Republican Politics, American Style
Published on February 7th in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
The results of the “Super Tuesday” primary will already be in by the time you read this column, so this week I will discuss some other important distinctions between Barack Obama and the other candidates, which involves the role the next American President can and should play as a world leader.
Since Mr. Obama’s speaks on these subjects so eloquently I will quote him directly; “If, as president, I travel to a poor country to talk to leaders there, they will know I have a grandmother in a small village in (Kenya) Africa without running water, devastated by malaria and AIDS, What that allows me to do is talk honestly not only about our need to help them, but about poor countries’ obligation to help themselves. There are cousins of mine in Kenya who can’t get a job without paying an exorbitant bribe to some midlevel functionary. I can talk about that.”
In discussing pseudo-religious Islamic political violence and terrorism Obama notes that; “I have lived in (Indonesia) the most populous Muslim country in the world, had relatives who practiced Islam. I am a Christian, but I can say I understand your worldview, although I may not agree with how Islam has evolved. I can speak forcefully about the need for Muslim countries to reconcile themselves to modernity in ways they have failed to do.”
Now I ask you to consider for a moment, what other US Republican or Democratic Presidential candidate, or European leader for that matter, can travel around the world and talk like this to the political leaders of countries in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America?
I see some interesting parallels between Senator Obama’s upbringings as an only child from a broken home who was shuttled from one place to another while he was growing up and the Western targets chosen by al Qaeda for their pseudo-religious political terrorism attacks. I might also note that none of the other Republican or Democratic presidential candidates come from such backgrounds, nor have any of them been as honest and forthcoming about their past use and abuse of alcohol and drugs as Senator Obama has been.
But thus far, four members of the Clinton campaign have been found to have attempted to use or twist public information Senator Obama has provided regarding his upbringings and teenage transgressions to cast doubts about his fitness to be President. I find such elitist, holier-than-thou attitudes on the part of Mrs. Clinton’s state and national campaign staffers extremely disturbing and a harbinger of what Obama can expect from the Republicans should he win the Democratic nomination for President. Such veiled attacks, which Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly disavowed any knowledge of, nonetheless point to why I and many other Americans view Hillary and her supporters as a divisive rather than unifying force in US national politics.
As for the parallels I see between al Qaeda’s Western targets and Senator Obama’s background here are a few interesting facts for you to contemplate. Al Qaeda attacked the US Embassy in Kenya, American and other Western tourists in Bali, Indonesia, the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon and White House in Washington D.C. (although the hijackers were unsuccessful crashing into the White House because resistance from the plane’s passengers brought the jet down before it reached the White House).
Senator Barack Obama’s father was a native of Kenya. The senator spent four years of his youth going to school and living with his mother, her second husband and his step-grandfather (who was a practicing Muslim) in Indonesia. Barack Obama lived and went to college in New York, currently works as A US Senator in Washington D.C. and aspires to one day live in the White House. I don’t find these parallels strange so much as I think they could serve as a source of strength for Mr. Obama if he is elected President later this year.
Regarding the need for the US to finally take action and effectively deal with issues involving global warming and climate change Senator Obama says; “As gas prices keep rising, the Middle East grows ever more unstable, and the ice caps continue to melt, we face a now-or-never, once-in-a-generation opportunity to set this country on a different course. Such a course is not only possible, it’s already being pursued in other places around the world. Countries like Japan are creating jobs and slowing oil consumption by churning out and buying millions of fuel-efficient cars. Brazil, a nation that once relied on foreign countries to import 80% of its crude oil, will now be entirely self-sufficient in a few years thanks to its investment in (clean) biofuels. So why can’t we do this? The answer is, with the right leadership, we can.”
Barack Obama has also taken a progressive stance regarding the divisive issue of immigration reform. He supports attempts by Democrats to strike some sort of compromise with sympathetic Republicans such as Senator John McCain on new legislation to more effectively deal with this problem, despite opposition from right wing Republican TV and radio talk show hosts who are stirring up opposition to immigration reforms among Republicans as well as independent voters.
These conservative demagogues conveniently choose to ignore the reality that;
1) These illegal immigrants are not going to just pack up and go home.
2) The US has neither the border security and law enforcement manpower nor the capacity in its judicial system to arrest and deport more than a few thousand of these illegal immigrants each year.
3) Many businesses and industries depend on ‘illegals’ to fill jobs that legal US citizens don’t want and would be forced out of business without them.
4) Illegal immigrants contribute more in taxes than they take in the form of government benefits for food stamps, health care and schooling.
While it is only a small step towards immigration reform, allowing states to issue drivers licences to illegal immigrants will nonetheless allow them to report crimes against themselves and other legal US citizens, while Congress debates how to develop immigration reforms that realistically deal with this problem.
Senator Obama also scores points for this summary of Mrs. Clinton’s Senate voting record and her propensity for “thinking that the only way to look tough on national security is by talking and acting and voting like George Bush Republicans. When I am this party’s nominee, my opponent will not be able to say that I voted for the war in Iraq, or that I gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, or that I supported Bush-Cheney policies of not talking to leaders we don’t like. I don’t want to see more American lives put at risk because no one had the judgment or the courage to stand up against a misguided war before we sent our troops in to fight.”
I’m sorry, but Hillary Clinton’s argument that she is more “ready” to assume the US Presidency than Mr. Obama (simply because she has more experience in Congress than he has), just doesn’t cut it with me. The US President controls the most powerful armed forces in the world which means the President’s judgement, insight and wisdom are all much more important in a crisis than any amount of legislative experience. We are not talking about passing legislation here. We are talking about when, where, why and how to use the United States awesome military capabilities. By her actions in support of President Bush, Hillary Clinton has shown that she doesn’t have the requisite judgement, insight or wisdom that Barack Obama has. So on that note I believe I will now rest my case for Barack Obama as the next US President.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Super Tuesday is almost upon us
Republican Politics, American Style
Published on January 31st in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
Last week I ended my column by discussing Mrs. Clinton's recent flip flop on illegal immigration. The Democratic Party and many Republicans recognize that illegal immigration is a very touchy issue for many American voters.
All of the Democratic and a few of the Republican candidates also know that it is totally unrealistic to spend billions of dollars building a huge fence along the US-Mexico border in an attempt to stop the flow of illegal Mexican and Central American immigrants into the US. It is even more unrealistic to expect that any more than a few hundred of the estimated 15 million illegal immigrants currently living in the US are ever going to be arrested and deported to their homelands.
