I was listening to The Young Turks (tied for Thom Hartmann with the best show on Air America) and listening to them rip the blue-dog Democrats for giving in to Bush...again. But it seems that the so-called "New Democrats" always get a pass on left leaning shows. I know that if you have to compare the two, or choose between the two, I'd always pick a New Democrat..as well most people I think would. But the New Democrats are just as a problem with the Democratic party losing their way as the blue dogs. Centrist, fiscally more conservative then in the pass, and more open to deregulation. Now, don't get me wrong, Clinton did a lot of good when he was President. He also caused some great problems, namely NAFTA and deregulation of telecommunications. While the blue dogs make no quips about being moderate to conservative Democrats the New Democrats do. They have, for the most part, forgotten about the middle-class and are not as hard on corporations and the super rich. They call it a "new line for the Democratic party" while I look at it as the slow destruction of the Democratic parties values.
A few examples, off the top of my head: Bill Clinton's campaign in 1992. Populist rhetoric at it's best. Once he got elected, all that populism was thrown to the way-side. Hillary is doing the same now. Is there anything she won't say to get elected? Why won't she apologize for her authorization of the war in Iraq? One of Hillary's favorite sayings is "I know how to get things done." Roughly translated, that means "I will negotiate and bend backwards and really make no significant changes." She might be the worst example of the New Democrat phase, but she certainly isn't the only one. Another example, and one I don't think I even have to elaborate on, Joe Libermann is a New Democrat.
Now, again, I do still agree with some/most of what New Democrats believe in. But it just seems like, to me anyways, that they are losing their way. They keeping getting closer to the center of the political spectrum, skewing the difference between Democrat and Republican further.
All hope isn't lost however. There are still true progressives involved in the Democratic party. Such men as Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders (I know he's an Independent, but hey) and assorted others are keeping the traditional dream alive.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Strength through Peace: The Kucinich Campaign
If you couldn't tell by now, I am a strong supporter of Dennis Kucinich. I believe that he plays a very important role in the 2008 Presidential campaign. While his chances of winning the election are slim to none, he plays an extremely important role because he brings about changes that otherwise wouldn't be talked about. While all the candidates talk about "fixing" NAFTA, and it doesn't seem to be all that important to them anyways, Kucinich is talking about getting rid of NAFTA. A change in trade policies, focusing on the worker and not the corporation. We wouldn't get to hear a candidate endorse these widespread changes otherwise. All the candidates want universal healthcare, but Kucinich is the only one that wants universal single-payer not for profit healthcare. He has already introduced the bill with Rep. Conyers. Kucinich has made it a point to try and fight for the family farms that have been a forgotten part of America. Honestly, what other candidate has even mentioned farmers?
The mass changes that he brings to the table isn't just about trade and the common man, although that is good enough for me. He is fighting for our liberties too. Kucinich wants full repeal of the Patriot Act. Again, that is not even on the board. Is education important to Dennis Kucinich? He wants full education, kindergarden through college. I know that that would help me out with all my student loans and help out my family, among millions of other families.
Kucinich talks about real change. Every part of his plan of President is discussed in depth on his web site. Rolling back the Bush tax cuts, banning hand guns (which I personally don't agree with) and everything else that you can imagine want to be changed, he promises to change. And you know what? His voting record holds up. He stands out in every debate, he might be the outsider candidate but put that out of your head for a second. He makes sense when he talks. He doesn't pull punches, he gives straight answers.
Now, in the fallout of the AFL-CIO debate Kucinich is getting more attention. His views that where once deemed far to the left are now becoming more mainstream, at least a little bit anyways. Can Kucinich be the "seabiscuit" of the race? I really hope so, but probably not. My view is that we are probably to blame. The voters need to get behind Kucinich and push him forward, push change forward. Kucinich is running on a truly populist format, and he is not getting enough of our help! So, get the word out to anyone you can. Get involved in the grassroots. Tell your families, friends, anyone...just get the message out.
You can check out his full plans by clicking on this link: http://www2.kucinich.us/issues
OTHER THOUGHTS
- An interesting turn of events, I was talking to my uncle today and found out that he actually worked for Murray at the Maple Creek mine near our home. His take on thinks? Murray was an asshole then and there where mass violations at the mine. In fact, this was his reason for leaving.
- A good newspaper that I actually subscribed to today can be found at www.populist.com. Please, check it out...real good stuff there.
- After taking a step back and looking at the fallout from the debate I find one thing clear...Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected as President.
- The George Bush comments on Pat Tillman disgust me so much...
- What do you know, another problem with Chinese products, only this time it's tires.
The mass changes that he brings to the table isn't just about trade and the common man, although that is good enough for me. He is fighting for our liberties too. Kucinich wants full repeal of the Patriot Act. Again, that is not even on the board. Is education important to Dennis Kucinich? He wants full education, kindergarden through college. I know that that would help me out with all my student loans and help out my family, among millions of other families.
