Radical Avenue

At the 1996 Republican national convention, Bob Dole offered himself up as a bridge to the past. He invoked a simpler time when gas was cheap and we all liked Ike in the White House. Dole mistakenly believed that American voters would welcome a return to those good old days.

Democrat Bill Clinton mocked Dole’s maudlin rhetoric by announcing that he would build a bridge to the future in his second term. Americans chose the future over the past in 1996.

In 2007, Hillary has followed the Bob Dole playbook. She has mistakenly assumed that America wants a return to the Bill Clinton years. That casts Barack Obama as a bridge to the future.

Every four years, presidential candidates repeat the same old mistakes. They believe that they can chat up their extensive experience, pick up a few key endorsements and play it safe in pubic settings. The strategy never works. You don’t win the presidency by default. You win by capturing the voters’ imagination.
(more…)

Rudy and Hillary reek of old school politics. Rudy has taken the Republican surge of scare tactics to whole new level. He’s full of bluster and surrounds himself with cronies. Rudy has the neocon wing in the bag.

Meanwhile Hillary is running a Dick Gephardt style presidential campaign. She touts her experience. She plays it safe. Even-handed. Boring. And like Gephardt four years ago, Hillary has finally realized that she might not breeze through Iowa. And so in a blink she’s gone sharply negative on her major rival. Iowans have seen it all before.

Hillary has another problem in that it’s not clear how many of her supporters are drawn to her husband rather than to her. Does Hillary really excite people or do Democrats just want a repeat of Bill’s presidency without the sex scandals?

Ms. Clinton has exacerbated the problem by touting her “experience”. But this experience includes the time when Bill was running the show, not Hillary. No one elects a first lady. Hillary is building a bridge to the past. We saw how well that worked for Bob Dole.

Rudy’s problem is more straightforward. Americans quickly tire of living in fear. We are an optimistic, forward thinking people. By now we’ve seen that Saddam actually posed no threat to us. It turns out that Iran isn’t so scary either.
(more…)

It seems that every depressingly familiar story on the evening news these days reminds us of how badly we need new leadership in our country. Some kid from Middle America grabbed an automatic weapon and killed several innocent people before taking his own life. There is a video which may show federal employees mistreating prisoners, but the evidence has since been destroyed. We now know our president has vastly overstated the threat from a country in the Middle East. And the guys who actually attacked us on 9-11 continue to taunt us via poorly produced videotapes from a country we treat with kid gloves.

Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee both present a stark contrast to George W. Bush. They come across as easygoing and relaxed, like the smell of home cooking after a long day at work. America may be looking for someone with a good sense of humor. These candidates appeal to our optimistic point of view.

Some voters consciously tune out the nasty accusations that fly back and forth this time of year. They’re hoping that some candidate will inspire them to get behind a worthy cause. Hillary and Rudy are good at scaring people, not so good at inspiring people.
(more…)

Our country gives presidents too much freedom to govern according to their own agenda. We place more constraints on the chief executives of our states than we place on the chief executive of the country. Governors don’t just deal with state legislatures. They must also work within the framework of laws established through the referendum process.

Ballot initiatives give state voters a chance to directly intervene in everything from school funding to stem cell research. But we have no referendum at the federal level. And this affords the president and Congress tremendous leeway in establishing national priorities.

Lately Democrats and Republicans have taken to offering a vastly different set of plans for the country. When control of Congress switches, funding for various agencies changes dramatically. Some programs get dropped or lose their funding. There’s no continuity. Long term strategies have no chance in this environment.
(more…)

Incumbents rule the roost in this country. Every ten years, state legislatures get to map out their own Congressional districts. And these maps are carefully drawn to maintain the status quo. The people in charge want to stay in charge and this is how it’s done. The practice is also known as gerrymandering, but by any name it’s a lousy deal for voters.

In the 2004 election in California, not one seat in the state legislature changed hands. Every district represented by a Democrat before the election is still represented by a Democrat now, and every district with a Republican representative prior to 2004 still has a Republican representative today. True competition does not exist in California politics.

