Posted on
by

In the first installment of the newly retitled “Independents Week” (since one week won’t be enough), I present the first Independent: Donald K. Allen.

First, though, a quick reminder as to how this is all going to go down.  First, and foremost, I’ll be profiling the candidate.  Basically, I’ll give a summary of the platform they’re running on.  Then, I’ll provide my own commentary on the candidate.  However, in the end, you’ll decide if you like them.

I’ve decided to keep all this solely to candidates I can confirm are actually Independents.  If they’re part of an Independent party (such as the New American Independent Party), are endorsed by a third party, or I just cannot tell if they’re an Independent, I won’t be profiling them as part of this series.  The former category because of the fact that the party they’re in or endorsed by is probably eventually going to decide on one of their candidates to run nationally, and the latter because it’s just easier for me.  I have limited time in my day, so I can’t go around pulling my hair out to decide whether someone is an Independent.  If they actually are, they’re usually proud to say so, and that makes it easy to tell.

So, with that clarified, on to Dr. Allen.

Background

Donald Allen was born in Rockford, Ill. on April 16, 1947.  He served in the U.S. Air Force for four year, enlisting in 1967.  He worked as a journalist in the Philippines and in the 467th Combat Support Group, and at George Airforce Base in California with the 479th Tactical Fighter.  He was discharge in 1971.  After spending several years as a horseshoer, he graduated from veterinary school in 1980.  He has been married three times and has two daughters.

Issues

Allen is for compulsory national service, explaining that two years in the military did him a lot of good.  He’d be for military or civilian service.  On the issue of NAFTA, he believes the government is working hard to create a common American (U.S., Canada, Mexico) economy.

In the area of foreign affairs, he is a strong believer in making sure that Islamic terrorism is not a threat to the country, and appears to support a continuation of the Iraq war, arguing that public opinion will make us lose and cost lives.  On the United Nations, my inference is that he’s not a big supporter.  He says the United Nations HQ should leave the U.S. for “remodeling” to bring the building up to code (saying he heard that is wasn’t).

On the issue of war, he is in favor of giving the generals whatever leeway they need to win (short of nukes, of course).  On immigration, he is for a guest worker program, but says we need to protect our borders, and identify all illegals residing here.  He’s also in favor of racial profiling, arguing that the current non-profiling system targets the wrong people.

His Social Security plan is a bit different than we usually see.  He wants to see a SS payments go into a true trust fund that cannot be touched by the government, along with any I.O.U.’s, and gaining interest.

His tax plan is the FairTax system, that would transform the income tax into a sales tax.

On Congressional issues, he’d like to see Congressional term limits, arguing that being on Congress too long allows them to become too used to it.  For Congressional budgets, he’s a supporter of a line-item veto.

On energy independence, he’d award one billion dollars to the company that gets us energy independent in 10 years.

His rather unique plan on health care doesn’t involve universal health care or personal health portfolios.  Instead, he says the root source of the problem are all the lawsuits that end us raising premiums.  He says implementing a “loser pays” system will stop frivilous law suits, and lower premiums.  He is in favor of continuing Medicare, SCHIP, et al. for those who need it.  He’s also in favor of teaching more home-based healthcare and first aid, arguing it’d lower costs because people who have a simple cold won’t go in to the doctors, leaving their time better suited for those who really need the doctors.   For pharmaceuticals, he would require all companies makes a “one world price”.

He says mandatory drug testing for all politicians would make them more serious about fighting drugs, and says that harsher penalties should be imposed on sellers, and their buyers publicized.

He is for national referendums on issues, saying that politicians should not have all the power.

He is for asking all K-12 teachers in the U.S. what should be done about education, and then putting those plans into implementation.

Finally, he thinks anyone who wants to leave the U.S. because they’re unhappy should be offered $25,000 to leave and never be allowed to come back.

Finally, as a veterinarian, he is a fierce advocate against puppy mills, and would take measures to shut them down.

Commentary

Dr. Allen is definitely an Independent, no doubt about that.  He subscribes to no ideology fully, and in my opinion, that’s not a bad thing.  He seems to consider his platform issue by issue, which is my definition of an Independent.

There are some things I agree with him on, and some I don’t.  I like his Social Security plan.  It’d backtrack on things a bit, and bring social security where it needs to be: a place the government can’t touch it.  These days, more and more of our social security is being spent for things it shouldn’t be.  Social security is meant to help people who are retired, and not other things.