Kucinich talks about real change. Every part of his plan of President is discussed in depth on his web site. Rolling back the Bush tax cuts, banning hand guns (which I personally don't agree with) and everything else that you can imagine want to be changed, he promises to change. And you know what? His voting record holds up. He stands out in every debate, he might be the outsider candidate but put that out of your head for a second. He makes sense when he talks. He doesn't pull punches, he gives straight answers.
Now, in the fallout of the AFL-CIO debate Kucinich is getting more attention. His views that where once deemed far to the left are now becoming more mainstream, at least a little bit anyways. Can Kucinich be the "seabiscuit" of the race? I really hope so, but probably not. My view is that we are probably to blame. The voters need to get behind Kucinich and push him forward, push change forward. Kucinich is running on a truly populist format, and he is not getting enough of our help! So, get the word out to anyone you can. Get involved in the grassroots. Tell your families, friends, anyone...just get the message out.
You can check out his full plans by clicking on this link: http://www2.kucinich.us/issues
OTHER THOUGHTS
- An interesting turn of events, I was talking to my uncle today and found out that he actually worked for Murray at the Maple Creek mine near our home. His take on thinks? Murray was an asshole then and there where mass violations at the mine. In fact, this was his reason for leaving.
- A good newspaper that I actually subscribed to today can be found at www.populist.com. Please, check it out...real good stuff there.
- After taking a step back and looking at the fallout from the debate I find one thing clear...Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected as President.
- The George Bush comments on Pat Tillman disgust me so much...
- What do you know, another problem with Chinese products, only this time it's tires.
The Loss of Populism and the Workers Fight
Well, I can't sleep and figured I'd make another post. I've been reading a lot of historic and current Populist documents. I consider myself a Progressive Populist. As I've stated earlier I left the Democratic party because I feel they have lost their roots. Partly to blame is them, the politicians, the other part is the system. A truly Populist platform would win a general election, in my view. The key sticking point? Money, of course. That gets back to the whole campaign finance reform...but that's for a different post. Why have the Democrats lost their Populist roots? Why haven't they stood up for the working class man, the middle-class, the working poor and the poor? What has changed? Why have they lost their roots? I don't believe that the people of America have lost their roots. I think that the Democratic party needs to fight harder for change in the system and that in itself will roll the power back to the hands of the people. Couple that with more civic involvement and the power will truly be back into the power of the people.
Ralph Nader was ripped, absolutely ripped, for saying that there isn't a "dime's worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans". And you know what? He was right. The de-industralization of America is killing this country. We are not only far more dependant on other countries but we are losing jobs hand-over-fist. That brings up another interesting problem, to me anyways. What will the fine line be between industrial jobs, that may pollute, and environmental concerns? That is a legitimate to concern for all of us. You know when Bush gives us that bull about the fine line between freedoms and security? We, us progressives, should be talking about that fine line between environment and jobs. I do, however, believe that environmentalism plays a huge role in modern populist politics. The growing market for green collar jobs would create more, to be sure. But what about the coal mines and other jobs? I came from a coal area. Most of my family are coal miners. I hate what it does to the environment, absolutely hate it. But it still serves a place in our economy. That place should be done the most environmentally friendly way, to be sure, but it still has it's place...for now anyways.
No one talks about the re-industralization of America either. NAFTA has to be fixed all the candidates say, but no one gives any specific plans. My personal thought? Get rid of NAFTA, and all free trade agreements. It simply does way too much harm to the economy, workers rights, and the environment. A "fixing" of NAFTA is not a viable option, in my eyes, but it's probably what we will be saddled with. There is absolutely nothing good to be said about what NAFTA has done to this country. Why can't anyone, besides Kucinich, step up to the plate and come right out and say it? Why must the Democratic candidates tip-toe around what everyone is thinking?
The infrastructure is getting a lot of press now. That is a great thing in my book, spurned by a terrible tradegy in Minnesota. Our infrastructure is falling apart, and it needs to be fixed. The sad part of all of this though is it was not on the top of the agenda before the bridge collapse. The Democrats failed in this aspect. They overlooked the need to fix the infrastructure, and all of the jobs that it would create.
The answers, to me, are simple. It all starts with us, the people, at the grassroots level. It is our responsibilty to get more people involved in civic activities. But you know what else is our responsibilty? Holding the Democratic candidates' feet to the fire. I refuse to vote another Clinton into office. I want a real change, a progressive change that will challenge the current establishment of the Democrats and most certainly the Republicans. We must make it clear to the candidates that we are the people they are fighting for. We aren't big business, we don't have the big money but we make up the population. We should start this immediately.