In other states, one party with a clear majority sometimes draws the electoral map so that they can pick up a few more seats. The goal is never to make races more competitive or voting districts more diverse. It’s all about winning and staying in power. And the voters always lose. Why vote when you already know the outcome of every race? Congressional districts should be drawn along county lines.
(more…)

Extreme partisanship makes governing difficult in the United States. Every issue becomes part of a zero sum game. One side doesn’t win unless the other side loses and lawmakers end up bragging about legislation that didn’t get passed.

The never ending election cycle is partly to blame for this excessive partisanship. Politicians believe that they must constantly raise money for their political campaigns, so they have increasingly less time to do what we pay them to do.

Twenty four hour cable news stations and modern media don’t help either. High drama brings in the ratings and in politics that means sharp contrasts and an argumentative tone. Who wants to watch people working toward a compromise? It’s boring. There’s a reason C-SPAN is not at the top of many viewing lists.

Another problem we have in our country is the dominance of two political parties. In virtually every legislative district in the country there will be only two viable candidates in the next election, a Democrat and a Republican.
(more…)

When Barack Obama talks about the politics of hope, he’s appealing to the basic optimism of the American people. Our country’s economy and worldwide political influence have been on the rise for over a century. American students attend some of the finest universities on the planet. We have long coastlines on two oceans, friendly neighbors, natural resources and unprecedented prosperity. In short we have much to be thankful for. That’s why we like positive, self confident presidential candidates.

After World War II the United States helped our former adversaries Germany and Japan recover. As a result, two nations that were once mortal enemies are now strong allies. So we have reasons to feel optimistic about our ability to positively influence other countries.

In the last three decades we’ve also seen an end to the Cold War. Now democracy has replaced totalitarianism as the established form of government in countries across Eastern Europe and all throughout Asia and the Americas. Given these hopeful signs, we need a forward thinking president who will build on our recent foreign policy accomplishments.
(more…)

Here is what Vice President Cheney told the Veterans of Foreign War on August 26, 2002.

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.

As we now know, Cheney was either dishonest or spectacularly wrong on that day. When we’re about to invade a foreign country, America can’t afford to make mistakes like that. Recently Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul shared a much more honest assessment of Iraq.

JUDY WOODRUFF: On Iraq, as you know, the president, all your fellow Republicans say the U.S. has got to stay there in one form or another to fight Islamic extremism. Why are they wrong about that?
REP. RON PAUL: Because our presence there makes extremism worse. We’re more vulnerable to terrorism because we’re over there occupying their country, and they resent it. We would resent it if China occupied our country. What if China came? They look different, they have a different religion, they’re going to impose their religious values and their political values on us. We’d be furious, and yet we’re over there, so we incite the radicals against us. After 9/11, we went into Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, we’ve occupied two countries now. They were already complaining that our support for countries like Saudi Arabia and our military presence in Saudi Arabia was one of the inciting reasons for them to come here. So we did exactly the opposite of what we were supposed to do. Now we’re in worse shape.
Our military is run down. We’ve spent a half a trillion dollars. We’ve lost all these men and women. We’ve had 40,000 serious casualties. And all we can do is dig in our heels and say, “Well, we can’t leave because there will be chaos.” We’ve created chaos. The longer we stay the more chaos and the more expenses we’re going to have.

Here are Mr. Paul’s thoughts on Iran and the CIA.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You’d do away with the CIA, I saw. Is that correct or not?
REP. RON PAUL: Well, not all of the functions, but essentially so. The CIA is what gets us into trouble. I mean, the CIA is what really started things in the Middle East, because the CIA went in and overthrew Mosaddeq in 1953. We put in the shah. The CIA murdered Diem, or participated in the overthrow of the government in Vietnam, which leads to trouble.
It’s a secret government. Congress has no idea what the CIA is doing, because nobody knows, other than what the CIA is. It is one of the things that is not characteristic of a free society.

It’s too bad we can’t elect three of the presidential candidates to share presidential duties for the next four year term. Mr. Paul has the right take on foreign policy. Our Constitution does not describe an empire. We declared our independence from the British Empire back in 1776. Is that too long ago for anyone to remember?