Unfortunately Mrs. Clinton's new stance is now much closer to that of the Republican demagogues on this issue than it is to the views of most Democrats and the other Democratic Presidential candidates. I believe her recent flip flop on this issue is an indication that she is looking ahead to the general election. It also underscores the suspicions of me and many other American voters that Clinton is just like so many other politicians who say what they think most voters want to hear (and what will get them elected) rather than what they truly believe.
Mrs. Clinton is the first woman while Senator Obama is the first person of colour to ever have a realistic chance to be elected President of the United States. But there are definite differences in how they portray themselves to voters.
In his discussions with women voters, Mr. Obama presents himself as particularly sensitized and equally committed to women's issues as Mrs. Clinton, because he was raised by a single mother. On the other hand, Hillary frequently talks about what women tell her about the importance of her candidacy as a woman and how much it means to them as women. Hillary also makes frequent references to "the all-boys club of presidential politics" and is prone to using language that evokes gender stereotypes. I see these kinds of statements as a subtle but effective appeal to women to vote for her if for no other reason than simply because she is a woman.
Maybe its just me, but if I was a woman or a member of a minority group, I would want people to vote for me because they thought I was the best person to serve in the job or because they agreed with my views or positions on issues that were important to them, not because we shared the same ethnicity, gender or racial identity.
In contrast to Mrs. Clinton, Obama has avoided racial appeals to minority voters choosing instead to emphasize that he is a multicultural candidate who possesses the unique ability to bring people together and break from the status quo. Mr Obama does not appeal to African-American political and community leaders for their endorsements, because he wants members of minority groups to vote for him because they believe he is the person who possesses the leadership skills America needs and is the best person for the job as President, not because their local leaders believe he will serve their interests.
It is no surprise to me that Barack Obama has received fewer endorsements of support from African-American politicians, because they are no different than the majority of other establishment Democratic politicians and activists who have also endorsed Mrs. Clinton. Hillary Clinton has sought endorsements from all of them, courted them and made promises to them of what she will do for them if she wins. Barrack Obama refuses to make such promises or ask for their endorsements because he is determined to serve the interests of all Americans and to be beholden to no one.
There is one final distinction I want to make before closing this week's column and that deals with the propriety or lack of propriety in the way the candidates conduct their political campaigns. While many Americans say they are sick and tired of negative campaign ads and personal attacks on each other by political opponents, the truth is voters actually respond to this negativity and Republicans have refined and elevated the use of such tactics to a fine art over the past 20 years.
While most of the Democratic candidates have refrained from using such tactics, the Clinton campaign has seen recent resignations by two Clinton volunteer coordinators in Iowa who had forwarded e-mails raising questions about Obama's religion and then later by its national co-chairman Bill Shaheen for suggesting Democrats should be wary of Obama because his teenage drug use could make it hard for him to win the presidency. Unfortunately the story doesn't end there though.
On January 13th while he was campaigning for Hillary Clinton in South Carolina, Black Entertainment Television (BET) founder Robert Johnson once again raised the teenage drug use issue while he was slamming Senator Obama, saying that many years ago while Hillary and Bill Clinton were involved in black issues, "Barack Obama was doing something in the neighbourhood, and I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in the book." Since Mrs. Clinton had said that Obama's drug use as a young man many years ago would not be an issue with her campaign, journalists questioned the Clinton campaign about Johnson's remarks. At first he Clinton campaign responded by denying that Johnson was referring to Obama's teenage drug use and offered the press a statement by Mr. Johnson saying "My comments today were referring to Barack Obama's time spent as a community organizer, and nothing else. Any other suggestion is simply irresponsible and incorrect."
But the press, the Democratic voters who heard Johnson's remarks at the Clinton rally, and the general public weren't buying this explanation so on Tuesday January 15th Clinton tried to distance herself from Johnson's comments during a debate in Nevada. When that didn't work, Johnson finally "fessed up" on January 17th and sent Senator Obama an apology for "the un-called-for comments I made at a recent Clinton event." Do you see a pattern here or is it just me?
I support Barack Obama for US President because I truly believe he is the one person who can unify America and end its four decade's long civil war over ethnic, gender, race and religious differences at a time when the world needs America's leadership most. Many Americans will go to the polls next (Super) Tuesday February 5th to cast their ballots for US presidential candidates, so now it's time for me to place my faith and trust in their wisdom and judgement and see how they respond.
Published on January 31st in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
Last week I ended my column by discussing Mrs. Clinton's recent flip flop on illegal immigration. The Democratic Party and many Republicans recognize that illegal immigration is a very touchy issue for many American voters.
All of the Democratic and a few of the Republican candidates also know that it is totally unrealistic to spend billions of dollars building a huge fence along the US-Mexico border in an attempt to stop the flow of illegal Mexican and Central American immigrants into the US. It is even more unrealistic to expect that any more than a few hundred of the estimated 15 million illegal immigrants currently living in the US are ever going to be arrested and deported to their homelands.
Unfortunately Mrs. Clinton's new stance is now much closer to that of the Republican demagogues on this issue than it is to the views of most Democrats and the other Democratic Presidential candidates. I believe her recent flip flop on this issue is an indication that she is looking ahead to the general election. It also underscores the suspicions of me and many other American voters that Clinton is just like so many other politicians who say what they think most voters want to hear (and what will get them elected) rather than what they truly believe.
Mrs. Clinton is the first woman while Senator Obama is the first person of colour to ever have a realistic chance to be elected President of the United States. But there are definite differences in how they portray themselves to voters.
In his discussions with women voters, Mr. Obama presents himself as particularly sensitized and equally committed to women's issues as Mrs. Clinton, because he was raised by a single mother. On the other hand, Hillary frequently talks about what women tell her about the importance of her candidacy as a woman and how much it means to them as women. Hillary also makes frequent references to "the all-boys club of presidential politics" and is prone to using language that evokes gender stereotypes. I see these kinds of statements as a subtle but effective appeal to women to vote for her if for no other reason than simply because she is a woman.
Maybe its just me, but if I was a woman or a member of a minority group, I would want people to vote for me because they thought I was the best person to serve in the job or because they agreed with my views or positions on issues that were important to them, not because we shared the same ethnicity, gender or racial identity.
In contrast to Mrs. Clinton, Obama has avoided racial appeals to minority voters choosing instead to emphasize that he is a multicultural candidate who possesses the unique ability to bring people together and break from the status quo. Mr Obama does not appeal to African-American political and community leaders for their endorsements, because he wants members of minority groups to vote for him because they believe he is the person who possesses the leadership skills America needs and is the best person for the job as President, not because their local leaders believe he will serve their interests.