Ted Kennedy wrote an article in 1995 that was published in the Progressive Populist magazine. It was a fabulous article on what Democrats should be fighting for. The article really stands out to me, and this is in a nutshell what I think the Democratic party should be about and where it has failed. He states that "if we abandoan health care, or slash student loans and children's programs, or engage in a bidding war to see who can be the most anti-government or most laissez-faire then we will lose...and we deserve to lose." It seems that it took years for the Democratic party, but it is just beginning. He foresaw this in 1995, and just recently have the Democrats come back to play ball on these issues. The Bush adminstration ran all over these until recently, not to mention all the other travesties they caused. But we must push the Democrats further. To ensure that they continue being the leading party for change and that they come back to us, the common man.
Ralph Nader was ripped, absolutely ripped, for saying that there isn't a "dime's worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans". And you know what? He was right. The de-industralization of America is killing this country. We are not only far more dependant on other countries but we are losing jobs hand-over-fist. That brings up another interesting problem, to me anyways. What will the fine line be between industrial jobs, that may pollute, and environmental concerns? That is a legitimate to concern for all of us. You know when Bush gives us that bull about the fine line between freedoms and security? We, us progressives, should be talking about that fine line between environment and jobs. I do, however, believe that environmentalism plays a huge role in modern populist politics. The growing market for green collar jobs would create more, to be sure. But what about the coal mines and other jobs? I came from a coal area. Most of my family are coal miners. I hate what it does to the environment, absolutely hate it. But it still serves a place in our economy. That place should be done the most environmentally friendly way, to be sure, but it still has it's place...for now anyways.
No one talks about the re-industralization of America either. NAFTA has to be fixed all the candidates say, but no one gives any specific plans. My personal thought? Get rid of NAFTA, and all free trade agreements. It simply does way too much harm to the economy, workers rights, and the environment. A "fixing" of NAFTA is not a viable option, in my eyes, but it's probably what we will be saddled with. There is absolutely nothing good to be said about what NAFTA has done to this country. Why can't anyone, besides Kucinich, step up to the plate and come right out and say it? Why must the Democratic candidates tip-toe around what everyone is thinking?
The infrastructure is getting a lot of press now. That is a great thing in my book, spurned by a terrible tradegy in Minnesota. Our infrastructure is falling apart, and it needs to be fixed. The sad part of all of this though is it was not on the top of the agenda before the bridge collapse. The Democrats failed in this aspect. They overlooked the need to fix the infrastructure, and all of the jobs that it would create.
The answers, to me, are simple. It all starts with us, the people, at the grassroots level. It is our responsibilty to get more people involved in civic activities. But you know what else is our responsibilty? Holding the Democratic candidates' feet to the fire. I refuse to vote another Clinton into office. I want a real change, a progressive change that will challenge the current establishment of the Democrats and most certainly the Republicans. We must make it clear to the candidates that we are the people they are fighting for. We aren't big business, we don't have the big money but we make up the population. We should start this immediately.
Ted Kennedy wrote an article in 1995 that was published in the Progressive Populist magazine. It was a fabulous article on what Democrats should be fighting for. The article really stands out to me, and this is in a nutshell what I think the Democratic party should be about and where it has failed. He states that "if we abandoan health care, or slash student loans and children's programs, or engage in a bidding war to see who can be the most anti-government or most laissez-faire then we will lose...and we deserve to lose." It seems that it took years for the Democratic party, but it is just beginning. He foresaw this in 1995, and just recently have the Democrats come back to play ball on these issues. The Bush adminstration ran all over these until recently, not to mention all the other travesties they caused. But we must push the Democrats further. To ensure that they continue being the leading party for change and that they come back to us, the common man.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Trade Voting Records of the Candidates
So I was going to do a post on the Kucinich campaign but instead chose to do a quick overview of the Democratic candidates voting records on trade-related issues. The following is just about trade issues, I did not include labor issues, health care, etc. but will at a later date. I'd figure it easier to see all the candidates voting records posted in one place instead of searching back and forth and comparing. All of this information has been taken from from either vote-smart.org or publiccitizen.org. Kucinich has a few more votes because of role in the House. Also, I wanted to included Cynthia McKinney, ex-Democrat and potential Green party Presidential candidate, who was also in the House. However, her voting record was hard to track down on vote-smart and I decided against it. Maybe at a later date I will add it. Of course, some/most of the candidates weren't in office in the entire time (93-06) so they did not vote on all of the issues. This is just a sampling:
I looked up the following votes:
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA-1993)
World Trade Organization (WTO-1993)
African Free Trade Bill (11/03/99)
African Free Trade Bill (5/11/00)
2000 WTO Withdrawal
China Nonproliferation Bill (9/13/00)--Vote to kill an amendment that requires the U.S. to put sanctions on countries, including China, if they are selling WMDs.
