Class of 2008, part 1

I saw a report on Fox "News" the other night about Hillary Clinton's proposed run for the White House in 2008. It got me thinking about the aspirations of the many that will likely run for the vacant presidency. While Wikipedia has a good article here, I thought I would run down the major canidates both with brief description and commentary.

DEMOCRATS

• Sen. Russ Feingold (WI) - The popular lawmaker from Wisconsin is currently serving his 3rd term in the U.S. Senate. He is considered somewhat independent, though he has a history (like most congressmen) of voting with his party. One of his most significant acts as a Senator was co-sponsoring the campaign finance reform bill bearing his name (McCain-Feingold). He is liked for his "common sense" approach to lawmaking and is often praised as a "reformer."
• Sen. Joe Biden (DE) - Biden will be up for re-election to serve his 7th term as the senior Senator from Delaware in the 2006 "mid-term" elections. Biden is the first Democrat to officially declare his candidacy. He has a been an opponent of President Bush's unilateral war in Iraq and will be an integral part of this summer's debate over the nomination to fill the vacancy left in the Supreme Court by Justice O'Connor as a member of the Senate Judiciary committee. Seen by many as a longshot.
• Gov. Bill Richardson (NM) - Richardson is the Chairman of the Democratic Governors’ Association, as well as a former U.S. Representative, U.N. ambassador, and Secretary of Energy. He has overseen dynamic growth in the economy of New Mexico, a state with a balanced budget and (get this) a budget reserve. Has reportedly said he will seek the nomination. Washington outsiders always make attractive picks to voters. It's the whole you have to campaign against Washington to get into Washington phenomenon.
• Sen. John Kerry (MA) - The 2004 Democratic nominee may very well be the 2008 version as well. As advantages he has national recognition and a large bank. His biggest negative, of course, is the fact that he already lost once. Now, I haven't become a Kerry hater since he lost. Admittedly, I was never his biggest fan, but in the words of a South Park, what do you do when the race is between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich? All kidding aside, Kerry would have been a good choice in '04, but I think there are some great choices in '08.
• Former Sen. John Edwards (NC) - The '04 veep nominee had presidential aspirations of his own last election cycle. 2008 may provide him with with another chance. However, Edwards has the same negative as Sen. Kerry in that he has lost once (twice, if you include losing the primary). He also has the additional shortcoming of losing the public's eye. He is now the leader of One America, a political action committee dedicated to softening the effects of poverty. To me this PAC seems more like a desperate way to keep Edwards in the limelight.
• Gov. Mark Warner (VA) - Warner is the Chairman of the National Governors' Associaton. His stock has ascended in large part to the grassroots community. The internet can do wonderful things for lesser-known candidates, much like it did for Howard Dean in 2004. As governor, Warner has steered the State of Virginia through a huge budget deficit without resorting to massive cuts in important programs like education (are you hearing this, Gov. Daniels???). As the NGA's chair, Warner has had the opportunity to bolster his national standing. It was here he introduced a plan to refom America's high schools. These types of undertakings are monumental. They are both of high importance and difficulty. While many look to merely cry out against th system, Warner has introduced a way to change it. I'm not endorsing his plan or his candidacy, but measures like these should not go unnoticed. Warner also shares Gov. Richardson's "outsider" advantage.
• Sen. Hillary Clinton (NY) - Of course, no discussion of 2008 would be complete without mentioning former President Bill Clinton's other half. I certainly would not discount the possibility that she may well be the first woman ever elected as President of the United States of America. With that said, she would have a long road ahead of her. First, she needs to secure her re-election to her seat in the Senate. Though she will no doubt face a big name opponent brought in specifically to beat her (maybe Gov. Pataki or former NYC Mayor Giuliani???), she will, by all estimations, retain her seat. Another problem Sen. Clinton has is the media. Though usually potential candidates want the media watching, Clinton has the media not only watching but analyzing every move looking to see how she is posturing for the bid in '08. While the attention may not be totally undeserved, it does make "everyday" business harder to conduct. Third, she had a problem of being polarizing. True, the current President is about as polarizing as they come, but what George W. Bush is to Democrats, Hillary (and to only a slightly lesser extent, Bill) Clinton is to Republicans. Where there was an ABB (Anybody but Bush) campaign in '04, we may see an ABC (anybody but Clinton) campaign in '08. With all of these things holding her back, Mrs. Clinton does have things going for her. Her high profile does work for her too, remember. The fact that she is a woman could lead many to vote for her for that reason. Though some have called it posturing, she has seemed to soften on some issues like Defense, while working bipartisanly on others like Healthcare. Certainly, Sen. Clinton will be a player in the next election.
• Sen. Evan Bayh (IN) - The junior senator from Indiana is serving his second term. Defending his seat in 2004, Bayh defeated his opponent by twenty-five percentage points. More astoundingly, he tallied more votes as a Democrat than President Bush did as a Republican in my triple-cherry red State of Indiana. There are two knocks on Bayh: he's not particularly well-known outside of his constiuency, and he's not liberal enough to escape the Democratic primary. The first, I think, is easy to overcome. Many had not heard of Clinton or Bush before they declared their candidacies and they were both two-term Presidents. The second, however, may be a problem. Primaries are very difficult to maneuver. Some may even say they are harder than the general election. After all, it's easy to argue with someone who has oppositional politics, but it is much more difficult to debate people that are essentially on your own team. I wish I had advice for the Indiana Senator here, but I think we'll just have to wait and see. What Bayh does have is what ESPN's Bill Simmons calls TUP (Tremendous Upside Potential). He's not a liberal, for one. This is a plus in a general election. Though some states (e.g. New York, California, Massachusetts, etc.) will vote for liberals regardless, many American voters feel disconnected from those on the far-left. He is what George Bush promised to be, a uniter. If Bayh can pull near-80% approval ratings as a Democrat in a traditionally Republican state, it is very hard to say he is anything resembling a divider. He's a Democrat who is strong on Defense and is socially moderate to conservative. Though Bayh has yet to declare his candidacy, he has formed a PAC, All America, that will allow him to create a larger national presence and support nationwide travel to accomodate such. What the heck, I'll come out and say it: Bayh in '08!

