On Tuesday New Mexico elected their first Female Hispanic Governor, Susana Martinez. South Carolina, long considered one of the most "racist" states in the Union elected their first Female Indian-American governor, Nikki Haley. Florida elected a Cuban-American senator, Marco Rubio.
From their inception in the 1850s until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the GOP was the generally more accepting party when it came to minorities. When Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a lot of White Southern Democrats felt betrayed by LBJ and his fellow Democrats in Congress and became Republicans.
Ever since then the GOP has been portrayed as a party of hate, racism, xenophobia, ignorance, big business, stupidity, etc. etc. But George W. Bush, love him or hate him-- for all of his faults he had more minorities serving in his cabinet than any president before. When you add Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, and Susanna Martinez to the mix I'd argue there's an embracing within the GOP of people of minority. There's been an embrace of putting ideas before race or gender within the party. I believe this is in some part attributable to Obama's election and the heavy losses the GOP took in Congress in 2006 and 2008 forcing the Republican leadership to look inwards, retreat, and re-group.
That's not to say there aren't still elements within the GOP, stalwarts who share the ideas of those who joined the GOP in 1964 with racist motivations. That's somewhat unavoidable. I'm not about to condemn the whole GOP for the actions of a small, but vocal, element of the party any more than I'd have branded the entire Democratic Party pre-1964 as being racist... There were racist elements within the party yes but if the whole party had been truly racist to the core they never would have been the party to have passed the Civil Rights Act and who knows we might still be dealing with Jim Crow laws today if not for those in government with the vision and courage to end centuries of racial discrimination and injustice.
In reading some of the more left-leaning commentary on the results of Tuesday's election there's an undercurrent of intellectual superiority that's bubbling close to the surface. I'll concede that for some who voted Tuesday our President's skin color was and continues to be an issue. But I'd counter despite growing more vocal in some regards that contingent is growing smaller and smaller. But it wasn't a bunch of ignorant racists that gave the House of Representatives back to the GOP. The party faithful aren't the ones who decide elections, it's the independents and swing voters who decide elections. And generally it's those voters who vote with their wallets.
The GOP lost control of Congress in 2006 with even more losses in 2008 due largely to their blatant disregard of any semblance of fiscal restraint during the Bush administration. Under Clinton between 1996 and 2000 as volatile as it became at times Clinton and the GOP led Congress acted as counter-balances to one another preventing the country from drifting too far to either the left or right. Under Bush many of those congressmen/women lost their way and any semblance of fiscal restraint they might have had/been forced to have under Clinton contributing to the financial meltdown in 2008. The American people were hungry for a more responsible Congress... Instead the only thing that changed was how the money was being spent... "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." There was no more fiscal restraint since the Democrats took over the Congress than there was under the GOP in 2000-2006. THAT is the core reason why the Democrats took such heavy losses on Tuesday. They viewed their victories as pro-Democratic mandates... In reality, those were anti-Republican mandates.
The rhetoric coming from the newly elected Republicans is arguably far more humble than that of the Democrats in 2006 or 2008 or for that matter even their GOP predecessors back in 1994 and I do hope that humility stays with them that they learn from the mistakes of their predecessors in both parties. Many of them DO realize their elections are not a pro-Republican mandate they're a call for more fiscal responsibility and the American people will keep "turning over" Congresses until we get the right batch of people to keep government spending in check and return to the days of balanced budgets. If the Republicans continue the spendthrift ways of their predecessors, Congress will turn back over... maybe in 2012, maybe not until 2016, but it WILL happen.
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Thursday, November 04, 2010
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Campaigning and Fiscal Responsibility
On one of the radio shows I listen to on my morning commutes, John Howell, commented that politicians campaign negatively because it works.
I'm not going to argue the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of campaigning negatively. But I do believe it begs another question. If all the politicians in either party ever do is campaign negatively, how can we be certain that campaigning positively wouldn't work BETTER?
Our elected representatives are our employees. They are elected to serve us, not the other way around. As such, shouldn't elections be treated more like job interviews? If you had 2 candidates applying for the same job and in their respective interviews all they did was bad mouth their opposition, would you hire either of them?
Maybe the candidates of the 2 major parties should treat campaigning more like a job interview and less like a sophomoric name-calling contest. Maybe the electorate would start to respect those who choose to run for public office a bit more if they were forced to run more on job performance and their stances on the issues (issues that they actually can effect change on-- thus, leave abortion off the table. Last I checked Supreme Court Justices were the only ones who had/have the power to change that law and they're an appointed, not an elected office/position).
