21 January 2008

07 January 2008

A republican legacy: Justice Antonin Scalia

The supreme court is currently hearing a case over the three-drug cocktail used in lethal injections. This three drug cocktail is considered less humane than the barbiturate overdose used for animal euthanasia because it occasionally leaves inmates in excruciating pain.
Antonin Scalia, a Reagan appointee, doesn't seem to care.
"This is an execution, not surgery," Scalia said, adding, "Where does this come from, that . . . in the execution of a person who has been convicted of killing people we must choose the least painful method possible? Is that somewhere in our Constitution?"
(The quote is from here while the better overview is here. I hesitate to summarize the second article because I think you should read it. Basically, we euthanize our animals in a safer, more humane way than we euthanize our people and the prison systems don't want to admit it.)
Thank you Ronald Reagan.

03 January 2008

Iowa: The Dems...and the independent

From David Brooks via my dad, Hillary's loss in Iowa does not end her candidacy, it just ends the "inevitable nominee" part of her candidacy. I think its an interesting point and wonder if it could be a good for the party if the race turned into a truly three way match (which some would argue it has been all along).
Congratulations to Obama. Even though I've been talking up Edwards of late I do think Obama could be revolutionary, though I worry about his lack of experience. It appears he is doing a good job of bringing new people to politics: "57% of caucus-goers said it was their first time taking part, and first-time caucus-goers made up two-thirds of Obama's supporters." Thats revolutionary. Read the LA Times article here.

Does Huckabee + Obama = Bloomberg?
"Mr. Bloomberg himself has become more candid in conversations with friends and associates about his interest in running, according to participants in those talks. Despite public denials, the mayor has privately suggested scenarios in which he might be a viable candidate: for instance, if the opposing major party candidates are poles apart, like Mike Huckabee, a Republican, versus Barack Obama or John Edwards as the Democratic nominee"
"One concern among Mr. Bloomberg’s inner circle is whether a loss would label him a spoiler — “a rich Ralph Nader” — who cost a more viable candidate the presidency in a watershed political year. One person close to the mayor, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to be seen discussing internal strategy, stressed that Mr. Bloomberg would run only if he believed he could win."
Read the full NY Times article here or here.

Edwards

...but is he too liberal?
The problem is with the big corporations having so much power in Washington, not with big corporations making money. With respect to the whole "big corporation vs. the little guy" part of a progressive candidacy, I want the power taken away from big corporations, but I don't want the profit motive to be demonized. Big corporations are motivated by profit, no duh. As long as they earn their profit fairly (as opposed to receiving special favors from Washington), there is nothing wrong with that profit.

Google's Iowa Caucus map

Here
Not sure how it will work tonight, but I loved the YouTube debates and am glad to see Google doing things like this.

Rolling Stone interviews John Edwards

The interview is here and I'll try to give some highlights later.

And heres why I'm thinking more about Edwards

I'm finding arguments such as the one that follows more and more compelling:
The whole article is posted here at the Huffington Post and the best bits are copied below:

"It is not surprising that the mainstream media should try to prematurely shut Edwards out of the race, because he is the one leading Democrat who truly challenges the political dominance of corporate America....Hillary Clinton is intimately tied in to corporate America. She has received more campaign contributions from pharmaceutical makers, commercial banks, Wall Street investment houses, and the real estate sector than any other candidate, Democratic or Republican....Obama has raised almost as much money from Wall Street investment bankers as has Clinton. As New York magazine has reported, the difference between Hillary's Wall Street backers and Obama's Wall Street backers is largely generational with investment bankers in their fifties and sixties supporting Clinton and those in their forties supporting Obama....John Edwards responds that "some people argue that we're going to sit at the table with these people and they're going to voluntarily give their power away. I think it's a complete fantasy; it will never happen.'"

And the following bit about Edwards electability has been noted in a few other publications, including, if I remember correctly, The Rolling Stone interview with Edwards, which was the first article that made me start to think I should give Edwards more thought.

This bit is again from the Huffington Post:
"Moreover, John Edwards has the best chance of beating the Republican nominee in November and bringing with him large Democratic majorities in the House and particularly the Senate which will be necessary to bring fundamental change. While no single poll is decisive, when one looks at polls taken over the past nine months matching Edwards against the various potential Republican nominees, Edwards consistently wins by the highest margins of any Democrat and virtually never loses. Clinton often loses in match-ups against McCain and Giuliani (as does Obama, but somewhat less often), and when she wins, it is by smaller margins than Edwards. According to a recent CNN poll, "Edwards is the most electable Democrat. Against McCain, Edwards is slightly ahead in terms of electoral votes. Clinton is way behind."