Here are some reasons why the United States should get out of the empire building business.
- We insinuate ourselves into the internal politics of foreign countries and it blows up in our face.
- Innocent people get killed.
- We end up taking sides in civil conflicts and compromising our principles as a result.
- Policing the world is expensive.
- It puts our military in untenable positions. Quagmires don’t end well.
- We have plenty of internal problems to deal with.
(more…)

No one listens to the leader of the free world anymore. Bush made a speech asking world leaders to join him in condemning the brutal repression of pro-democracy forces in Burma. No one did. It’s business as usual in Burma. In Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf has declared martial law over the objections of the Bush administration. Musharraf is supposed to be our ally, but he takes our money and goes his own way. Vladimir Putin ridiculed our Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense when they visited Russia about a month ago. George Bush has virtually no influence on the world stage.

Traditionally other nations follow the US out of either respect or fear. But countries neither fear us nor respect us these days. Our enemies see the US Army bogged down in Iraq with no help from our allies, stuck in the middle of a brutal civil war with no feasible plan for withdrawal. So they know that the most our military can do is drop bombs on other countries. And no one respects our President because he’s never shown any respect for the opinions of others, especially those with whom he disagrees.

The shortcomings of Bush’s cowboy diplomacy should be obvious to everyone by now. Bush’s attitude never changes. It’s always my way or the highway. When it comes to world affairs, most of our allies have chosen the highway. Now that we’ve traveled down the long road in Iraq, our soldiers could sure use some help. But no one is there for us. Even the British troops are pulling out.

(more…)

As usual, the Republicans have their talking points in order. All the usual suspects have been spreading the word that no attack on Iran is imminent. Well of course not. The timing is all wrong. The Bush administration won’t realize any political advantage from launching an invasion now. They’re holding their fire until after the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton for president. Then just prior to the Democratic convention, they’ll bomb Iran. That will put Hillary in a box. If she supports the bombing, it will hurt her with the base. If she condemns the attack, the Bushies will try to label her as weak on national defense. If she attempts to triangulate by saying Iran is a danger but the president should have sought permission beforehand, she’ll look indecisive. In this way the Bush crowd hopes to strike a mortal blow to their most hated enemies: the Democrats. So indeed, no attack on Iran is imminent. But it will be next summer.

There are several reasons to not bomb Iran. Here are a few:
1) Iran has never attacked the United States.
2) Iran poses no threat to the United States.
3) Iran has no nuclear weapon.
4) Iran has no long range missile with which to deliver a bomb to the United States.
Nevertheless, under the Bush doctrine of pre-emption, since Iran may one day pose a threat to the United States, the president has a right to order an attack as he sees fit.

Iran, Bush, bombing Iran, War, President Bush, Hillary Clinton

Since when does it require 60 votes to pass an amendment to a bill in the US Senate? The last time I checked, we live by majority rule in this country and in the Senate. There’s been a debate at Talking Points Memo about the value of requiring a filibuster when a minority of Senators threatens to use the tactic. Count me among those who’ve grown tired of watching Democrats cave in whenever Republicans tell them to.

Senator Jim Webb has offered a worthwhile amendment to the defense appropriations bill. Webb’s amendment would require combat soldiers to spend as much time at home as they did on their last overseas deployment. This protects our overburdened troops and is consistent with Congress’ Constitutional responsibilities as described in Article 1:

“The Congress shall have Power To provide for the common Defence, …To raise and support Armies
…To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
…To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
…To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States”

(more…)

Some would say that when George Bush says “Some would say”, he’s about to offer up another dishonest platitude.

Some would say that George Bush only talks about weapons of mass destruction when he’s joking.

Some would say that George Bush has no respect for the truth.

Some would say that when John Ashcroft has reservations about the president’s domestic spying program, you know it’s illegal.

Some would say that George Bush considers himself above the laws which he has sworn to uphold.

Some would say that George Bush has no respect for the Constitution.

Some would say that the American flags which George Bush loves to use as props all have one thing in common: Made in China tags.

Some would say that George Bush doesn’t care about the man who ordered the 9-11 attacks.

Some would say that George Bush has no respect for America.