One of the key issues of this election cycle has been the economy. Which brings me to another point. My views tend to fall right of center. At its core the Tea Party movement makes sense to me. The core belief of the Tea Party movement is one of fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately the movement in many cases has been hijacked by fringe groups. By mere association to the Tea Party these groups have largely taken the reason out of what should be reasonable argument and set of beliefs about the economic direction of our country.
Once upon a time elected office was seen as an honor and privilege. Our elected officials were supposedly our best and brightest. As such they were supposed to lead by example. Our Congress today lacks accountability on so many levels and perhaps most egregiously on fiscal responsibility. How can our elected officials expect us to be more responsible with our money when they're not responsible with our money at all?
I'm not going to argue the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of campaigning negatively. But I do believe it begs another question. If all the politicians in either party ever do is campaign negatively, how can we be certain that campaigning positively wouldn't work BETTER?
Our elected representatives are our employees. They are elected to serve us, not the other way around. As such, shouldn't elections be treated more like job interviews? If you had 2 candidates applying for the same job and in their respective interviews all they did was bad mouth their opposition, would you hire either of them?
Maybe the candidates of the 2 major parties should treat campaigning more like a job interview and less like a sophomoric name-calling contest. Maybe the electorate would start to respect those who choose to run for public office a bit more if they were forced to run more on job performance and their stances on the issues (issues that they actually can effect change on-- thus, leave abortion off the table. Last I checked Supreme Court Justices were the only ones who had/have the power to change that law and they're an appointed, not an elected office/position).
One of the key issues of this election cycle has been the economy. Which brings me to another point. My views tend to fall right of center. At its core the Tea Party movement makes sense to me. The core belief of the Tea Party movement is one of fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately the movement in many cases has been hijacked by fringe groups. By mere association to the Tea Party these groups have largely taken the reason out of what should be reasonable argument and set of beliefs about the economic direction of our country.
Once upon a time elected office was seen as an honor and privilege. Our elected officials were supposedly our best and brightest. As such they were supposed to lead by example. Our Congress today lacks accountability on so many levels and perhaps most egregiously on fiscal responsibility. How can our elected officials expect us to be more responsible with our money when they're not responsible with our money at all?
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Election 2008
As some of you may know, my wife's politics and mine tend to fall on opposite ends of the political spectrum You'll find my politics on the right and hers to the left.
We've had some interesting discussions about the upcoming election, largely because I can't and won't vote for John McCain. As such, it's implied the only alternative is Barack Obama. However, I can't vote for Obama either as ideologically his politics and mine are even further apart than those of my wife & I.
I'm not "not voting" for McCain because he's a "Republican." And whenever my wife makes negative comments about the Republican party I remind her that the principles the party was founded on are noble, just and good and that those who still believe in those principles and live them are similarly noble and just. Unfortunately, the Republican party-- much like the Democratic party has been largely co-opted by special interests. And neither party is really following the principles which they were founded upon. Essentially while neither party is necessarily letting the kooks run the asylum both parties have essentially allowed the kooks to run the board meetings of their respective asylums.
If the Democratic party were to return to its Jeffersonian ideals and the Republican party were to return to its Fremontian (the first Republican candidate for President was actually John C. Fremont in 1856)/Lincolnian ideals our country would be far better off and likely much less divided.
The trouble is that we live in an era of soundbites and soundbites can (and usually are) taken out of context. So we end up with 2 candidates who are so afraid of their words/beliefs being taken out of context that their speeches are so generic that there is little for us to glean from them. Rather than constructively debating ideologies and policies they're reduced to mudslinging and ad-hominem attacks and we're left with a completely vapid election campaign based on fear and hate-mongering. And our politicians wonder why this country is so divided?
I love this country. I was born and raised here. It really saddens me to see how divided we've become. Red vs. Blue, Left vs. Right, Conservative vs. Liberal, Democrat vs. Republican and the sad thing is it's only getting worse and it's only going to continue to get worse if we continue down the same track that we're on.
I was recently reading RFK Jr's afterward in a reprinting of Barry M. Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative. Kennedy was commenting on how his uncle, JFK, was a friend and fan of Goldwater and that Kennedy was really looking forward to running against him in the 1964 election. There was a mutual respect between the two of them. Kennedy wanted to have a series of discussions of policy and ideology (akin to the classic Lincoln/Douglas debates) and have an election based on ideologies and policies not on fear, hate, finger-pointing, or mudslinging.
Unfortunately, with the Kennedy assassination that return to the basics and civility never happened. Instead we've grown increasingly more divided with each subsequent election.
I had hope going into this election that we might see a return to that civility, but maybe things have just gone too far for that ever to be a reality.