Now, I know what you’re going to say, “But what about Medicaid and such?”  Yea, I know, a lot of those payments come from social security, too.  I just think there has to be a different way to pay for those things.  More and more people are going on plans such as
Medicaid, which drys up more money from the social security well.  It may be great now, but when we get old, and there’s no money for us, that we paid to social security?  Then it won’t look so great anymore.

I’m also a big fan of the Health Care plan.  In the past, I’ve been rather moderate on this, promoting an “in-the-middle-of-the-road” plan.  However, I think going to the source of increasing premiums, lawsuits, will help.  Now, I’m not saying stop them all.  There’s definitely a need for malpractice suits still.  But, they need to be only used for some of the most serious cases…ones where the doctors screw up royally.  I know that when we get to the day where we get to lawsuits for a medicine that causes a non-fatal but negative reaction is the day we’re all screwed.  Wait, we’re already there you say?  Damnit!

I’m also with him on national referendums.  Anything that promotes direct democracy is good in my book.  Among the current nationally known candidates, he shares this view with Mike Gravel (who also supports a FairTax plan – see, not only the domain of the Mike Huckabees of the world).

There are some places I disagree starkly, however.  Lets take racial profiling for one.  Forget allowing it to happen, it already does.  I’m no fan of racial profiling, because I believe it instills unwarranted fear into people.  Mostly, this continues to be propagated by the media, but that’s an issue for another entry.

I’m also not for publicizing buyer lists of drug sellers.  What’s the point in shaming people?  Yes, punish the sellers, but I’m going to guess the majority of drug users (hard drug users, not your college pot smoker) are there because of real addiction.  Yea, yea, I know, personal choice and responsibility, but everyone makes mistakes.  Some pay for it by sacrificing their mental and physical health.  We’re not going to humiliate cigarette smokers, are we?  Yet, many of them are just as addicted.

Finally, why should we have to pay for someone who wants to renounce their citizenship.  If they want out of this country so bad, I say good riddance.  Now, I’m not talking about someone who moves to Italy to go work or school, or just wants to experience another way of life for a while.  I’m talking about people who really hate America, and want to leave and go renounce their citizenship over it.  Want to do that?  Fine? But don’t except support from the taxpayers.  For a guy who’s against nationalized health care causing taxpayers grief, why he’d want us to pay to have someone leave is beyond me.

I’m also against his somewhat “tin-foil-hat” fear of a New World Order.  First off, we Americans appreciate our sovereignty.  So, like with the Brits, the idea of fully integrating into some kind of regional coalition, or one world government, is never going to happen.  Not in my lifetime, anyway.

That said, I’m for more economic cooperation, and fair trade, as long as it doesn’t affect us.  I can’t really make any sound judgments on NAFTA without studying it further, so I won’t.  But, if the countries around us could cooperate a little more on economics, the world might be a better place.

I like his Lincoln bedroom idea.  Our soldiers have done a lot for us.  So, I say, give ’em a night in the White House.  It’d cost air fair, and perhaps gas for a limo.  The stay would otherwise be free.  I also like the idea of getting regular Americans to stay there.  Perhaps it’d work nicely for youths.  Have ’em do an essay, and get an independent council together to decide which gets the night.

Finally, I fully support his puppy mill policy.  After all, who likes Puppy Mills?

Well, that’s Donald K. Allen for you.  I’ve given you some of his positions and my take on him.  Now you decide.

Stay tuned tomorrow for another Independent Candidate.

Posted on
by

Ahh, after an intense end of week, weekend, and beginning of week (nothing to worry about, just busy busy busy), it’s good to be back.  That Independents Week I keep discussing?  Stay tuned to shortly after this entry.

Anyway…I agree with Robert Stein over at The Moderate Voice when he says it seems the main stream media is more interested in the sex life of Eliot Spitzer than it is in the real issues.  Namely a new report by the government that shows 1-in-4 teenage girls are being infected with STDs.

I won’t get into a discussion about Spitzer.  This is one where I’m too late; it’s already well covered elsewhere, so what do I have to add?  He resigned, and that’s probably the best option for him and the state of New York.