It is no surprise to me that Barack Obama has received fewer endorsements of support from African-American politicians, because they are no different than the majority of other establishment Democratic politicians and activists who have also endorsed Mrs. Clinton. Hillary Clinton has sought endorsements from all of them, courted them and made promises to them of what she will do for them if she wins. Barrack Obama refuses to make such promises or ask for their endorsements because he is determined to serve the interests of all Americans and to be beholden to no one.
There is one final distinction I want to make before closing this week's column and that deals with the propriety or lack of propriety in the way the candidates conduct their political campaigns. While many Americans say they are sick and tired of negative campaign ads and personal attacks on each other by political opponents, the truth is voters actually respond to this negativity and Republicans have refined and elevated the use of such tactics to a fine art over the past 20 years.
While most of the Democratic candidates have refrained from using such tactics, the Clinton campaign has seen recent resignations by two Clinton volunteer coordinators in Iowa who had forwarded e-mails raising questions about Obama's religion and then later by its national co-chairman Bill Shaheen for suggesting Democrats should be wary of Obama because his teenage drug use could make it hard for him to win the presidency. Unfortunately the story doesn't end there though.
On January 13th while he was campaigning for Hillary Clinton in South Carolina, Black Entertainment Television (BET) founder Robert Johnson once again raised the teenage drug use issue while he was slamming Senator Obama, saying that many years ago while Hillary and Bill Clinton were involved in black issues, "Barack Obama was doing something in the neighbourhood, and I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in the book." Since Mrs. Clinton had said that Obama's drug use as a young man many years ago would not be an issue with her campaign, journalists questioned the Clinton campaign about Johnson's remarks. At first he Clinton campaign responded by denying that Johnson was referring to Obama's teenage drug use and offered the press a statement by Mr. Johnson saying "My comments today were referring to Barack Obama's time spent as a community organizer, and nothing else. Any other suggestion is simply irresponsible and incorrect."
But the press, the Democratic voters who heard Johnson's remarks at the Clinton rally, and the general public weren't buying this explanation so on Tuesday January 15th Clinton tried to distance herself from Johnson's comments during a debate in Nevada. When that didn't work, Johnson finally "fessed up" on January 17th and sent Senator Obama an apology for "the un-called-for comments I made at a recent Clinton event." Do you see a pattern here or is it just me?
I support Barack Obama for US President because I truly believe he is the one person who can unify America and end its four decade's long civil war over ethnic, gender, race and religious differences at a time when the world needs America's leadership most. Many Americans will go to the polls next (Super) Tuesday February 5th to cast their ballots for US presidential candidates, so now it's time for me to place my faith and trust in their wisdom and judgement and see how they respond.
More reasons to support Barack Obama
Republican Politics, American Style
Published on January 24th in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
Last week I discussed Barack Obama’s opposition to the invasion of Iraq, at a time when it was politically popular to support this course of action, as an example of the Senator’s strongly held principles, keen insight and good judgement. I also quoted Senator Obama regarding his vision of America and that its role in the world was to lead by example, words which I said reflected Obama’s belief in America’s unique capacity to inspire people both in America and around the world and to provide leadership through America’s actions rather than its economic and military might.
These are attributes I believe one should look for in a true leader but there are other ways in which Barack Obama has distinguished himself from all of the other Republican and Democratic candidates. Republicans Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney as well as Democrats Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are all wealthy millionaires who have raised most of their Presidential campaign funds by tapping the wallets of other wealthy party members and in Romney’s case his own personal fortune.
While Barack Obama also has his share of wealthy supporters, Mrs. Clinton has raised the vast majority of her estimated $120 million by soliciting wealthy Democrats and lobbyists for the maximum($2,300 each) that they can contribute to the Democratic primary and General elections. Another source of much of Clinton’s campaign cash has been Political Action Committees (PACS) which are used by Washington lobbyists to funnel money to candidates they believe will be friendly to the interests they represent should they be elected. Hillary also transferred millions of dollars left over from her 2006 Senate campaign to her Presidential campaign fund.
By contrast, Senator Obama did not have any funds from his 2004 US Senate campaign to use as seed money for a Presidential bid. So the estimated $100 million Obama has used for his Democratic Presidential campaign was raised without transferring funds from any other campaign fund and includes no money from federal lobbyists or PACs because he has refused to accept such money. Furthermore, very few of Obama’s supporters have yet given the $2,300 maximum allowed by US law because the vast majority of his campaign donors are not wealthy Americans.
This contrast in sources of financial support for their political campaigns is also reflected in the large numbers of grassroots supporters Barack Obama has drawn to his campaign for the Presidency. Senator Obama has received considerable media attention for his use of the internet to help build a base of over 450,000 financial contributors during the first nine months of his campaign. This figure is more than double the number of campaign donors Hillary Clinton has tapped to raise a similar amount of campaign funds and more than triple the number of supporters any of the other candidates have received donations from.
With average donations in the hundreds rather than thousands of dollars and no funds from PACs and lobbyists, it would appear to me that Senator Obama will be much more likely to propose policies and legislation that is truly in the best interests of all Americans rather than wealthy Americans, business lobbyists and other special interest groups. None of the other Republican or Democratic candidates can back up their claims that they will not be subject to undue influence by special interests with the kind of actions Senator Obama has taken to insulate himself and his Presidential campaign from the political influence wealthy contributors are always seeking to buy.
For the sake of argument, I will use Mrs. Clinton to illustrate my point about some of the ways you can buy influence with gifts or donations to politicians and their family members. Back in President Clinton’s days as Governor of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton earned more than $100,000 a year from her law firm and from serving as a corporate director. A U.S. cement maker named Lafarge paid her $31,000 a year to serve as one of its directors while her husband Bill was earning $35,000 a year serving as Governor of the State of Arkansas. Well, just before Clinton was elected President, the US Environmental Protection Agency fined Lafarge $1.8 million for pollution violations at one of its cement plants. Would it surprise you to know that the Clinton administration reduced that fine to less than $600,000 the very next year?
Did you know that even though US Senators are required by law to disclose gifts they receive on their ethics report, they don’t have to disclose gifts that are given to their spouses? That means Hillary Clinton didn’t have to report the flag shaped white gold brooch containing 177 small diamonds and rubies that Bill Clinton received from the World Diamond Conference in Belgium. Since when did it become fashionable for men to wear diamond brooches?