We've had some interesting discussions about the upcoming election, largely because I can't and won't vote for John McCain. As such, it's implied the only alternative is Barack Obama. However, I can't vote for Obama either as ideologically his politics and mine are even further apart than those of my wife & I.
I'm not "not voting" for McCain because he's a "Republican." And whenever my wife makes negative comments about the Republican party I remind her that the principles the party was founded on are noble, just and good and that those who still believe in those principles and live them are similarly noble and just. Unfortunately, the Republican party-- much like the Democratic party has been largely co-opted by special interests. And neither party is really following the principles which they were founded upon. Essentially while neither party is necessarily letting the kooks run the asylum both parties have essentially allowed the kooks to run the board meetings of their respective asylums.
If the Democratic party were to return to its Jeffersonian ideals and the Republican party were to return to its Fremontian (the first Republican candidate for President was actually John C. Fremont in 1856)/Lincolnian ideals our country would be far better off and likely much less divided.
The trouble is that we live in an era of soundbites and soundbites can (and usually are) taken out of context. So we end up with 2 candidates who are so afraid of their words/beliefs being taken out of context that their speeches are so generic that there is little for us to glean from them. Rather than constructively debating ideologies and policies they're reduced to mudslinging and ad-hominem attacks and we're left with a completely vapid election campaign based on fear and hate-mongering. And our politicians wonder why this country is so divided?
I love this country. I was born and raised here. It really saddens me to see how divided we've become. Red vs. Blue, Left vs. Right, Conservative vs. Liberal, Democrat vs. Republican and the sad thing is it's only getting worse and it's only going to continue to get worse if we continue down the same track that we're on.
I was recently reading RFK Jr's afterward in a reprinting of Barry M. Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative. Kennedy was commenting on how his uncle, JFK, was a friend and fan of Goldwater and that Kennedy was really looking forward to running against him in the 1964 election. There was a mutual respect between the two of them. Kennedy wanted to have a series of discussions of policy and ideology (akin to the classic Lincoln/Douglas debates) and have an election based on ideologies and policies not on fear, hate, finger-pointing, or mudslinging.
Unfortunately, with the Kennedy assassination that return to the basics and civility never happened. Instead we've grown increasingly more divided with each subsequent election.
I had hope going into this election that we might see a return to that civility, but maybe things have just gone too far for that ever to be a reality.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Politics
During election years I tend to grow more politically active, I listen to more talk radio, I read more political publications, I discuss politics with friends. This election year is no exception. Starting with Flying High a memoir of Barry Goldwater and the 1964 election, now reading Very Strange Bedfellows which is about the unusual pairing of Nixon and Agnew in the 1968 and 1972 elections, and I'll be wrapping up my political tri-fecta with The Age of Reagan by Sean Willentz.
And it's not just the political philosophy/ideology I enjoy-- it's also discussion of the political process that I find quite intriguing. That being said, I tend to avoid the cable news networks until after the polls close. As was seen in the 2004 election when all the speculation from the exit polling had Kerry winning the election-- speculation is just that. And I figure their guess is as good as mine. Exit polling is largely dependent on the pollsters and when they do their polling. The voting habits of conservative Republicans are considerably different than the voting habits of liberal Democrats. I also feel that exit polling is more a curse than a blessing. I believe the speculation and reports of the exit polls in 2004 are what helped get out the vote for Bush. Many conservatives who might not have otherwise voted-- upon hearing that Kerry was doing so well in the exit polls may very likely have gone out to vote for Bush. In that regard, the exit polling was likely a blessing for Bush.
This morning I was listening to one of the local talk radio shows Big John & Cisco In the Morning. They were interviewing former Clinton staffer, Dick Morris. It's no secret that Morris is no friend or fan of the Clinton's. Some may say he has an axe to grind-- but given his background he also offers a unique perspective into the "belly of the beast" so to speak. Morris did make one very valid point about a Hillary Clinton presidency. George Bush has expanded the powers of the president considerably in his 8 years in office. And while George Bush hasn't (at least Morris doesn't believe he has) abused those powers, Hillary certainly would. I'm not going to split hairs over whether or not Bush has abused those powers as that's beside the point. After hearing those remarks I asked myself-- "Which of the 3 remaining candidates would be most apt to abuse the powers of the presidency?" and without hesitation my answer was Hillary... Not Obama, not McCain. Morris mentioned that Hillary brings with her to the table a list of enemies... upon mentioning that, I thought to myself, "She sounds like another Nixon. The last thing this country needs is another Tricky Dick."
To extrapolate on that... Since 1989 either a Bush or a Clinton has occupied the White House... In that time this nation has grown increasingly more divided. Who is most apt to end that division and who is most apt to perpetuate it?