Giving Edwards more thought

In October I posted for the first time about the election on another blog. You'll find that I wasn't really thinking about Edwards much, leaving him to the parenthetical. Lately, I've been thinking more about Edwards.
From me in October:
"Obama for vice president?
I've been thinking about Clinton and Obama and I've decided I want Obama for vice president. I see Obama this way: I gravitate toward him out of the feeling he could be truly revolutionary. In particular, I wonder about him using the bully pulpit to talk about race, to engage this country in a conversation about race in a way no resident has tried before. The closest parallel would be the conversations/propaganda used during WWII to discuss the war effort. I should also say that I feel like Obama could lead these conversations not so much because he is black, but more because of his ability to communicate, to engage and connect. The subject, race in the US, is chosen partly because he is black but mostly because it is an issue about which action must be taken and legislation can't do it. I worry about Obama because of his lack of experience.

In my view his strengths are his magnetism and potential to use the White House in a way never done before. His weaknesses are his naivete and the chance that Washington is a place where personality isn't enough to change the tone of things in the country. In other words, his strengths are his soft power, the power to set the agenda in Washington through conversation. With the right president, a vice president could lead these conversations almost as effectively as if the VP were him/herself president. And the president, Hillary Clinton, could wield her preparedness and experience in a way Obama could not.

[This leaves out Edwards who scores major points on health care, poverty issues, and for his wife's support of gay marriage. However Edwards was only Senator for one term and in places where he and Clinton are more different, I find Edwards too liberal (e.g. Edwards is more protectionist than Clinton). I should note that my view of Obama being the perfect vice president means that he is not in second place to Hillary's first. Should Hillary falter I think I would be more likely to support Edwards for president and leave Obama for VP. (Total side note: if the VP is perfect for using soft power doesn't that mean that they must have a positive message, for no one wants the bully pulpit to be used to spread a negative message....Dick Cheney?]"

31 December 2007

Another post on Andrew Sullivan's blog gets it right, here.
The best bits: "That said, we are not trying to punish anyone, and we are aware that Mrs. Clinton is profoundly, if irrationally, divisive. What's worse for many of us is that she is a bit of a centrist, especially on issues of foreign policy. Most of us really wish there were more there there to Mr. Obama . . . in that he doesn't seem to provide much leadership when it comes to his colleagues; he doesn't appear effective. He never votes or takes a stand when it counts, and how many initiatives has he taken. Say what you will about Mrs. Clinton, she does seem effective, and maybe that's what scares the bejesus out of all you right wing ideologues."
And more about Obama:
"what we want to see is real world leadership, hands on, and so far he's been second best at best to just about everyone else running."
And finally:
"The real key to understanding the difference between Republicans and Democrats is in their reactions to the previous two Presidents.... Bill Clinton ... played fast and loose with the truth, and his personal approach to life. Democrats hate what George Bush has done to the country. There's a real difference, and Republicans as well as so-called (conservative) independents, project their feelings about the Clintons on ours about George Bush." (Bolding added.)

Profound thought of the day

From conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan
Here
"If you can make the leap to seeing gay people as the equal of straight people, then encouraging their marriages to one another is arguably one of the most socially conservative measures now subject to national debate."(His emphasis.)

08 December 2007

To how many things does this sign apply?


George Bush, the republican party in general, reality TV and the Writers Guild strike...


(....and a side note as I begin this blog, notice that I said "the republican party in general" not "conservatives in general." There are many good conservatives and I'm not as far from their set of values as you might guess. I just don't think the republican party holds conservative values anymore.)

06 December 2007

Romney the barbarian

Giuliani gives a nicely nuanced answer about letting the children of illegal immigrants go to school and Romney reveals his inner barabarian (he doesn't think THE CHILDREN should be allowed to go to school, or that illegal immigrants should be allowed to report criminal activity). Giuliani got some heat for suggesting that Romney should have known a firm he hired employed illegal immigrants, but that was not Giuliani's point. His point was merely to make Romney, who was trying to appear holier than thou on the issue, realize its not that simple. (Admittedly Romney doesn't appear all that bad in this particular clip, but over the course of the debate Romney seemed to be competing for the bragging rights to the "I'll be the meanest president" competition.) And one republican points out that "immigrants are a boon, not a curse." 

Giuliani lies about prostate cancer survival rates in England.