So, we go back to the STD study.  1-in-4?  That’s huge!  If you need a visual, find four of your friends that are girls.  According to the study, one of them has an STD.  Now, keep note that STD doesn’t mean HIV!  There are many STDs out there, of which HIV is only one.  You’ve seen the commercials, about genital herpes, and such.

Now, we know that the Bush administration is supportive of abstinence-only education, which is a crock of…well, you know.  According to the NY Times article, the government has spent $1.5 billion on it, and the result is 1-in-4 teenage girls with STDs.

That is why education systems must support contraception education.  Don’t get me wrong.  Abstinence is good option, and should be included in sexual education.  But, it cannot be the sole option taught to American children.  You tell a kid not to do something, and what do they do?  They go and do it.  Look at the prevalence of underage drinking in the U.S.  It’s very high.

The fact is, the numbers of teenagers having sex is rising (or, at least the reported numbers are as the idea becomes more acceptable to talk about).  If a kid chooses not to have sex, great.  More power to ’em.  But, if they do, I don’t think I need to state the obvious: they need to know their options.

But, more than protection, the idea of talking to your partner needs to be emphasized.  I’m trying to remember my own sexual education.  I seem to remember that it spent a great deal of time on contraception, but I don’t think it spent much time on interpersonal communication.

Look, protection is great, and it certainly does a lot to help, but it’s not all.  The article itself makes note that protection devices such as condoms will prevent all STDs.  I think that’s it’s something of a myth that as long as you wear protection, you’re set.

Well, maybe against some STDs, but not all.  And, I don’t think sexual education puts enough pressure on students to talk with their partner about any issues they might have.  For all the progress this country has made toward sexual openness in the past few decades, I still feel like it’s something of a social stigma to talk to one’s partner about any medical issues they might have.  Part of the problem is the idea of your partner have a sexual history.  Bologna, it’s important to know.  I’m not saying someone has to go into all the details, but if there’s anything that could cause a medical problem, it needs to be known, preferably before the idea of having sex comes up.

I think it’s necessary.  A little talking can prevent a big problem.  It might sound inconvenient, but I think it’s important.  I’d certainly rather a girl ask me about past sexual activity causing any medical issues, than to have that not happen.

Finally, testing.  Needs to be done, especially if you think there’s something going on.  Most testing I’ve seen seems to center around HIV, but I think it needs to be expanded to other STDs.  Not having experienced any, I don’t know, but I’m willing to guess that other STDs are pretty big issues, too.

Now for my critique of the article.  It leaves some stuff out, though I cannot tell if this is just the article or the study that does some of these.  The first big glaring thing I see is that the only group it specifically discusses African Americans.  Is there some reason for this?  Do white Americans, Hispanics, or Asians not get STDs?  It does mention a number for white Americans, but not any specific diseases like it does for African Americans.  I don’t want to play the ‘it’s subtle racism’ card quite yet, but the lack of discussion about any other subgroup makes me a little anxious.  The statistics for the group, which was right after the lead, should have been expanded to other groups, or left out entirely.

Finally, my second gripe is with the study itself.  Why only women?  Do men not get STDs either?  I’m going to have to assume there’s another study out there somewhere just for them.  I’d be interested to see a comparison STDs of American teenage men and women.  If I had to make an educated guess, I’d say it’s not so far away from the women statistic.

Posted on
by

CNN is reporting some comments from former President Bill Clinton about how he thinks a Clinton-Obama ticket would be unbeatable.

For a long time now, many commentators from the media and blogosphere have suggested that a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket might be necessary in order to keep the party together, once the convention is done and over.  The theory is that, the closeness of the the pledged delegate count, plus the possibility of a split superdelegate vote, would harm the party.  I’m not sure about that, because since Obama since winning 11 states in a row, he had quite a few jump overs.  Still, it is a fear.

Yet, instead of focusing on a “marriage” of convenience, President Clinton focuses on one of strength.  If you think about it, he has a good point.  Consider the demographics the two cover.  Clinton has a huge advantage with women voters.  I think that she might even be able to woo some female Republican voters for that reason alone.  Obama, on the other hand, holds a enormous hold on the African American vote.  Clinton, likewise, has a big advantage with Hispanics.  Finally, Clinton would seem to be doing well those who formerly supported John Edwards – those poor and rural voters, and Obama has a hold on the youth and city vote.  Take all these together, and you have a large swath of the country.