To close on a somewhat more somber note... I've been eligible to vote since 1994-- since then I'm yet to see a presidential candidate I've felt truly excited about and agree with. Barry Goldwater planted the seeds of modern conservatism, Reagan had the green thumb to make it grow... and then these Bush boys came in and mowed all that progress down with their newfangled "neo-conservatism" (which is quite an oxymoron for quite the pair of ox-like morons). Where is this generation's Goldwater or Reagan? Where is that candidate-- and I don't care about that candidate's gender or race or religion-- that can excite me, that can move me, that makes me feel GOOD about voting and gives me genuine HOPE for this country's future?
I think the Republicans actually HAD that guy... But they went and botched it. In the 2004 US Senate Race. A charismatic young Republican with movie star/JFK good looks and classic conservative ideals, Jack Ryan, won the Illinois Republican primary for the senate race. Much like his Democratic counterpart, Barack Obama, he had a positive energy about him. Unfortunately, his confidential divorce records were opened and it was discovered he propositioned his then wife (actress Jeri Ryan) for sex in a public place while they were married. Why his private divorce records were opened in the first place remains a mystery to me and many others. Why it was considered such a scandal that he propositioned someone he was actually married to at the time for sex remains and even greater mystery to me... But the end result... Ryan was asked to step down and the Illinois Republican party imported religious kook Alan Keyes from Maryland to run against Obama... Keyes of course lost in a landslide and suddenly Obama's star was on the rise... And Ryan's star had been shot down.
Who knows, had we respected his privacy-- this presidential race might look considerably different right now. Ryan may not have ended up defeating Obama, but I have no doubt the race would have been MUCH closer and Ryan likely would have made quite a name for himself. And had he lost the senate race he might have run for Illinois governor in 2006 against the incumbent moron Rod Blagoievich, a man he could have defeated quite handily grooming himself as a possible VP candidate to the eventual Republican nominee...
And it's not just the political philosophy/ideology I enjoy-- it's also discussion of the political process that I find quite intriguing. That being said, I tend to avoid the cable news networks until after the polls close. As was seen in the 2004 election when all the speculation from the exit polling had Kerry winning the election-- speculation is just that. And I figure their guess is as good as mine. Exit polling is largely dependent on the pollsters and when they do their polling. The voting habits of conservative Republicans are considerably different than the voting habits of liberal Democrats. I also feel that exit polling is more a curse than a blessing. I believe the speculation and reports of the exit polls in 2004 are what helped get out the vote for Bush. Many conservatives who might not have otherwise voted-- upon hearing that Kerry was doing so well in the exit polls may very likely have gone out to vote for Bush. In that regard, the exit polling was likely a blessing for Bush.
This morning I was listening to one of the local talk radio shows Big John & Cisco In the Morning. They were interviewing former Clinton staffer, Dick Morris. It's no secret that Morris is no friend or fan of the Clinton's. Some may say he has an axe to grind-- but given his background he also offers a unique perspective into the "belly of the beast" so to speak. Morris did make one very valid point about a Hillary Clinton presidency. George Bush has expanded the powers of the president considerably in his 8 years in office. And while George Bush hasn't (at least Morris doesn't believe he has) abused those powers, Hillary certainly would. I'm not going to split hairs over whether or not Bush has abused those powers as that's beside the point. After hearing those remarks I asked myself-- "Which of the 3 remaining candidates would be most apt to abuse the powers of the presidency?" and without hesitation my answer was Hillary... Not Obama, not McCain. Morris mentioned that Hillary brings with her to the table a list of enemies... upon mentioning that, I thought to myself, "She sounds like another Nixon. The last thing this country needs is another Tricky Dick."
To extrapolate on that... Since 1989 either a Bush or a Clinton has occupied the White House... In that time this nation has grown increasingly more divided. Who is most apt to end that division and who is most apt to perpetuate it?
To close on a somewhat more somber note... I've been eligible to vote since 1994-- since then I'm yet to see a presidential candidate I've felt truly excited about and agree with. Barry Goldwater planted the seeds of modern conservatism, Reagan had the green thumb to make it grow... and then these Bush boys came in and mowed all that progress down with their newfangled "neo-conservatism" (which is quite an oxymoron for quite the pair of ox-like morons). Where is this generation's Goldwater or Reagan? Where is that candidate-- and I don't care about that candidate's gender or race or religion-- that can excite me, that can move me, that makes me feel GOOD about voting and gives me genuine HOPE for this country's future?