There are several other issues which further distinguish Senator Obama from Mrs. Clinton and the other Presidential candidates. Clinton and others have questioned whether or not Senator Obama has the experience and or the toughness required to be President of the most powerful country in the world. To this charge Obama has replied “What I’ve always found is people who talk about how tough they are aren’t the tough ones. I’m less interested in beating my chest and rattling my sabre and more in making decisions that build a safer and more secure world. We can and should lead the world, but we have to apply wisdom and judgment. Part of our capacity to lead is linked to our capacity to show restraint.”
Of course it goes without saying that the “more experienced” Republican and Democratic candidates are also the ones who supported Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and in the case of Mrs. Clinton, President Bush’s recent sabre rattling regarding Iran.
Hillary Clinton has recently changed her stance on the politically explosive issue of illegal immigration, saying that she no longer supports the idea of giving illegal immigrants’ drivers licences for identification. I will discuss this and other differences next week.
Published on January 24th in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
Last week I discussed Barack Obama’s opposition to the invasion of Iraq, at a time when it was politically popular to support this course of action, as an example of the Senator’s strongly held principles, keen insight and good judgement. I also quoted Senator Obama regarding his vision of America and that its role in the world was to lead by example, words which I said reflected Obama’s belief in America’s unique capacity to inspire people both in America and around the world and to provide leadership through America’s actions rather than its economic and military might.
These are attributes I believe one should look for in a true leader but there are other ways in which Barack Obama has distinguished himself from all of the other Republican and Democratic candidates. Republicans Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney as well as Democrats Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are all wealthy millionaires who have raised most of their Presidential campaign funds by tapping the wallets of other wealthy party members and in Romney’s case his own personal fortune.
While Barack Obama also has his share of wealthy supporters, Mrs. Clinton has raised the vast majority of her estimated $120 million by soliciting wealthy Democrats and lobbyists for the maximum($2,300 each) that they can contribute to the Democratic primary and General elections. Another source of much of Clinton’s campaign cash has been Political Action Committees (PACS) which are used by Washington lobbyists to funnel money to candidates they believe will be friendly to the interests they represent should they be elected. Hillary also transferred millions of dollars left over from her 2006 Senate campaign to her Presidential campaign fund.
By contrast, Senator Obama did not have any funds from his 2004 US Senate campaign to use as seed money for a Presidential bid. So the estimated $100 million Obama has used for his Democratic Presidential campaign was raised without transferring funds from any other campaign fund and includes no money from federal lobbyists or PACs because he has refused to accept such money. Furthermore, very few of Obama’s supporters have yet given the $2,300 maximum allowed by US law because the vast majority of his campaign donors are not wealthy Americans.
This contrast in sources of financial support for their political campaigns is also reflected in the large numbers of grassroots supporters Barack Obama has drawn to his campaign for the Presidency. Senator Obama has received considerable media attention for his use of the internet to help build a base of over 450,000 financial contributors during the first nine months of his campaign. This figure is more than double the number of campaign donors Hillary Clinton has tapped to raise a similar amount of campaign funds and more than triple the number of supporters any of the other candidates have received donations from.
With average donations in the hundreds rather than thousands of dollars and no funds from PACs and lobbyists, it would appear to me that Senator Obama will be much more likely to propose policies and legislation that is truly in the best interests of all Americans rather than wealthy Americans, business lobbyists and other special interest groups. None of the other Republican or Democratic candidates can back up their claims that they will not be subject to undue influence by special interests with the kind of actions Senator Obama has taken to insulate himself and his Presidential campaign from the political influence wealthy contributors are always seeking to buy.
For the sake of argument, I will use Mrs. Clinton to illustrate my point about some of the ways you can buy influence with gifts or donations to politicians and their family members. Back in President Clinton’s days as Governor of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton earned more than $100,000 a year from her law firm and from serving as a corporate director. A U.S. cement maker named Lafarge paid her $31,000 a year to serve as one of its directors while her husband Bill was earning $35,000 a year serving as Governor of the State of Arkansas. Well, just before Clinton was elected President, the US Environmental Protection Agency fined Lafarge $1.8 million for pollution violations at one of its cement plants. Would it surprise you to know that the Clinton administration reduced that fine to less than $600,000 the very next year?
Did you know that even though US Senators are required by law to disclose gifts they receive on their ethics report, they don’t have to disclose gifts that are given to their spouses? That means Hillary Clinton didn’t have to report the flag shaped white gold brooch containing 177 small diamonds and rubies that Bill Clinton received from the World Diamond Conference in Belgium. Since when did it become fashionable for men to wear diamond brooches?
There are several other issues which further distinguish Senator Obama from Mrs. Clinton and the other Presidential candidates. Clinton and others have questioned whether or not Senator Obama has the experience and or the toughness required to be President of the most powerful country in the world. To this charge Obama has replied “What I’ve always found is people who talk about how tough they are aren’t the tough ones. I’m less interested in beating my chest and rattling my sabre and more in making decisions that build a safer and more secure world. We can and should lead the world, but we have to apply wisdom and judgment. Part of our capacity to lead is linked to our capacity to show restraint.”
Of course it goes without saying that the “more experienced” Republican and Democratic candidates are also the ones who supported Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and in the case of Mrs. Clinton, President Bush’s recent sabre rattling regarding Iran.
Hillary Clinton has recently changed her stance on the politically explosive issue of illegal immigration, saying that she no longer supports the idea of giving illegal immigrants’ drivers licences for identification. I will discuss this and other differences next week.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Post Iowa and New Hampshire primaries
Republican Politics, American Style
January 17th 2008 in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
First Obama upsets Clinton in Iowa and then Clinton ekes out a narrow win in New Hampshire. Since the Democrats still appear to be split why does this Republican believe Barack Obama possesses the global leadership skills and vision that America and the rest of the world will need if we hope to resolve many of the problems we are currently facing or will soon be confronting? Well, let’s review some of the reasons I have mentioned in previous columns over the past year.
Back in 2002 America was still grieving the victims of al Qaeda’s 9/11 suicide attacks on the two most visible symbols of America’s economic and military supremacy around the globe; the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. As a nation America was struggling to adjust to being a victim of pseudo-religious political violence on a massive scale. But once Americans had grieved the loss of life and gotten over their shock, the vast majority of Americans also became very angry. Americans wanted to hit back at the terrorists who had so viciously assaulted us and expected the US government to do so.