Then you have the message vs. substance debate.  Clinton’s bark about Obama’s “angelic” rhetoric probably sounds worse than she means it to.  We don’t see a lot of Obama’s speeches, especially his stump speeches in states he visits to garner primary votes.  So, he probably has a lot more substance than we think.

Then there’s geography.  Now, technically, both candidates would be considered “northerners,” and that’d go against the old strategy of pairing up North with South.  However, lets not forget that before heading to D.C., Clinton was from Arkansas.  So, conservatives know Clinton.  And despite all this stuff about conservatives hating her and Bill, I think that’s mainly garbage spewed from the talk-radio crowd.  And even if they are both northerners now, the strategy of picking a running mate from the same region of the country isn’t new.  Bill did it in 1992, picking Gore, a southern man.

So, we have a pair that could win some key demographics.  Politically, we see some similar things going on, with Obama having gotten on the good side of many Republicans.  Unlike John McCain, who I think who is probably right to accept Bush’s endorsement, but should probably keep a firewall between himself and Bush, Obama, Clinton, or Obama and Clinton, need the Republicans.

I don’t think they can simply win on their own, unless all the Republicans were to stay home.  Considering the differences in turnout during the primaries, that could very well be the case, but lets not speculate those numbers this far away from the general election.  Lets assume for now they will need a good amount of Republicans in order to be the clear winners in November.  This is where I think Obama’s “I will cross party lines” message is going to help them.  Voters don’t want to hear about partisanship, and I certainly don’t.  If Clinton becomes the nominee, she needs to pick up on this message as well, I think.  Otherwise, she’ll have trouble climbing the hill toward the election.  If they can get a decent amount of Republicans, they’ve got it in the can.

My only concern in this ticket is military experience.  Neither can claim it.  Still, neither could former President Clinton.  Only his running mate, Gore, could.  Still, this may not be an incredible barrier.  Lets not forget that Gore was in the last conflict that required a draft, and Obama came of age after that.  Clinton, on the other hand, has the advantage of 8 years of looking over Bill’s shoulder on his military decisions.  This could help, as Clinton can claim some knowledge of how an actual President makes military choices.

So, to conclude,  an Obama-Clinton, or Clinton-Obama ticket may indeed be more than just a necessity.  It may be indeed a strong ticket destined to win.

Posted on
by

This primary season update brought to you via mobile post, because I’ve been sitting at another dorm for two and a half hours trying to collect clothes for a community service project.

Republicans

Anyway, the big news of the night is the apparent end of the GOP primary race. According to CNN (can’t link to it from my current location but you can’t miss it), Huckabee’s campaign manager says the candidate will drop out from the race.

The reports are saying the McCain has swept up Texas, Ohio, and Vermont, which puts him past the 1,191 delegate count needed to clinch the nomination.

The writing has been on the wall for some time, but for some reason, Huckabee continued to wait. This baffles me somewhat. It was mathematically impossible for him to get the required delegates on his own. It would have likely taken the combined efforts of the unpledged delegates (all of whom usually vote for the state winner for the Republicans, unlike the Democrats) and the remaining delegates from Romney (who already has urged them to vote for McCain), and even then, I don’t think he would have gotten past the marker. So, even if he had gotten every other single pledged delegate in this race, it wouldn’t have gotten him past 1,191. Then there’s the whole thing about McCain’s huge lead in general, but even that’s not a marker of success, as I’ll get to next. Regardless, it just wasn’t happening for Huckabee.

Democrats

On to Clinton and Obama. Since I started writing this post at 9pm or so, Clinton has won Ohio and Rhode Island, and is currently doing so in Texas. Obama has won Vermont o far tonight.

You know, for the past two weeks, the stories in the media and blogosphere seem to have been on the inevitability of an end for Clinton’s run. After 11 wins in a row, it would seem to make some sense. Obama’s unbeatable, isn’t he?

Wrong! Did nobody learn their lesson on Super Tuesday with Mike Huckabee? He was destined to have become a nobody after winning no states after Iowa, and then made that huge comeback that is probably what make Romney decide to leave. Then there’s John McCain. Last Summer, he was dead in the water. No money, staff leaving left and right, no momentum at all, and no chance in hell. Heck, everyone was rooting for Rudy. Now look what’s happened. The man’s the nominee.