I think the Republicans actually HAD that guy... But they went and botched it. In the 2004 US Senate Race. A charismatic young Republican with movie star/JFK good looks and classic conservative ideals, Jack Ryan, won the Illinois Republican primary for the senate race. Much like his Democratic counterpart, Barack Obama, he had a positive energy about him. Unfortunately, his confidential divorce records were opened and it was discovered he propositioned his then wife (actress Jeri Ryan) for sex in a public place while they were married. Why his private divorce records were opened in the first place remains a mystery to me and many others. Why it was considered such a scandal that he propositioned someone he was actually married to at the time for sex remains and even greater mystery to me... But the end result... Ryan was asked to step down and the Illinois Republican party imported religious kook Alan Keyes from Maryland to run against Obama... Keyes of course lost in a landslide and suddenly Obama's star was on the rise... And Ryan's star had been shot down.
Who knows, had we respected his privacy-- this presidential race might look considerably different right now. Ryan may not have ended up defeating Obama, but I have no doubt the race would have been MUCH closer and Ryan likely would have made quite a name for himself. And had he lost the senate race he might have run for Illinois governor in 2006 against the incumbent moron Rod Blagoievich, a man he could have defeated quite handily grooming himself as a possible VP candidate to the eventual Republican nominee...
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Sad Thursday
So today the candidate I was supporting, Mitt Romney, dropped out of the race and gave the best speech of his campaign... If only he'd given that speech BEFORE Super Tuesday his numbers and McCain's might have been a bit closer. At any rate in light of feeling dejected about Romney dropping out I had/have to share the following photo:
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Santa Claus endorses Romney!
Santa Claus is endorsing Mitt Romney!
Just remember, you heard it here first (photo courtesy FoxNews):
Vote for Romney, you'll get more toys for Christmas!
*The photo is actually of David Woods a Berkeley delegate from West Virginia... But you must admit, the resemblance is uncanny!
Just remember, you heard it here first (photo courtesy FoxNews):
Vote for Romney, you'll get more toys for Christmas!*The photo is actually of David Woods a Berkeley delegate from West Virginia... But you must admit, the resemblance is uncanny!
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Time for a change?
Under Bill Clinton the US was somewhat divided. It seemed half the country hated him, and half the country loved him and was willing to forgive him of his transgressions. Under George W. Bush that divide has only grown...
By the time Bush leaves office we will have had a Bush or Clinton in Office since 1989-- 20 years. 20 years of increasing division, a general lack of compromise, and a largely divided government full of politicians far more concerned in finger-pointing and placing blame for the faults of the country than acting to correct them.
Do we really want to elect another Clinton? I have nothing against Hillary personally. But doesn't she bring with her at least some of the baggage of divisiveness that existed under her husband's administration? Is it in the best interests of this country to elect someone who is far more likely to widen than close the division in this country? The division between the red conservative right and the blue liberal left? I'm asking legitimately, would Hillary be able to overcome the division caused by her predecessors (both Bush and her husband) and bring this country together? Or would a Hillary Clinton presidency only further widen that division?
I love this country, it's a country that exists largely of a rather moderate population, a population that is feeling increasingly marginalized by those special interests on the fringe who have stolen our voices from us and used our government as a means to their own selfish ends.
As I repeatedly stated during the 2004 election where I felt so disillusioned by both major parties that I voted for a 3rd party candidate for the first time in my life... Maybe Stealer's Wheel put it best: "Clowns to the left, Jokers to the right, and here I am stuck in the middle with you."
By the time Bush leaves office we will have had a Bush or Clinton in Office since 1989-- 20 years. 20 years of increasing division, a general lack of compromise, and a largely divided government full of politicians far more concerned in finger-pointing and placing blame for the faults of the country than acting to correct them.
Do we really want to elect another Clinton? I have nothing against Hillary personally. But doesn't she bring with her at least some of the baggage of divisiveness that existed under her husband's administration? Is it in the best interests of this country to elect someone who is far more likely to widen than close the division in this country? The division between the red conservative right and the blue liberal left? I'm asking legitimately, would Hillary be able to overcome the division caused by her predecessors (both Bush and her husband) and bring this country together? Or would a Hillary Clinton presidency only further widen that division?
I love this country, it's a country that exists largely of a rather moderate population, a population that is feeling increasingly marginalized by those special interests on the fringe who have stolen our voices from us and used our government as a means to their own selfish ends.
As I repeatedly stated during the 2004 election where I felt so disillusioned by both major parties that I voted for a 3rd party candidate for the first time in my life... Maybe Stealer's Wheel put it best: "Clowns to the left, Jokers to the right, and here I am stuck in the middle with you."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