So the US sought and received a large measure of international support for the 2002 invasion of Afghanistan and its efforts to topple a Taliban regime which was providing a safe haven for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. The US government’s initial military response involving the use of a small number of Special Forces soldiers in Afghanistan recognized that you can’t attack a network of terrorists like al Qaeda with a field army. Instead, the US military used 11 Special Forces A-teams totalling fewer than 200 troops to topple the Taliban and put al Qaeda on the run.
But this judicious use of a small number of US Special Forces troops didn’t do much to garner the kind of media publicity in America that the Bush administration was looking for. So Bush, Cheney and their neo-conservative allies decided to go after a bigger and much less elusive target, Saddam Hussein. Thus the decision to turn what was a Special Forces counter-terrorism guerrilla operation (which cannot possibly generate much media publicity) into a media heavy conventional war served a purpose but it was not one related to effective counter-terrorism strategies Rather it was an effective political strategy which helped Bush win re-election, but at a huge cost in terms of money, lives and military power.
The Bush administration began by seeking international support for the invasion of Iraq just as they had done in Afghanistan. President Bush and his minions basically manufactured evidence to justify a decision that had nothing whatsoever to do with fighting terrorism. When most other countries in the world questioned the rather dubious evidence and reasoning of Bush and his ideologues, Bush then decided to convince Congress and the American people to allow the US to act unilaterally if he felt it was necessary.
Of the eight major Presidential candidates including Republicans Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and John McCain as well as Democrats Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Bill Richardson, Barack Obama was the only one to take the politically unpopular stand of publicly and vocally opposing the US invasion of Iraq. Some of Barack Obama’s political advisors believed that he should remain silent because speaking out against a looming invasion that was very popular (because most American’s believed Bush’s fabricated evidence) would hurt his chances of being elected to the US Senate in the upcoming 2004 elections.
But Obama ignored this advice and in 2002 he spoke at an anti-war rally in Chicago and explained why he was against the war saying; “I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda (in Afghanistan), through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and with a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.” I believe Obama’s decision to speak out against a politically popular Iraq war was a clear demonstration of his strongly held principles, keen insight and good judgement.
None of the other Presidential candidates with the exception of John McCain have so publicly and repeatedly demonstrated both a commitment to principles and a willingness to tell Americans what they need to hear, rather than what they want to hear. More than anything else that (to me) is the mark of a true leader. America and the world sorely need a true leader to propose and implement complex solutions for complex problems like political terrorism and global climate change.
Obama truly believes in the American proposition: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness under a constitutional democratic government with limited powers. Obama has been quoted as saying “I believe in American exceptionalism, (but not one based on our) military prowess or our economic dominance. Our exceptionalism must be based on our Constitution, our principles, our values and our ideals. We are at our best when we are speaking in a voice that captures the aspirations of people across the globe. We can’t entirely remake the world. What we can do is lead by example.” These are powerful and eloquent words which reflect Obama’s belief in America’s unique capacity to inspire people both in America and around the world.
Someone asked me recently who I believed had been America’s most inspirational Presidential leaders in response to my statement Obama was a once in a generation inspirational leader. I quickly cited Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy as examples, when she stopped me and asked “didn’t they all die in office?” “Yes” I said “and two of them were assassinated.” Hmmm….. What a scary thought. Is that because I had never really thought of it that way before? Regardless, next week I will continue explaining why I think Obama is that once in a generation leader that both America and the world so desperately need.
January 17th 2008 in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
First Obama upsets Clinton in Iowa and then Clinton ekes out a narrow win in New Hampshire. Since the Democrats still appear to be split why does this Republican believe Barack Obama possesses the global leadership skills and vision that America and the rest of the world will need if we hope to resolve many of the problems we are currently facing or will soon be confronting? Well, let’s review some of the reasons I have mentioned in previous columns over the past year.
Back in 2002 America was still grieving the victims of al Qaeda’s 9/11 suicide attacks on the two most visible symbols of America’s economic and military supremacy around the globe; the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. As a nation America was struggling to adjust to being a victim of pseudo-religious political violence on a massive scale. But once Americans had grieved the loss of life and gotten over their shock, the vast majority of Americans also became very angry. Americans wanted to hit back at the terrorists who had so viciously assaulted us and expected the US government to do so.
So the US sought and received a large measure of international support for the 2002 invasion of Afghanistan and its efforts to topple a Taliban regime which was providing a safe haven for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. The US government’s initial military response involving the use of a small number of Special Forces soldiers in Afghanistan recognized that you can’t attack a network of terrorists like al Qaeda with a field army. Instead, the US military used 11 Special Forces A-teams totalling fewer than 200 troops to topple the Taliban and put al Qaeda on the run.
But this judicious use of a small number of US Special Forces troops didn’t do much to garner the kind of media publicity in America that the Bush administration was looking for. So Bush, Cheney and their neo-conservative allies decided to go after a bigger and much less elusive target, Saddam Hussein. Thus the decision to turn what was a Special Forces counter-terrorism guerrilla operation (which cannot possibly generate much media publicity) into a media heavy conventional war served a purpose but it was not one related to effective counter-terrorism strategies Rather it was an effective political strategy which helped Bush win re-election, but at a huge cost in terms of money, lives and military power.
The Bush administration began by seeking international support for the invasion of Iraq just as they had done in Afghanistan. President Bush and his minions basically manufactured evidence to justify a decision that had nothing whatsoever to do with fighting terrorism. When most other countries in the world questioned the rather dubious evidence and reasoning of Bush and his ideologues, Bush then decided to convince Congress and the American people to allow the US to act unilaterally if he felt it was necessary.
Of the eight major Presidential candidates including Republicans Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and John McCain as well as Democrats Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Bill Richardson, Barack Obama was the only one to take the politically unpopular stand of publicly and vocally opposing the US invasion of Iraq. Some of Barack Obama’s political advisors believed that he should remain silent because speaking out against a looming invasion that was very popular (because most American’s believed Bush’s fabricated evidence) would hurt his chances of being elected to the US Senate in the upcoming 2004 elections.
But Obama ignored this advice and in 2002 he spoke at an anti-war rally in Chicago and explained why he was against the war saying; “I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda (in Afghanistan), through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and with a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.” I believe Obama’s decision to speak out against a politically popular Iraq war was a clear demonstration of his strongly held principles, keen insight and good judgement.
None of the other Presidential candidates with the exception of John McCain have so publicly and repeatedly demonstrated both a commitment to principles and a willingness to tell Americans what they need to hear, rather than what they want to hear. More than anything else that (to me) is the mark of a true leader. America and the world sorely need a true leader to propose and implement complex solutions for complex problems like political terrorism and global climate change.