U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 (9/19/00)--Vote to pass a bill to extend permenant normal trade relations to China
U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Implementation (7/7/03)
U.S.-Chile Free Trade Implementation (7/7/03)
Australia Free Trade Agreement (2004)
Morocco Free Trade Agreement (2004)
CAFTA Implementation Bill (6/30/05 AND 7/28/05)
2005 WTO Withdrawal
U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement (6/29/06)
U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation (9/19/06)
* The Jordan FTA was passed by voice vote
*WTO Withdrawal was only voted on in the House
Senator Joe Biden
1973-Present
All Agreements Available
NAFTA: yes WTO: yes African FT Bill: yes x2 China Nonproliferation Bill: yes U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000: yes U.S.-Singapore FTA: no U.S.-Chile FTA: no U.S.-Morocco FTA: yes U.S.-Australia FTA: yes CAFTA: no x2 U.S.-Oman FTA: no
Senator Hillary Clinton
2000-Present
U.S.-Singapore FTA: yes U.S.-Chile FTA: yes U.S.-Morocco FTA: yes U.S.-Australia FTA: yes CAFTA no x2 U.S.-Oman FTA: yes
Senator Chris Dodd
1980-Present
NAFTA: yes WTO: yes African FT Bill: yes x2 China Nonproliferation Bill: yes U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000: yes U.S.-Singapore FTA: no U.S.-Chile FTA: no U.S.-Morocco FTA: yes U.S.-Australia FTA: yes CAFTA: no x2 U.S.-Oman FTA: no
former Senator John Edwards
1998-2004
African FT Bill: no x2 China Nonproliferation Bill: yes U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000: yes U.S.-Singapore FTA: no U.S.-Chile FTA: no U.S.-Morocco FTA: no vote U.S.-Australia FTA: no vote
Rep. Dennis Kucinich
1997-Present
Africa FT Bill: no x2 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000: no U.S.-Singapore FTA: no U.S.-Chile FTA: no U.S.-Morocco FTA: no vote U.S.-Australia FTA: no CAFTA: no U.S.-Oman FTA: no
Also: WTO Withdrawal: yes x2 Disapproval of Normal Trade Relations with China: yes Steel Import Limitation Bill: yes Lifting travel restrictions to Cuba: yes Lifting economic embargo on Cuba: yes Extension of normal trade relations with China: no
Senator Barack Obama
2005-Present
CAFTA: no U.S.-Oman FTA: yes
Governor Bill Richardson
Rep. 1983-1997
NAFTA: yes WTO: yes
That might give you a better understanding of how the Democratic candidates stand on the trade issues following the AFL-CIO debate. Very interesting indeed.
Other Thoughts
In what should seem like related news two things I've heard from the fallout of the AFL-CIO debate. The AFL-CIO will hold off on endorsing a candidate, probably because it's pretty obvious that in reality Hillary isn't "their girl"...Dennis Kucinich is getting a bit more mainstream media coverage, but the talk is still revolving mostly around Clinton/Obama while the Edwards campaign is being treated as on life support...I heard one analyst state that after the debate Kucinich was treated like a (her words) "rock star" from the people in the crowd. She said that they were charging up to the rope to shake his hand. She went on to say that he is in fact VERY important to this debate because he has huge differences between the other candidates and puts issues and solutions on the table that otherwise wouldn't be discussed...Looking back at the debate, Dodd and Biden are looking more and more like Clinton's lapdogs...It's sad that Bill Richardson is getting lost further into the shuffle when in fact he has a sound candidacy for President...
Tomorrow I will do my previously planned topic, an in-depth look at the Kucinich campaign...
I looked up the following votes:
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA-1993)
World Trade Organization (WTO-1993)
African Free Trade Bill (11/03/99)
African Free Trade Bill (5/11/00)
2000 WTO Withdrawal
China Nonproliferation Bill (9/13/00)--Vote to kill an amendment that requires the U.S. to put sanctions on countries, including China, if they are selling WMDs.