The second half of this post will focus on Republicans. I hope to get this out in the next week to week and a half. You all have my permission to stay on me to get this done.

For the People at Home Especially

Keep an eye out on the Opinions page of the Journal & Courier. In Friday's paper was a letter (3rd letter down) regarding Sen. Evan Bayh. Since Bayh is one of my favorites, I took it upon myself to defend him. Here's a copy of my letter, which by phone today I was told will be printed.

Senator Evan Bayh is one of the great politicians in Indiana. He, along with Republican Richard Lugar, forms perhaps the classiest and most professional tandem of U.S. Senators from any state in the Union.

The reason the Founding Fathers gave senators a six-year term is so that they don’t become overly pressured to bend to the will of a self-centered populace. Remember, after all, the Senate is a national institution that deliberates over matters of national, not state, importance. Mr. Johansen (3/18), please recall it is natural for a senator to become “out of touch.”

Speaking of recall, let’s talk about that. The recall is a state device; therefore, it can only be used on the state, not national, level. Further, the State of Indiana doesn’t employ the recall; it’s not in our state constitution

Senator Bayh does not deserve this. Yes, he voted against Secretary Rice and Attorney General Gonzales, a tow-the-line-and-deny-any-responsibility administration lackey and an opponent of human rights, respectively. Drilling in ANWR is a decision that will set a dangerous precedent. Our National Parks system was created to preserve American beauty, and drilling will lead to the destruction of that beauty. Social Security does have looming problems, but even a growing number of Republicans dislike the Bush plan. Judges support gay marriage because they realize its inevitability. These same “activist” judges have brought us integrated schools and the concept of rights being read when you are arrested.

I personally can't wait for a Bayh presidency.

So there's that. You gotta love Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.

State of the Union: Volume 2 (Sigh), Part 1

Well, there's nothing I could do to stop it, and so there it was: George W. Bush giving his first State of the Union address of his unfortunate second go-round in the White House. However, I am a citizen of these United States, and perhaps now more than ever, I feel it is my duty to watch this address and let all of you know what I think about it. (Please hold all applause 'til the conclusion of this post.)

For a complete transcript of the speech click here.

The President says the State of the Union is "Confident and strong." Well, good. That makes one of us anyway. After getting that one out of the way he peppered in some legislative proposals including:

• A call for responsible spending, including a promise to halve the national debt by 2009. Now, I'm sure this "responsible spending" includes paying for the War on Terror, right??? Because I'm sure we will be able to afford the $3.8 trillion it would take to pay off half of the national debt while financing a war...
• Further pursuit of alternative energy sources including the use hydrogen in cars, and ethanol as a renewable energy source. I can't complain about either of these proposals too much. Although I would venture a guess that good ol' Dubya was merely giving them lip service. I could be wrong. I hope I am.
• The call for the creation of a "bipartisan" panel to review the tax code. The idea is to simplify the tax code while keeping it "fair." We shall see...
• A comprehensive immigration reform that allows for guest workers for jobs "Americans won't take" to help people who are merely trying to "help their families 'make it,' " while not committing to amnesty for said immigrants. I find immigration to be a difficult issue. I see it as impossible to close the borders, both from a practical standpoint and an ideological one (seeing as how our country was born on immigration to a large extent).
• A reiteration of 43's support for a Constitutional amendment in "defense" of marriage. I assume by this he means he wants to alter our great Constitution, the "living" document, so that it includes a section that lets the whole world know that the United States of America has no tolerance for homosexuality. Ugh. I may not be as passionate about this as others, but this is silliness. Homosexuals are people too. But, hey, wait! I've got an idea! Let's change the Constitution to discriminate against them! We could make them count as 3/5's of a person in the next census. That's never been done before, right?
• A very cautious statement on stem cell research. He wants to protect embryos, yet push the boundaries of modern medicine. Sounds kind of like having your cake and eating it too. I won't even get into the embryo debate. That's an argument that can be discussed better at feministe or one of the myriad feminist links from there.
• A new initiative headed by First Lady Laura Bush to reach out to men in the inner-city. This sounds similar to a program headed by Nancy Reagan - "Just Say No."
• A call to renew AIDS legislation known as the Ryan White Act. I have no idea about this. I'm sure AIDS victims need the help though.
• A push for competent lawyers in capital punishment cases, complete with DNA evidence whenever possible. Well, that's good. If we're killing our criminals, at least we're affording them the very best legal advice the criminal justice system has to offer. This is exactly what we need...not! How about we abolish the death penalty instead of using our tax dollars to pay to make sure we don't have to use it.