Obama truly believes in the American proposition: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness under a constitutional democratic government with limited powers. Obama has been quoted as saying “I believe in American exceptionalism, (but not one based on our) military prowess or our economic dominance. Our exceptionalism must be based on our Constitution, our principles, our values and our ideals. We are at our best when we are speaking in a voice that captures the aspirations of people across the globe. We can’t entirely remake the world. What we can do is lead by example.” These are powerful and eloquent words which reflect Obama’s belief in America’s unique capacity to inspire people both in America and around the world.
Someone asked me recently who I believed had been America’s most inspirational Presidential leaders in response to my statement Obama was a once in a generation inspirational leader. I quickly cited Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy as examples, when she stopped me and asked “didn’t they all die in office?” “Yes” I said “and two of them were assassinated.” Hmmm….. What a scary thought. Is that because I had never really thought of it that way before? Regardless, next week I will continue explaining why I think Obama is that once in a generation leader that both America and the world so desperately need.
January 3rd was a very important day
Republican Politics, American Style
January 10th 2008 in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
January 3rd was a very important day. January 3rd was Election Day in America. It was the day that voters in the centre of the country, in the State of Iowa, caucused in churches, schools and public auditoriums to cast ballots in favour of the Republican or Democratic candidates who they believed should be the next President of the United States of America. It marked the beginning of the end of the Presidential nomination and election process which culminates ten months from now on November 4th 2008, when one of these candidates will be chosen to lead the United States (US) for at least the next four and possibly eight years. January 3rd was a very important day.
November 4th 2008 will be the most important day of this coming year. In America and the rest of the world, November 4th 2008 will also be the most important day of this decade and quite possibly the 21st century. I say this with all due respect for those who perished in the US and other parts of the world in spasms of pseudo-religious political violence in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington D.C. on September 11th, 2001, in Bali Indonesia on October 12th 2002, in Madrid Spain on March 11th, 2004 and in London England on July 7th 2005. November 4th 2008 will be the most important day of this year, this decade and yes, maybe even this century, because America stands at an extremely critical turning point in its political history. The direction US citizens choose to take when they vote on Election Day November 4th 2008 will affect the lives of every man, woman and child living on this planet. November 4th 2008 will be the most important day of this coming year.
There are many who may wish to disagree with me regarding the importance of America and the impact its future decisions will have on the rest of the world. Part of this is due to the fact that any hegemonic super-power is bound to stir up resentments among citizens and political leaders in the rest of the world who are jealous of the economic and military supremacy that hegemonic super-power possesses. But America has also disappointed and frustrated many of its own citizens as well as its allies and friends around the world through the injudicious exercise of its economic and military power over the past seven years and its failure to live up to its own moral and political ideals.
So for these and other reasons, I can fully understand why there are so many people around the world who truly believe the world would be much better off if America would just stay at home and mind its own business. Indeed, America’s stewardship in its role as the most powerful economic, military and political force in the world has been far from peaceful and far from perfect during this century. But if America’s many detractors are correct, then what other country or group of countries would you suggest represents a credible alternative to America’s hegemony?
Russia, a quasi-democratic country dominated by organized crime? China, an authoritarian capitalist state which has thus far been unable to cope with the rising income inequalities and environmental consequences of its drive for greater economic growth and power? India, a democracy with simmering violent religious conflicts in Kashmir and other regions, which has likewise been unable to cope with the environmental consequences of its unfettered economic growth? The EU, whose members are constantly squabbling among themselves and are loath to committing their military forces to intervene in conflicts even when they know genocide is being perpetrated? The United Nations, which has been unable to stop genocide in Darfur and other areas of Africa or conflicts in other parts of the world?
What other nation or group of nations would be willing to make the financial and military manpower commitments necessary to maintain a global presence and keep a lid on simmering tensions between long time rivals in Asia and Europe like South Korea, Japan and North Korea, India and Pakistan or Greece and Turkey? Maybe it’s just me or maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t see any other credible alternatives to America in its role as the world’s only remaining super-power. Unfortunately, I’m afraid America’s detractors around the world would only appreciate America’s worth as a stabilizing influence if they actually had to live in a world without it for a time.
Thus I believe the world’s best hope is that America’s voters will choose to elect a President who remains committed to engagement with other nations around the globe on economic, environmental, health, human rights, peace and security concerns and who envisions America taking a leadership role in resolving problems related to these issues. America’s next President will have to work hard to shift the mindset of American citizens away from the current President’s rigid view of the world and foreign policy perspectives which are driven by and based on fear. America’s friends and allies will also have to be patient and stay focused on the big picture while the next President attempts to shift America’s foreign and domestic policies or initiatives in a totally different direction from the current President’s course.
While it pains me to say this, I believe Barack Obama is the only person capable of shifting America and its course of action away from current US policies rooted in the culture of “fear” that President Bush and Congressional Republicans have been cultivating for seven years. Unfortunately only one Republican candidate has called for a shift away from the unilateral, militaristic strategies of the President towards multi-lateral interaction with nations including ones the President calls his “enemies”.
Next week I will discuss why I believe that out of all the presidential candidates, only Barack Obama has the leadership skills and vision America will need to deal with its current and future problems.
January 10th 2008 in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
January 3rd was a very important day. January 3rd was Election Day in America. It was the day that voters in the centre of the country, in the State of Iowa, caucused in churches, schools and public auditoriums to cast ballots in favour of the Republican or Democratic candidates who they believed should be the next President of the United States of America. It marked the beginning of the end of the Presidential nomination and election process which culminates ten months from now on November 4th 2008, when one of these candidates will be chosen to lead the United States (US) for at least the next four and possibly eight years. January 3rd was a very important day.
November 4th 2008 will be the most important day of this coming year. In America and the rest of the world, November 4th 2008 will also be the most important day of this decade and quite possibly the 21st century. I say this with all due respect for those who perished in the US and other parts of the world in spasms of pseudo-religious political violence in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington D.C. on September 11th, 2001, in Bali Indonesia on October 12th 2002, in Madrid Spain on March 11th, 2004 and in London England on July 7th 2005. November 4th 2008 will be the most important day of this year, this decade and yes, maybe even this century, because America stands at an extremely critical turning point in its political history. The direction US citizens choose to take when they vote on Election Day November 4th 2008 will affect the lives of every man, woman and child living on this planet. November 4th 2008 will be the most important day of this coming year.