U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 (9/19/00)--Vote to pass a bill to extend permenant normal trade relations to China
U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Implementation (7/7/03)
U.S.-Chile Free Trade Implementation (7/7/03)
Australia Free Trade Agreement (2004)
Morocco Free Trade Agreement (2004)
CAFTA Implementation Bill (6/30/05 AND 7/28/05)
2005 WTO Withdrawal
U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement (6/29/06)
U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation (9/19/06)
* The Jordan FTA was passed by voice vote
*WTO Withdrawal was only voted on in the House
Senator Joe Biden
1973-Present
All Agreements Available
NAFTA: yes WTO: yes African FT Bill: yes x2 China Nonproliferation Bill: yes U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000: yes U.S.-Singapore FTA: no U.S.-Chile FTA: no U.S.-Morocco FTA: yes U.S.-Australia FTA: yes CAFTA: no x2 U.S.-Oman FTA: no
Senator Hillary Clinton
2000-Present
U.S.-Singapore FTA: yes U.S.-Chile FTA: yes U.S.-Morocco FTA: yes U.S.-Australia FTA: yes CAFTA no x2 U.S.-Oman FTA: yes
Senator Chris Dodd
1980-Present
NAFTA: yes WTO: yes African FT Bill: yes x2 China Nonproliferation Bill: yes U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000: yes U.S.-Singapore FTA: no U.S.-Chile FTA: no U.S.-Morocco FTA: yes U.S.-Australia FTA: yes CAFTA: no x2 U.S.-Oman FTA: no
former Senator John Edwards
1998-2004
African FT Bill: no x2 China Nonproliferation Bill: yes U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000: yes U.S.-Singapore FTA: no U.S.-Chile FTA: no U.S.-Morocco FTA: no vote U.S.-Australia FTA: no vote
Rep. Dennis Kucinich
1997-Present
Africa FT Bill: no x2 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000: no U.S.-Singapore FTA: no U.S.-Chile FTA: no U.S.-Morocco FTA: no vote U.S.-Australia FTA: no CAFTA: no U.S.-Oman FTA: no
Also: WTO Withdrawal: yes x2 Disapproval of Normal Trade Relations with China: yes Steel Import Limitation Bill: yes Lifting travel restrictions to Cuba: yes Lifting economic embargo on Cuba: yes Extension of normal trade relations with China: no
Senator Barack Obama
2005-Present
CAFTA: no U.S.-Oman FTA: yes
Governor Bill Richardson
Rep. 1983-1997
NAFTA: yes WTO: yes
That might give you a better understanding of how the Democratic candidates stand on the trade issues following the AFL-CIO debate. Very interesting indeed.
Other Thoughts
In what should seem like related news two things I've heard from the fallout of the AFL-CIO debate. The AFL-CIO will hold off on endorsing a candidate, probably because it's pretty obvious that in reality Hillary isn't "their girl"...Dennis Kucinich is getting a bit more mainstream media coverage, but the talk is still revolving mostly around Clinton/Obama while the Edwards campaign is being treated as on life support...I heard one analyst state that after the debate Kucinich was treated like a (her words) "rock star" from the people in the crowd. She said that they were charging up to the rope to shake his hand. She went on to say that he is in fact VERY important to this debate because he has huge differences between the other candidates and puts issues and solutions on the table that otherwise wouldn't be discussed...Looking back at the debate, Dodd and Biden are looking more and more like Clinton's lapdogs...It's sad that Bill Richardson is getting lost further into the shuffle when in fact he has a sound candidacy for President...
Tomorrow I will do my previously planned topic, an in-depth look at the Kucinich campaign...
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
My AFL-CIO Debate Review
I think that the AFL-CIO debate went pretty well, actually it was my favorite debate yet. The crowd was rowdy and really into it, they would cheer and boo freely, and asked some good, tough questions. I wrote in my previous post about a few things going into the debate. Could Hillary sway the union people on her side? How would she handle the questions about lobbyists and NAFTA? I also said that this was a big chance for Barack Obama to make a move. He's falling behind in the latest Gallup poll (whatever you want to put into that, he's still showing good in Iowa) and needs to make his move. By that I meant that I thought he would have to move further to the left and distinguish himself further from Hillary. A person I didn't mention was John Edwards. I, personally, have mixed feelings on Edwards. I don't know how real he actually is, to me it seems like for the last few years he has been working so hard to get the workers votes, like that would be his niche in the election. While I respect him for this, it never seemed real sincere to me. This very well could of been the night that Edwards made his move. In my eyes, another candidate killed his campaign tonight. Now, onto the debate and how these things played out.
Big Winners: Barack Obama and Dennis Kucinich
I think Obama did exactly what he needed to do tonight. He moved further to the left and distinguished himself from Hillary further. He played the 'Washington Insiders' card very well, working from his previous debate. He answered a seemingly tough question about building stadiums with the fact that it provided jobs and economic growth. He came down tough on how the President has handled globalization but did not say he would get rid of NAFTA. He also continued to talk about re-focusing on the war on terror and I think his best moment of the night was in the debate over Pakistan. He has a point that no other candidate is trying to make, and he came across very well in my book. Of course, having the home field advantage didn't hurt Obama either.
More on Dennis Kucinich later.
Mixed Feelings: While I don't agree with some of Hillary's politics, she's way too moderate for my liking, she certainly didn't lose any points in the polls. She avoided the lobbyist question well, stating that Washington needed to be reformed. Her answers, as always, remained vague. She wants NAFTA to maximize benfits and minimize risks, whatever that means. While this really upsets me, the way she plays the game, she certainly looked very 'Presidential' and didn't make any mistakes. Don't look for her to slip any in the Gallup polls and to continue being the #1 candidate. I think this race is going to come down to how moderate Hillary can go and still win the primary. She seems to be priming herself for the general election, but this could backfire in the primaries if Obama continues to scoot further to the left and takes Iowa.