And that was all. There were no other legislative proposals. Wait; there was something about Social Security, I think. I'm not sure. It wasn't real clear. Seriously though, this comprised a good 1/3 of the President's speech. He wants persons under 55 to be able to take 4% from the current 12% paid in payroll taxes and divert it into "voluntary personal retirement accounts" that can be invested in the stock market or wherever else. He claims the current system will be paying out more than it's taking in by 2018, and by 2042 it will be completely bankrupt. This, of course, was met by hearty boos from the Democratic congressmen in attendance. I'll be honest; I don't completely understand the complexities of this issue. But to me, it seems like it should be simple. You get out what you put in. If 12% of every paycheck you earn is paid to Social Security, keep that money in an account with your name on it, so that when it comes time for you to retire your money is there waiting for you. I don't know, maybe I'm missing the point.

Now, what kind of speech would it be without a large section devoted to the Bush Doctrine? Certainly not one you will hear our 43rd President give, that's for sure. Not surprisingly, much of what was said in Wednesday's address was much of the same rhetoric we've been hearing for weeks, if not months. We're still a target for terrorists. (Hmm...wonder whose fault this is???) Insurgents in Iraq are scared of democracy. (No, they're just scared of George W. Bush the warmonger.) We have no timetable for Iraq. (Mr. Bush, rational people call this "lack of an exit strategy." I don't know, maybe try that one on for size, eh?)

Don't fret faithful reader, there were also juicy new tidbits of foreign policy to be had. No one left this speech hungry.

• On North Korea: We are in close contact with them as well as a - guess what - coalition of Asian nations discussing there nuclear capacity. This small mention seems far removed from three years ago when North Korea was a member of the "Axis of Evil."
• On Iran: A message to the Iranian people - "As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you." This sounds very much like a preamble to the kind of ultimatum issued to Saddam and his loyalists pre-Gulf War II.
• On Egypt: A challenge to step up and be a model for democracy in the Middle East
• On Syria: Mentioned the passage of the Syrian Accountability Act, a bill aimed to curb that nation's capability to harbor terrorists.
• On Israeli/Palestinian conflict: Asked for $350 million to aid in promoting peaceful negotiations between Ariel Sharon and new Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas leading to what he termed "the goal of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace." This seems like a new, dare I say, positive step. The creation of a Palestinian state has almost never been a goal of American leaders. Rather our intentions have always been focused on the protection of Israel, or as I like to call it, America-MidEast.

The one thing I've left out is the touching moment at the end where the mother of a Marine killed in combat gave her son's ID tags to an Iraqi woman who had voted this past Sunday. Now, I'm not a particularly emotional guy, but I'll admit I had a tear well up in my eye when I saw that. Then it hit me, as great a moment as that was, I'd bet anything that it was set up. I almost guarantee it was suggested by someone on the president's staff or even the President himself. I could be wrong, but if I'm not, I am very disappointed that this administration would play on America's emotional heartstrings like that.

Overall, it was a very good speech. Obviously, I didn't agree with a lot of it , but I do recognize the quality of what was said. So kudos to Bush for delivering a good speech. I've made clear, I think, how I feel, and I would be more than happy to hear from the rest of you.

(This post is also available here at Twinkies & Coke.)

Hands Down

How do you put into words the feelings of immense happiness and elation? I don't know. Well, maybe I just did.

Today was a truly fantastic day. I feel complete in a way I've perhaps felt before but never quite this clearly. I fel as though I could take the world and give it a big bear hug. There is a small part of me that would like nothing more than to re-live this day over and over again. Of course, my head tells me that there's still more to come. I believe I will sit back and enjoy the ride. Of course, it's not as though I really have a choice.

So there's that. This may not mean much to most. Oh well.

...And I made you guys think I was going to stop posting...HA!