There are many who may wish to disagree with me regarding the importance of America and the impact its future decisions will have on the rest of the world. Part of this is due to the fact that any hegemonic super-power is bound to stir up resentments among citizens and political leaders in the rest of the world who are jealous of the economic and military supremacy that hegemonic super-power possesses. But America has also disappointed and frustrated many of its own citizens as well as its allies and friends around the world through the injudicious exercise of its economic and military power over the past seven years and its failure to live up to its own moral and political ideals.
So for these and other reasons, I can fully understand why there are so many people around the world who truly believe the world would be much better off if America would just stay at home and mind its own business. Indeed, America’s stewardship in its role as the most powerful economic, military and political force in the world has been far from peaceful and far from perfect during this century. But if America’s many detractors are correct, then what other country or group of countries would you suggest represents a credible alternative to America’s hegemony?
Russia, a quasi-democratic country dominated by organized crime? China, an authoritarian capitalist state which has thus far been unable to cope with the rising income inequalities and environmental consequences of its drive for greater economic growth and power? India, a democracy with simmering violent religious conflicts in Kashmir and other regions, which has likewise been unable to cope with the environmental consequences of its unfettered economic growth? The EU, whose members are constantly squabbling among themselves and are loath to committing their military forces to intervene in conflicts even when they know genocide is being perpetrated? The United Nations, which has been unable to stop genocide in Darfur and other areas of Africa or conflicts in other parts of the world?
What other nation or group of nations would be willing to make the financial and military manpower commitments necessary to maintain a global presence and keep a lid on simmering tensions between long time rivals in Asia and Europe like South Korea, Japan and North Korea, India and Pakistan or Greece and Turkey? Maybe it’s just me or maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t see any other credible alternatives to America in its role as the world’s only remaining super-power. Unfortunately, I’m afraid America’s detractors around the world would only appreciate America’s worth as a stabilizing influence if they actually had to live in a world without it for a time.
Thus I believe the world’s best hope is that America’s voters will choose to elect a President who remains committed to engagement with other nations around the globe on economic, environmental, health, human rights, peace and security concerns and who envisions America taking a leadership role in resolving problems related to these issues. America’s next President will have to work hard to shift the mindset of American citizens away from the current President’s rigid view of the world and foreign policy perspectives which are driven by and based on fear. America’s friends and allies will also have to be patient and stay focused on the big picture while the next President attempts to shift America’s foreign and domestic policies or initiatives in a totally different direction from the current President’s course.
While it pains me to say this, I believe Barack Obama is the only person capable of shifting America and its course of action away from current US policies rooted in the culture of “fear” that President Bush and Congressional Republicans have been cultivating for seven years. Unfortunately only one Republican candidate has called for a shift away from the unilateral, militaristic strategies of the President towards multi-lateral interaction with nations including ones the President calls his “enemies”.
Next week I will discuss why I believe that out of all the presidential candidates, only Barack Obama has the leadership skills and vision America will need to deal with its current and future problems.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Who impressed you most in 2007?
WHEN ASKED WHO IMPRESSED YOU MOST IN 2007?
Published on December 27, 2007 in Metro Eireann
The World at Home section’s featured columnist CHARLES LAFFITEAU responded:
“Barack Obama, because I truly believe he is the one person who can unify America and end its decades-long civil war over culture, gender, race and religious differences at a time when the world needs America’s leadership most. On America’s role in the world Obama says that: “We can and should lead the world, but we have to apply wisdom and judgement.”
Published on December 27, 2007 in Metro Eireann
The World at Home section’s featured columnist CHARLES LAFFITEAU responded:
“Barack Obama, because I truly believe he is the one person who can unify America and end its decades-long civil war over culture, gender, race and religious differences at a time when the world needs America’s leadership most. On America’s role in the world Obama says that: “We can and should lead the world, but we have to apply wisdom and judgement.”
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Only 2 more weeks till the Iowa caucuses
Republican Politics, American Style
Published on December 20th 2007 in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
With just two weeks to go until the Iowa caucuses and the beginning of the last leg of the US Presidential nomination process, I will now attempt to provide the indepth and unbiased analysis of the average US citizen’s views on various different social issues and the current political standing of the Presidential candidates of both the Repunlican and Democratic parties that I promised you in my last column.
I should note that the key US Presidential primary dates have all been moved forward in the past six months as different states jockey for a position of national influence regarding the eventual Presidential nominees by being among the first to allow their voters to cast ballots for them. In so doing, some of these states also risk losing half or all of the number of convention delegates allotted by the Republican and Democratic Parties to them. These states are betting that the national parties will not follow through with these threats, but if they are wrong in this assessment then they will have a reduced or no role at the national nominating conventions.
The candidates who win these primaries will then be left with nothing more than some newspaper headlines to show for their victories, since half or all of these state’s actual delegate votes won’t be counted as part of the political parties’ Presidential nomination process. Personally, I hope both parties follow through on their threats because such actions by individual states to draw more attention to themselves throws the entire nominating process into chaos.
As things currently stand though, it appears that Iowa will once again kick off the race for national convention delegates with the first in the nation state party caucuses on Thursday January 3rd, 2008. The Iowa caucuses will then be followed by the New Hampshire state primary five days later on Tuesday January 8th 2008. Both of these dates are the earliest ever for Presidential nomination voting.
The Michigan primary has been moved up to Tuesday, January 15th along with the Florida primary two weeks later on January 29th but all of the Democratic candidates have refused to campaign in either state and none of their Republican counterparts have made any moves in that direction either. The Republican Party has slashed the number of delegate votes from all of these states in half for holding their primaries before February 5th and the Democratic Party has said it will bar delegates from these states from voting at their national convention. Well, so much for these states trying to trying to influence the national Presidential nominating process.
The biggest Presidential primary voting date will once again be on February 3rd 2008, the so called “Super Tuesday” national primary for both parties, when voters in twenty one states will go to the polls to elect almost half of the nation’s presidential nominating delegates. Super Tuesday separates the Presidential contenders from the pretenders and the leading vote getter coming out of this group of primaries will be the odds on favourite to capture their respective party’s nomination for US President.
Even though the number of delegate votes at stake in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries is very small, many past Presidential party nominations have been decided based on surprising or disappointing showings in these early voting states. It is for that reason all of the Democratic and Republican nominees have been spending the vast majority of their time and television advertising dollars on their respective Presidential political campaigns in these states.