Kucinich Kills The Edwards Campaign: For a while now, Edwards has been portraying himself as the candidate for the working man. Tonight, Edwards failed in his bid to secure his spot as the real candidate for the working man and move up in the polls. This could of been his night, and I don't think he came through. He got a few big applauses, but as a whole he failed to take the stadium. He didn't seem very engaging, he didn't distinguish himself as a candidate who's #1 concern is the working class. He didn't have any real strong words for NAFTA or the WTO, he was called out by Joe Biden and didn't give a great response back. The best point he did bring up was the safety of the products coming in from other countries. But, as a whole, Edwards failed in my eyes.
Dennis Kucinich, on the other hand, really captivated the crowd. Will he become a darkhorse candidate? I hope so, but probably not without the AFL-CIO's big time backing. But he came off as the true candidate for the working man. While all the other candidates simply stated that NAFTA needed to be 'fixed' Kucinich said that it needed to be killed off, and he would do that. While all the other candidates tip-toed around China, Kucinich said we are already there. He talked about re-industralizing America. He stood firmly for universal, single-payer health care. He talked about his bills he has introduced to make a real change in America. He got huge applause after huge applause. While the entire time Edwards looked like a watered down version of Kucinich. He stance was very vanilla compared to Kucinich's and I think that that will effectively end his campaign for the working man. I'm not saying that Kucinich is going to skyrocket to #3 in the polls now, but I think after tonight Edwards has lost his niche.
I really hope that Obama continues to go farther to the left, because Hillary sure isn't going to.
His hawkish stance on Pakistan could hurt him but he didn't really look all that different then Edwards when it came to workers rights.
Random Thoughts: I think Keith Olbermann did a good job hosting the debate. He gave most of the candidates equal time and only a few times did they go over...I really hope this debate will give the Kucinich campaign more t.v. time, maybe he can get a Ron Paul-esque backing and start making some real noise...I'm writing this barely keeping my eyes open, so if there's some spelling errors then I apologize in advance...To be clear I think Barack and Kucinich won the debate tonight, with Hillary doing nothing to hurt her campaign and Edwards as the big loser...the other candidates did nothing to distinguish himself from the rest of the field...
Since Mike Gravel couldn't push himself onto the debate tonight, here's a link to Direct Democracy: http://ni4d.us/ Please check it out, and let him get his voice and policies heard more!
Tomorrow I'm going to do an in-depth look at Dennis Kucinich, try to introduce him to some more people...
Just my 2 cents, thanks for reading
Big Winners: Barack Obama and Dennis Kucinich
I think Obama did exactly what he needed to do tonight. He moved further to the left and distinguished himself from Hillary further. He played the 'Washington Insiders' card very well, working from his previous debate. He answered a seemingly tough question about building stadiums with the fact that it provided jobs and economic growth. He came down tough on how the President has handled globalization but did not say he would get rid of NAFTA. He also continued to talk about re-focusing on the war on terror and I think his best moment of the night was in the debate over Pakistan. He has a point that no other candidate is trying to make, and he came across very well in my book. Of course, having the home field advantage didn't hurt Obama either.
More on Dennis Kucinich later.
Mixed Feelings: While I don't agree with some of Hillary's politics, she's way too moderate for my liking, she certainly didn't lose any points in the polls. She avoided the lobbyist question well, stating that Washington needed to be reformed. Her answers, as always, remained vague. She wants NAFTA to maximize benfits and minimize risks, whatever that means. While this really upsets me, the way she plays the game, she certainly looked very 'Presidential' and didn't make any mistakes. Don't look for her to slip any in the Gallup polls and to continue being the #1 candidate. I think this race is going to come down to how moderate Hillary can go and still win the primary. She seems to be priming herself for the general election, but this could backfire in the primaries if Obama continues to scoot further to the left and takes Iowa.
Kucinich Kills The Edwards Campaign: For a while now, Edwards has been portraying himself as the candidate for the working man. Tonight, Edwards failed in his bid to secure his spot as the real candidate for the working man and move up in the polls. This could of been his night, and I don't think he came through. He got a few big applauses, but as a whole he failed to take the stadium. He didn't seem very engaging, he didn't distinguish himself as a candidate who's #1 concern is the working class. He didn't have any real strong words for NAFTA or the WTO, he was called out by Joe Biden and didn't give a great response back. The best point he did bring up was the safety of the products coming in from other countries. But, as a whole, Edwards failed in my eyes.
Dennis Kucinich, on the other hand, really captivated the crowd. Will he become a darkhorse candidate? I hope so, but probably not without the AFL-CIO's big time backing. But he came off as the true candidate for the working man. While all the other candidates simply stated that NAFTA needed to be 'fixed' Kucinich said that it needed to be killed off, and he would do that. While all the other candidates tip-toed around China, Kucinich said we are already there. He talked about re-industralizing America. He stood firmly for universal, single-payer health care. He talked about his bills he has introduced to make a real change in America. He got huge applause after huge applause. While the entire time Edwards looked like a watered down version of Kucinich. He stance was very vanilla compared to Kucinich's and I think that that will effectively end his campaign for the working man. I'm not saying that Kucinich is going to skyrocket to #3 in the polls now, but I think after tonight Edwards has lost his niche.