In the last two weeks, Clinton has shaken things up in her campaign staff and given herself a loan. Then there was that picture of Obama in Somali garb and her fit over that brochure (which I think may have actually helped her despite the media portrayal of it). Yet, here she is, with a big comeback. She’s won Rhode Island, Ohio, and by my projection, will probably slimly win Texas.

Things have switched up so much on both sides in this primary season, that it is nearly impossible to tell what will happen. I think the media and blogosphere need to take a step back and consider what has happened tonight. Then perhaps they’ll be a little more analytical and a little less knee-jerk when talking about what will happen.

The fact is, I think, you need to consider a few things that have happened in the past couple days. To keep things simple, I’ll do the “-gate” prefix thing. He’s had brochuregate and NAFTAgate. Those are the two big ones I can think of. Maybe there’s some others.

I think the Democrats in Ohio, very touchy about NAFTA, saw the second one in particular, especially after the lack of response to NAFTAgate, and decided he wasn’t worthy of their vote. They didn’t like how he handled that debacle, and he paid for it there.

Look, it’s been shown before several times that bloggers and the media can say it’s over for one candidate or another, and then the people will take things into their own hands. Prove them wrong.

I’ve said it too many times already, and I know I’ll be saying it again before it’s all over. We cannot call the game for the Democrats before all the cards are counted. Votes are proportional, and they often are too close to count. If you think you know what’s going to happen, you’re probably going to be disappointed.

Independents Week

Unfortunately, I’ve got a lot more going on than I intended on this week.  So, I’m going to have to take time this weekend, do a little planning, then hopefully on Sunday, I will finally be able to start this segment.

Posted on
by

I think I just found out how ill-prepared I am for taking on the task of covering the Independents who are running for President this year.  Take a look at this page to find out why.

That’s a lot of Independents/no party affiliation people, even if you took out all the 3rd-party people mixed in.  So, I have more work to do than I thought.

The problem is that Vote Smart seems to have a rather loose system of identifying your party affiliation.  There are people on there who are listed as “Independent”, “no party affiliation,” and “none.”  Then there’s a couple who have nothing listed at all in that column.  Finally, some of the “Independents” have few or no details listed, making it hard to profile them.  I don’t want to do it, but I’ll have to leave these people out…unless of course they happen to see this entry and want to send me information!  I’m here to profile you, people, free of charge!  Email me, hint hint hint!

Another issue is that some people who are listing themselves as “Independent” are really members of one of several Independent parties in the U.S.  The New American Independent Party is the one I’m seeing most often.  The thing I need to consider is whether this qualifies the candidate for Independents Week, or whether I should consider it just another party.  Although I understand the purpose behind it, officially, it is just another party.  My inclination for them is to leave it until I get to 3rd parties, and that is probably what will happen.

So, a bit of planning needs to be done.  I will start this weekend with a profile, and continue on.  However, I do this Independents Week will turn into Independents Weeks.

Posted on
by

What is this stupidity at the New York Times regarding stories about John McCain.  First it was the affair story that had no solid backing.  Now it’s this story about McCain being born in the Panama Canal Zone bringing up questions about his Presidential eligibility.

What a stupid story.  McCain was born to someone who was serving in the military of the United States.  He certainly couldn’t do anything about that, so why should he be prevented from trying to lead his country?

So, yes, McCain should be able to run.  It shouldn’t even have been a question that was brought up, and McCain certainly seems to have enough precedent to his favor.  Four other people have had similar questions brought up, and all had rulings in their favor, or no question was brought up.

The bigger question is the ‘natural born’ clause in the Constitution.  Now, I understand the reason for having it back when it was created.  They certainly didn’t want England to try and sneak in someone or something!

Well, these days, when nobody’s about to be questioning our country’s right to exist, is it still needed?  I say, if someone has committed themselves to this country so much that they become a citizen, why should it matter?  We’re certainly not going to have someone as President who hasn’t proven themselves whether as a Congressperson or a Governor, or other political position (it just isn’t going to happen, as I’ll discuss in my Independents Week entries).

So, if they’ve committed themselves, why not let anyone who’s a citizen on this country become President?  Call me one to be against the Constitution if you wish, but I think there’s some people in this country who could make a difference.  Except they can’t, because they’re not natural-born citizens, just citizens.