In 2004 John Kerry emerged as the surprise winner of the Iowa caucuses, while frontrunner Howard Dean ran a disappointing third, leading to Dean’s demise and Kerry’s eventual triumph as the Democratic Presidential nominee. In 1992 Massachusetts’ US Senator Paul Tsongas defeated little known Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton 33.2% to 24.8%, but Clinton’s strong showing surprised most political observers and thus gave him the momentum he needed to win the Democratic Party’s Presidential nomination. So where do the current Presidential candidates stand in these two early presidential voting states?
Well, in Iowa the frontrunner among Iowa voters for the past year, Republican Mitt Romney, is now in a virtual dead heat with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, despite a huge advantage in terms of campaign resources, staff, TV advertising as well as time and money spent in the state over the past year. Huckabee has surged past better known and financed Republican rivals such as Rudy Giuliani, “Law and Order” TV star Fred Thompson and Senator John McCain and is now poised for an upset win in the Republican caucuses.
Huckabee is a very likable candidate who has handled himself well in debates with his better known rivals and enjoys the support of a majority of socially conservative Republican voters. A win in Iowa or a strong second place showing there may give Huckabee just the momentum he needs to duplicate what another former Arkansas Governor did in New Hampshire sixteen years ago, which eventually led to Bill Clinton capturing the Democratic Party’s 1992 Presidential nomination.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton has also lost her front running position in Iowa and is now in a statistical tie with her two main Democratic rivals, Barack Obama and Senator John Edwards less than two weeks before this contest is decided. The news isn’t any better for Romney and Clinton in New Hampshire where both have seen double digit percentage point leads over second place rivals, John McCain and Barack Obama, evaporate. Both Clinton and Giuliani (because of Huckabee) have also witnessed additional erosion of their leads in national polls.
Nationally, Romney is fighting the perception that he isn’t as trustworthy as other candidates like Huckabee, because of his flip-flops on social issues like abortion and gay marriage. Clinton is likewise grappling with the public’s perception that she says what voters want to hear, not what she believes. So from my perspective, a loss or close win in these early contests could sink their Presidential campaigns.
Published on December 20th 2007 in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
With just two weeks to go until the Iowa caucuses and the beginning of the last leg of the US Presidential nomination process, I will now attempt to provide the indepth and unbiased analysis of the average US citizen’s views on various different social issues and the current political standing of the Presidential candidates of both the Repunlican and Democratic parties that I promised you in my last column.
I should note that the key US Presidential primary dates have all been moved forward in the past six months as different states jockey for a position of national influence regarding the eventual Presidential nominees by being among the first to allow their voters to cast ballots for them. In so doing, some of these states also risk losing half or all of the number of convention delegates allotted by the Republican and Democratic Parties to them. These states are betting that the national parties will not follow through with these threats, but if they are wrong in this assessment then they will have a reduced or no role at the national nominating conventions.
The candidates who win these primaries will then be left with nothing more than some newspaper headlines to show for their victories, since half or all of these state’s actual delegate votes won’t be counted as part of the political parties’ Presidential nomination process. Personally, I hope both parties follow through on their threats because such actions by individual states to draw more attention to themselves throws the entire nominating process into chaos.
As things currently stand though, it appears that Iowa will once again kick off the race for national convention delegates with the first in the nation state party caucuses on Thursday January 3rd, 2008. The Iowa caucuses will then be followed by the New Hampshire state primary five days later on Tuesday January 8th 2008. Both of these dates are the earliest ever for Presidential nomination voting.
The Michigan primary has been moved up to Tuesday, January 15th along with the Florida primary two weeks later on January 29th but all of the Democratic candidates have refused to campaign in either state and none of their Republican counterparts have made any moves in that direction either. The Republican Party has slashed the number of delegate votes from all of these states in half for holding their primaries before February 5th and the Democratic Party has said it will bar delegates from these states from voting at their national convention. Well, so much for these states trying to trying to influence the national Presidential nominating process.
The biggest Presidential primary voting date will once again be on February 3rd 2008, the so called “Super Tuesday” national primary for both parties, when voters in twenty one states will go to the polls to elect almost half of the nation’s presidential nominating delegates. Super Tuesday separates the Presidential contenders from the pretenders and the leading vote getter coming out of this group of primaries will be the odds on favourite to capture their respective party’s nomination for US President.
Even though the number of delegate votes at stake in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries is very small, many past Presidential party nominations have been decided based on surprising or disappointing showings in these early voting states. It is for that reason all of the Democratic and Republican nominees have been spending the vast majority of their time and television advertising dollars on their respective Presidential political campaigns in these states.
In 2004 John Kerry emerged as the surprise winner of the Iowa caucuses, while frontrunner Howard Dean ran a disappointing third, leading to Dean’s demise and Kerry’s eventual triumph as the Democratic Presidential nominee. In 1992 Massachusetts’ US Senator Paul Tsongas defeated little known Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton 33.2% to 24.8%, but Clinton’s strong showing surprised most political observers and thus gave him the momentum he needed to win the Democratic Party’s Presidential nomination. So where do the current Presidential candidates stand in these two early presidential voting states?
Well, in Iowa the frontrunner among Iowa voters for the past year, Republican Mitt Romney, is now in a virtual dead heat with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, despite a huge advantage in terms of campaign resources, staff, TV advertising as well as time and money spent in the state over the past year. Huckabee has surged past better known and financed Republican rivals such as Rudy Giuliani, “Law and Order” TV star Fred Thompson and Senator John McCain and is now poised for an upset win in the Republican caucuses.
Huckabee is a very likable candidate who has handled himself well in debates with his better known rivals and enjoys the support of a majority of socially conservative Republican voters. A win in Iowa or a strong second place showing there may give Huckabee just the momentum he needs to duplicate what another former Arkansas Governor did in New Hampshire sixteen years ago, which eventually led to Bill Clinton capturing the Democratic Party’s 1992 Presidential nomination.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton has also lost her front running position in Iowa and is now in a statistical tie with her two main Democratic rivals, Barack Obama and Senator John Edwards less than two weeks before this contest is decided. The news isn’t any better for Romney and Clinton in New Hampshire where both have seen double digit percentage point leads over second place rivals, John McCain and Barack Obama, evaporate. Both Clinton and Giuliani (because of Huckabee) have also witnessed additional erosion of their leads in national polls.
Nationally, Romney is fighting the perception that he isn’t as trustworthy as other candidates like Huckabee, because of his flip-flops on social issues like abortion and gay marriage. Clinton is likewise grappling with the public’s perception that she says what voters want to hear, not what she believes. So from my perspective, a loss or close win in these early contests could sink their Presidential campaigns.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