I really hope that Obama continues to go farther to the left, because Hillary sure isn't going to.
His hawkish stance on Pakistan could hurt him but he didn't really look all that different then Edwards when it came to workers rights.
Random Thoughts: I think Keith Olbermann did a good job hosting the debate. He gave most of the candidates equal time and only a few times did they go over...I really hope this debate will give the Kucinich campaign more t.v. time, maybe he can get a Ron Paul-esque backing and start making some real noise...I'm writing this barely keeping my eyes open, so if there's some spelling errors then I apologize in advance...To be clear I think Barack and Kucinich won the debate tonight, with Hillary doing nothing to hurt her campaign and Edwards as the big loser...the other candidates did nothing to distinguish himself from the rest of the field...
Since Mike Gravel couldn't push himself onto the debate tonight, here's a link to Direct Democracy: http://ni4d.us/ Please check it out, and let him get his voice and policies heard more!
Tomorrow I'm going to do an in-depth look at Dennis Kucinich, try to introduce him to some more people...
Just my 2 cents, thanks for reading
Some Random Pre-Debate Thoughts
The debate's about four hours away and I wanted to post some random thoughts pre-debate...the preview show, if you will...I promise it won't be as long as the Super Bowl's
-Mike Gravel won't be participating, which is sad in my book. The more voices, the better...I guess Mike couldn't push himself into the debate this time. A really pity, I think he'd really have something worthwhile to say in front of this crowd. If you get past his anger (he reminds me of the old men from the Muppets sometimes) he has some interesting things to say.
-I'm really anxious to see if Hillary Clinton's recent comments will be an issue. They have to be, don't they? It was a real ludicorus thing to say. As Chris Matthews said...if the piper's paying you, you're singing his tune.
-A crowd like this is really primed for someone like Barack Obama. I like Barack but the not taking money from lobbyist thing is still a sketchy issue. I hope someone calls him out on still taking money from corporations.
-The best candidate for American jobs and workers' rights is Dennis Kucinich in my book. He talks often about creating a balance between workers and corporations, I'd like to hear his plan further on this issue and his others. If he got the chance, he could really shine tonight.
-You can check out the seven participating candidates' opening statements on MSNBC right now. I'm doing it now to pass the time.
I'll make a post after the debate to talk about how the debate went in my eyes, and hope to hear some of your feedback.
-Mike Gravel won't be participating, which is sad in my book. The more voices, the better...I guess Mike couldn't push himself into the debate this time. A really pity, I think he'd really have something worthwhile to say in front of this crowd. If you get past his anger (he reminds me of the old men from the Muppets sometimes) he has some interesting things to say.
-I'm really anxious to see if Hillary Clinton's recent comments will be an issue. They have to be, don't they? It was a real ludicorus thing to say. As Chris Matthews said...if the piper's paying you, you're singing his tune.
-A crowd like this is really primed for someone like Barack Obama. I like Barack but the not taking money from lobbyist thing is still a sketchy issue. I hope someone calls him out on still taking money from corporations.
-The best candidate for American jobs and workers' rights is Dennis Kucinich in my book. He talks often about creating a balance between workers and corporations, I'd like to hear his plan further on this issue and his others. If he got the chance, he could really shine tonight.
-You can check out the seven participating candidates' opening statements on MSNBC right now. I'm doing it now to pass the time.
I'll make a post after the debate to talk about how the debate went in my eyes, and hope to hear some of your feedback.
Monday, August 6, 2007
The Forgotten Class Gets A Voice Tomorrow
Tomorrow's the big AFL-CIO Democratic debate. Yeah, sure, I'm sick as hell of all these debates as you are. But with my personal views on politics, I'm very interested in what the AFL-CIO debate tomorrow will bring. The Democrats still, and God knows why, are thought of as the party for the workin' man, ya know, the middle-class. The hard-working, everyday American. That, to put it bluntly, is bullshit. The middle-class is the forgotten class, as so many people call it. Democrats might be better then Republicans, but jobs are still lost and travesities such as NAFTA and the WTO haven't been really challenged yet. The saddest part of all? People are still under the impression that the Democrats will do good for the working man. I, just about a year ago, still believed this...I came from a mid-to-low middle class family and was always given this impression. My parents still are, no matter how much I try and sway them to see things as they really are. So, what am I saying...that Republicans are better for the working man? God no. I'm saying that the two major parties cater (mostly) to two groups--the rich (Republicans) and the poor (Democrats). I, for one, have nothing wrong with helping the low-income families and people of America. They don't do a good enough job in that department either. Hell, I think there should be more government programs to help people out. Call it Socialism Lite if you want, I call it helping out my fellow American. Okay, I got a little off-topic there.
