesn’t exactly reassure those who are upset with Hillary for originally authorizing the war or continuing the fund it. Lastly, the ‘above the pack’ strategy would seem much more effective if Hillary could keep her own dirty laundry out of the press.
Oddly, the candidates with the most sensible tactics are those with the least strength. Kucinich is ready to blame congress (along with Bush of course) for the war, and is keeping his story simple in opposition to the war in any form. Biden took a stable stance defending his vote for funding as essential to protect the troops.
Its early, tactics will change, and perhaps a candidate will be able to come across as smart, strong and likeable on Iraq. But for now, the Democratic field is plain petty. As the front runners scramble to blame each other and/or Bush for our foreign policy shortcomings, they don’t seem very presidential. For now the campaigns are showcasing drama more than leadership. The opportunity seems great for someone to prove him or herself better than the rest, and no one stepped up.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Is the Press Softer on Obama than Giuliani?
A recent Pew survey asked respondents about the press coverage of the presidential election. The surprising (maybe) result: Republicans thought the media was too easy on the Democratic candidates in much higher numbers than Democrats thought the media was soft on the Republican candidates. Republicans, 45% of them, wish harsher coverage upon the Democrats, while only 24% of Democrats feel that way about coverage of the Republican candidates.
An interesting side note: those who identify as independent thought the coverage was equal. 21% of independents thought coverage was too easy on the GOP, and 23% found coverage to be too easy on Democrats. Most independents think coverage is fair on the parties, 47% and 52% respectively. And some good news: those polled want more coverage on the issues and debates, and less coverage on campaign fundraising and current polling. It’s nice to hear that the electorate wants to hear more about the issues, it suggests a higher level of civic education and participation.
So why do so many Republicans, and so many more Republicans than Democrats, think the media is soft on their opponents. It’s not like the Democratic frontrunners have been immune from bad press; in fact the opposite has been true. John Edwards can’t seem to escape his four hundred dollar haircuts and fifty five thousand dollar speeches on poverty. Hillary Clinton can’t keep her jaunts in private jets, her husband’s strange affiliation with InfoUSA, her marital problems, and the upcoming books out of the press. Even the golden boy, Barack Obama, can’t quite get the charge of inexperience to go completely away.
So why are the numbers so disparate? Why are Republican voters upset with the media more than their Democratic counterparts? One potential answer is that Republicans are naturally vindictive, and expect harsher press for their opponents than does the rest of society. I’m disinclined to believe that Republican’s are naturally evil.
The distinguishing issue could be the Iraq war. There is no polling data backing me up (as far as I know), but perhaps Republicans object to the press coverage of the anti-war Democratic candidates. The demands for timetable legislation, and even suggestions for an immediate pullout, have some conservatives on edge. Pundits predict a surge in terrorism and decry America ‘waving the white flag.’ Is it possible that such conservatives expect to hear predictions of disaster whenever an antiwar stance is enumerated? Perhaps whenever the Democrats get coverage for opposing the war, without a discussion of the potential consequences, some Republicans feel the media is being “too easy.” And perhaps Democratic voters view it as perfectly natural for the press to describe a candidate as supporting the surge, without discussing the ongoing casualties.
I suggest that because Iraq has been somewhat of a quagmire for some time, Democrats excuse the press for not going into gory detail every time the surge or plans to stay are discussed. And precisely because its such a major shift, some Republicans may demand gory details concerning the downside of an American withdrawal from Iraq.
And then again I could be wrong. Maybe the press coverage is more lopsided than I perceive, even though independents see the coverage as relatively equal. Maybe Republicans are more vicious. Maybe some other issue hits the Republican sensibility more sharply than the Democratic. In the end it’s not pressingly important; the election is along way off. Media coverage, and the issues themselves, have a lot of shifting left to do. Never the less, it’s interesting to ponder, why exactly are Republicans more annoyed with the media?
An interesting side note: those who identify as independent thought the coverage was equal. 21% of independents thought coverage was too easy on the GOP, and 23% found coverage to be too easy on Democrats. Most independents think coverage is fair on the parties, 47% and 52% respectively. And some good news: those polled want more coverage on the issues and debates, and less coverage on campaign fundraising and current polling. It’s nice to hear that the electorate wants to hear more about the issues, it suggests a higher level of civic education and participation.
So why do so many Republicans, and so many more Republicans than Democrats, think the media is soft on their opponents. It’s not like the Democratic frontrunners have been immune from bad press; in fact the opposite has been true. John Edwards can’t seem to escape his four hundred dollar haircuts and fifty five thousand dollar speeches on poverty. Hillary Clinton can’t keep her jaunts in private jets, her husband’s strange affiliation with InfoUSA, her marital problems, and the upcoming books out of the press. Even the golden boy, Barack Obama, can’t quite get the charge of inexperience to go completely away.
So why are the numbers so disparate? Why are Republican voters upset with the media more than their Democratic counterparts? One potential answer is that Republicans are naturally vindictive, and expect harsher press for their opponents than does the rest of society. I’m disinclined to believe that Republican’s are naturally evil.
The distinguishing issue could be the Iraq war. There is no polling data backing me up (as far as I know), but perhaps Republicans object to the press coverage of the anti-war Democratic candidates. The demands for timetable legislation, and even suggestions for an immediate pullout, have some conservatives on edge. Pundits predict a surge in terrorism and decry America ‘waving the white flag.’ Is it possible that such conservatives expect to hear predictions of disaster whenever an antiwar stance is enumerated? Perhaps whenever the Democrats get coverage for opposing the war, without a discussion of the potential consequences, some Republicans feel the media is being “too easy.” And perhaps Democratic voters view it as perfectly natural for the press to describe a candidate as supporting the surge, without discussing the ongoing casualties.
I suggest that because Iraq has been somewhat of a quagmire for some time, Democrats excuse the press for not going into gory detail every time the surge or plans to stay are discussed. And precisely because its such a major shift, some Republicans may demand gory details concerning the downside of an American withdrawal from Iraq.
And then again I could be wrong. Maybe the press coverage is more lopsided than I perceive, even though independents see the coverage as relatively equal. Maybe Republicans are more vicious. Maybe some other issue hits the Republican sensibility more sharply than the Democratic. In the end it’s not pressingly important; the election is along way off. Media coverage, and the issues themselves, have a lot of shifting left to do. Never the less, it’s interesting to ponder, why exactly are Republicans more annoyed with the media?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