What say you?  Retain the natural-born clause, or should it be removed?

Posted on
by

Just a quickie before I hit the hay…

Sorry about this delay.  This is important to me to feature those candidates who are not getting the national spotlight.  However, life must come first, and life commitments are calling.

Going to do my best to start it up tomorrow!

Posted on
by

As live blogging as I can get, anyway.

Wrap-up: I thought the debate started off lopsided on the questions for Clinton.  However, not much later tough questions were asked to both, and it stayed this way throughout.

I thought some of the answers were rather bland.  Except the the heated mini-debate on healthcare, no real zingers here.

I don’t think Obama made any mis-steps, but neither did Clinton make any real steps forward.

I think, and some people seem to agree on this already, that it was basically a tie here.  I don’t know if it’s going to hurt or help either candidate.

Well, that’s all for tonight.  I’ll see you tomorrow!

10:31pm: What question must the other answer?

Obama: She’d be great as the nominee. I’ll be better for President because I can do and have done stuff.

Clinton: I’ll be better because I’ve done a lot for a long time.

Me: So, basically the same answer. Also notice how neither actually answered Williams’ question?

10:26pm: Clinton on worst vote: “I should not have taken this country into Iraq.” She is ready to lead, having exp. on both ends of Pennsylvania Ave.

Obama: I didn’t stand up and stop Congress from interfering into the Terry Schaivo situation. Whoever is nominee will be ready to help.

Me: Can’t expect much else here.

10:22pm: Clinton: Russia’s successor handpicked. Bush has had an incoherent policy toward Russia. We’ll be meeting with him, but Putin will be the decider.

Obama: Clinton says it right.

Me: Eh, what else can they say?

Obama: Kosovo? If Russia tries to help Serbia, we’ll “talk.”

Me: Clinton not going to be let to reply on it? Meh.

10:19pm: Me: Good answer on the ratings, Obama. I don’t think it’s a liberal vs. conservative thing. People like John McCain should be for it. Shouldn’t he?

10:13pm: Clinton: “There’s a difference between denouncing someone and rejecting support.”

Obama: “I’ll reject and denounce.”

Me: Zing!

10:08pm: Obama doesn’t want Farrakhan’s support. Denounced him many times.

Now Tim is asking about Obama’s pastor, esp. on Jewish support.

“I have some of the strongest Jewish. I’ve supported them, they’ve supported African Americans. We love each other, man!”

Me: Good answers here.

Sorry, had to go sign up for community service…

9:42pm: Someone’s about to call him John McCain. “If they want a partnership for protection of stability in the region….” and stops there!

Me: Yet, he speaks against what John McCain has now clarified. Difference???

Now, Clinton: Withdrawl within 60 days. He talks the talk with Afghanistan, but doesn’t do anything when he chairs the subcommittee with authority over it.

Obama: We’ll cooperate with allies, but act if there’s a threat.

9:40pm: And he comes back: “She was for Iraq before she was against it.”

And, I’m loving it, and so are millions of fangirls, I’m sure: “PAHHHK-ISTAHN”

“I did not say I’d bomb them. Only if we had info on Al-Queda, and they won’t help us.”

9:38pm: Come back to Clinton late, but: “He’ll bomb Pakistan, and meet with dictators. FEAR HIM!”

9:35pm: Foreign policy: Obama brings up “100 years” again. Stop it!!!!!!!!!

Oh, and I love his pronounciation: Paaahk-istahn. Which may be right, according to Wikipedia.

Anyway, he basically says: Given the past seven years, my inexperience makes no difference.

9:33pm: On not getting the 200,000 jobs, Clinton says: I didn’t have the President I wanted. I’m not going to speak on job making, since I don’t know much about it, except to say: See globalization.

9:26pm: Clinton says we’ll be out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate the agreement. I think Clinton’s been put on the defensive unfairly, here. She’s been getting all the tough questions, and Obama’s been the responder so far.

Me: Wait…there we go. A little tougher. He brought up a thing that Obama said about NAFTA. Maybe it’ll be a little more fair?

9:22pm: Oooh, Obama goes on the attack, saying Clinton was for NAFTA before she was against it.

9:18pm: Clinton’s not happy she got the first question, and has on past debates, too. Doesn’t like NAFTA, notes where it’s worked, and where it hasn’t, like in New York. I’m sure you know the debate so I won’t bore you, but lost jobs to overseas, etc.