So then why, or yet how, has the middle-class become the forgotten class? I think the blame falls onto are system of elitism politics, cough, I mean two-party politics. There's no real, true, choices of difference in our elections. Why can't more views be heard? Why does it always have to be the Democrats walking the party line and the Republicans doing the same? Where's the Populist party, the Libertarian party, the Progressive party and whatever party you want? When faced with a decision, the middle-class will always choose the lesser of two evils. There simply isn't any other better options. That, in my eyes, is a huge failure in our political system. Of the top-tier candidates, how much do they honestly differ? Now think of how much they'll be Centrist when the general election comes around. Either one of two things need to happen: there need to be more, real choices (give Kucinich and Gravel more time dammit!) or the workers need to start holding the Democrats responsible. No more Bill Clinton pushing for NAFTA and the WTO bullshit.
Tomorrow's debate can be a real chance for the Democrats feet to be held to the fire. Will it happen? I don't know. I don't even know if the most important questions to the AFL-CIO will be asked...Will they talk about abortion issues, or will they talk about getting rid of NAFTA and the WTO? As far as I know, the only candidate to openly oppose them is Representative Kucinich...and how much time will they give him tomorrow? I don't want to hear anymore about the plans in and out of Iraq (please, in the safest time frame...get out) or about stopping the genoicide in Darfur (should of been done a long time ago) we already know everyone's positions on that. I want to hear new questions, questions and issues relating to the working man. Will you keep jobs at home? How will you create more jobs? The issues are always brought up, but rarely ever given a good, solid response. They are afterthoughts in the election. Proving again that the middle-class is the forgotten class. Healthcare, retirement security, unions, the job market, education...these are all issues that need to be addressed tomorrow. Besides healthcare, and maybe education, does anyone truely seem like they care about those other issues? I sure hope to God that tomorrow's debate will grill the candidates about these issues.
I know that was a long-winded first blog entry, but I'm really passionate about this particular topic and I became so disenfranchised with the Democratic party that I left them...I'll give my take on the debate tomorrow.
One last thing, and I've been wanting to say this for a really long time to just get it off my chest...I am so sick, and I mean SICK, of the Ron Paul internet frenzy. "Oh, you don't want to regulate drugs?? COOL MAN RON PAUL '08" While I have some Libertarian leanings, mostly dealing with social issues (and I do think the war on drugs should shift to lesser penalties, more education and go after the big dealers) most of these people have no idea what Ron Paul would do to this country in economic issues. It would be a free-for-all. Please, honestly, stop it already.
So then why, or yet how, has the middle-class become the forgotten class? I think the blame falls onto are system of elitism politics, cough, I mean two-party politics. There's no real, true, choices of difference in our elections. Why can't more views be heard? Why does it always have to be the Democrats walking the party line and the Republicans doing the same? Where's the Populist party, the Libertarian party, the Progressive party and whatever party you want? When faced with a decision, the middle-class will always choose the lesser of two evils. There simply isn't any other better options. That, in my eyes, is a huge failure in our political system. Of the top-tier candidates, how much do they honestly differ? Now think of how much they'll be Centrist when the general election comes around. Either one of two things need to happen: there need to be more, real choices (give Kucinich and Gravel more time dammit!) or the workers need to start holding the Democrats responsible. No more Bill Clinton pushing for NAFTA and the WTO bullshit.
Tomorrow's debate can be a real chance for the Democrats feet to be held to the fire. Will it happen? I don't know. I don't even know if the most important questions to the AFL-CIO will be asked...Will they talk about abortion issues, or will they talk about getting rid of NAFTA and the WTO? As far as I know, the only candidate to openly oppose them is Representative Kucinich...and how much time will they give him tomorrow? I don't want to hear anymore about the plans in and out of Iraq (please, in the safest time frame...get out) or about stopping the genoicide in Darfur (should of been done a long time ago) we already know everyone's positions on that. I want to hear new questions, questions and issues relating to the working man. Will you keep jobs at home? How will you create more jobs? The issues are always brought up, but rarely ever given a good, solid response. They are afterthoughts in the election. Proving again that the middle-class is the forgotten class. Healthcare, retirement security, unions, the job market, education...these are all issues that need to be addressed tomorrow. Besides healthcare, and maybe education, does anyone truely seem like they care about those other issues? I sure hope to God that tomorrow's debate will grill the candidates about these issues.
I know that was a long-winded first blog entry, but I'm really passionate about this particular topic and I became so disenfranchised with the Democratic party that I left them...I'll give my take on the debate tomorrow.
One last thing, and I've been wanting to say this for a really long time to just get it off my chest...I am so sick, and I mean SICK, of the Ron Paul internet frenzy. "Oh, you don't want to regulate drugs?? COOL MAN RON PAUL '08" While I have some Libertarian leanings, mostly dealing with social issues (and I do think the war on drugs should shift to lesser penalties, more education and go after the big dealers) most of these people have no idea what Ron Paul would do to this country in economic issues. It would be a free-for-all. Please, honestly, stop it already.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)