9:12pm: Clinton finally comes out and says she or her top staff didn’t authorize the photo. A little late perhaps, but finally she says it. Ok, then, back on my consideration list for you.

Now they’re talking about how their nearly similar healthcare plans are different. Clinton explains why she would require everyone to be on her plan and how Obama leaves out 15 million or something, and Obama says he doesn’t want to fine people who don’t want it. They want to keep on it, and won’t let the mods move on.

Me: I think both have good points, but I think Obama’s reasoning is better. By the way, I’d love to know who these “experts” they both keep talking about are.

Posted on
by

After this morning’s knee-jerk reaction from me about the release of the Obama photo, time for a little more analysis.

The campaigns are heating up.  This weekend, Clinton was blasting Obama about a leaflet questioning her healthcare plan forcing everybody to opt-in.  Today, Obama was blasting the Clinton campaign for the photo, which we still don’t know for sure whether it came from there, says Clinton spokesman, Mo Elleithee:

“We have over 700 people on staff. I don’t know if someone on our staff sent it out or not,” Elleithee said. “If someone on our staff makes the point that we are treated differently by the press than Sen. Obama, we agree with that sentiment. We don’t think there’s anything wrong with this photo. Sen. Clinton has herself, while traveling abroad, dressed in traditional, local dress. And there’s nothing divisive about that.”

He also tried to push back at Obama: “We think it is wrong for the Obama campaign to say that this is divisive photo. It’s not a divisive photo.”

If I was Clinton’s campaign manager, and if they find out for sure it was someone on the campaign, I’d start sending out warnings that tactics such as these will not be tolerated, and they are grounds for dismissal.  Same with Obama’s campaign manager, just to show that any retaliation on basis of unconfirmed reports like Drudge’s.

So, Clinton’s saved from a strike off the consideration list.  Still, I think the nomination race is only going to get dirtier before it gets cleaner, and despite not liking it very much, it shall be fun to see and analyze.

Posted on
by

I basically wrote this blog post while commenting on one at another site.

The problem with liberal, conservative, moderate; left, right, and center, is that they are very largely subjective terms that often change. What’s liberal now may be considered extremely liberal in 20 years. What’s conservative now may be considered extremely conservative in 20 years. Or is could be the other way around.

Heck, even the definitions of what is a conservative, for example, has changed. I’m only 21, so I might be getting some of this wrong, but the old time conservative considered themselves fiscally responsible, and relatively willing to let the economy to get on of its own accord. Now you’d be hard pressed to call the Republicans of today (and especially the Bush administration) conservatives if all you based their membership to that ideology on was economics.

What they spend their time on has even changed. For the conservatives in 2004, it was the value issues, while they might have focused more on taxes 20 years ago. For the liberals, it was the environment and the war, while 20 years ago, it might have been the death penalty and welfare, lets say.

So, center is largely defined by where those two are. In my opinion, it seems that both left and right have moved more toward the extremes since I began following politics, possibly leaving a larger gap for the center. Perhaps that’s why some of the so-called moderate sites seem either more liberal or conservative, because there’s more area for them to cover.

I’d like to call attention to what Jason, the author of the entry on that site says. I also wrote a blog post on this issue not too long ago. He mentions that maverick Republicans like Hagel are called moderates while maverick Democrats like Lieberman are called “neocons or traitors”. I mostly agree with this analysis, though I’d argue that depending on who you ask on the right, people like Hagel and McCain would be called liberals or party traitors just as much. I think I might be argued with on McCain, given his support for the war, and I’d say that both have different focuses in their maverick attitudes. Note McCain and torture.

I’d propose that centrists or moderates describe themselves as people who take things on an issue by issue basis and decide where they lie on them.  Maybe this will turn out more right or more left, or perhaps balanced somewhere in the middle.  That’s how I’d describe myself, anyway.

So, to wrap it up, I think that a moderate or centrist is defined by where left and right are, and think that at this point in time, centrists simply have more territory to cover. Also consider that old time mantra, that what was considered very liberal 200 years ago (end of slavery, anyone?) is considered a very moderate view now. So, these things change over time. Finally, keep in mind that 150 years ago, the Republicans were today’s Democrats on many issues and the Democrats were today’s Republicans on many issues.