I know, the title will probably shock you. Though I was quite young to have a political opinion in 2000, I would probably have been as conservative if not more so than my parents. Bush v. Gore wasn't really a question to me. Here's why.
In 2000, even in my adolescent mind, the GOP and particularly George Bush stood as a party that was willing to stake its political agenda along the lines of morality. This stood in stark contrast to the circus of scandals that paraded through the Clinton administration. In addition, George Bush advocated tax cuts louder than Gore did. Therefore, in my head, Bush was better than Gore because he was farther from Clinton than Gore was.
By 2004 my political mind was developing a little more. Bush wasn't my sure fire choice even though I still would have called myself a Republican at this point. I, like many in the country, had rallied passionately behind the flag in the aftermath of 9/11 and the outset of the War in Afghanistan. However, I was skeptical of our involvement in Iraq, and I was disgusted by the way the issue of gay marriage had been used to agitate the evangelical base and scatter the Democratic coalition. However, Kerry had always seemed like he was taking potshots at the incumbent Bush, which left him seeming whiny. In addition, Bush's tactics against terrorism seemed to be working at this point, and I figured that if we were in Iraq it must be because the government knew things that they would share as soon as the threat had been removed. By the slimmest of margins in my own head, I was slightly relieved when Bush was re-elected.
However, by late 2005, I had all but had it with the Republicans. It seemed to me that something must have been amiss for Bush to fire such an American hero like Colin Powell when things still seemed to be going well. Soon, scandals involving Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and Mark Foley eroded my faith in the "moral" nature of the Republican Party. In addition, the Iraq War started to plunge downhill and the War and Afghanistan was all but abandoned. We couldn't find Osama, we couldn't bring the troops home, and the budget deficit was ballooning out of control. In addition, our president who once just seemed like a poor speaker took it to the next level with verbal gaffes and minor international incidents (PASS on the shoulder rubs W!). When I turned 18, I went and joined the Libertarian Party instead
Needless to say, I was delighted to see the Democrats surge through the House and split the Senate in 2006. I clapped when Nancy Pelosi was named Speaker. I cheered when the Democratic Party started to gain footing for the 2008 presidential election. I grudgingly began to like Howard Dean. I mean, can't a guy get away with a good-natured BYAHHH every once in a while?
Now that it seems like Obama could very well move into the West Wing on January 20, 2009, I am tentatively excited to see what the Democrats will be able to do with a majority of government like the Republicans did from 2000-2006. I hope they don't make as big a mess at least.
However, I have mixed feelings. I hope that Obama can institute a health insurance program that can find a way to provide quality coverage to all Americans. However, if the budget deficit doesn't start to shrink soon, I'm going to throw a temper tantrum somewhere public. I hope Obama can pull our troops out of Iraq. But if doing so endangers Israel and gives Iran a shot at improving its stature in the Middle East, I'm going to be peeved. I hope that we start to find a way to work undocumented workers into the American system and provide gay and lesbian couples an opportunity to marriage or civil partnership. However, if we don't pack away the intrusive portions of the Patriot Act in a hurry... well... I won't be able to do anything because my phone is already tapped and my e-mail is already being read. Oh well... no more threats from me!
Great... thanks a lot Patriot Act! Now I'm scared into censorship...
Respectfully,
The Conscientious Observer
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
What is Middle Class?
I was perusing a blog called "Shenanigans" by Anne Schroeder Mullins on the Politico website today and watched a video she had posted that displayed Rep. Allyson Schwartz as including individuals and families earning $250,000 a year and up in the middle class. When the commentator threw out the number $400,000 a year, looking for a cap to what Rep. Schwartz was going to agree to, her Republican colleague, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, interjected, pointing out that $400,000 a year and up was getting into the top 1% of Americans, folks who are obviously not middle class anymore.
But what exactly defines the middle class? And who can claim to be a part of the middle class?
The greatest problem with defining a middle class is that yearly household income, which is almost always used, is a pretty poor way to differentiate standard of living. What is middle class in Upper Manhattan will dwarf the middle class in rural Nebraska. In addition, a family of ten with the same income as a family of two will have considerably less economic security and influence.
There are some consistent characteristics of the middle class. They are generally college educated. They usually hold some sort of professional or managerial positions. They generally have some level of economic security and most don't live paycheck to paycheck. Most are homeowners, and a good number live outside of major cities. In general, they make enough money to be comfortable, but not enough to be overly influential. Members of the middle-class also experience a greater deal of economic mobility than those in the lower classes.
However, there is some definition that should place the middle class somewhere... say... in the middle. I think we can agree that Rep. Schwartz is a little beyond the scope of reality including such wealthy individuals and families into the middle class.
Not all of America is average America...
But what exactly defines the middle class? And who can claim to be a part of the middle class?
The greatest problem with defining a middle class is that yearly household income, which is almost always used, is a pretty poor way to differentiate standard of living. What is middle class in Upper Manhattan will dwarf the middle class in rural Nebraska. In addition, a family of ten with the same income as a family of two will have considerably less economic security and influence.
There are some consistent characteristics of the middle class. They are generally college educated. They usually hold some sort of professional or managerial positions. They generally have some level of economic security and most don't live paycheck to paycheck. Most are homeowners, and a good number live outside of major cities. In general, they make enough money to be comfortable, but not enough to be overly influential. Members of the middle-class also experience a greater deal of economic mobility than those in the lower classes.
However, there is some definition that should place the middle class somewhere... say... in the middle. I think we can agree that Rep. Schwartz is a little beyond the scope of reality including such wealthy individuals and families into the middle class.
Not all of America is average America...
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The Libertarian Effect
In America, no one recognizes third parties has having a legitimate chance to catapult their candidates into the White House. However, it is impossible to forget the effect that the third parties in America can have on the electorate.
For example, many credit Ralph Nader with defeating Al Gore in 2000. There is certainly merit to the argument that Ross Perot gave Clinton the office in 1992. Theodore Roosevelt wrecked the Republican Party in 1912, giving Woodrow Wilson a spin at the helm.
This year should be another year of third-party fun.
The Libertarian party, once a backwards-looking group of New England and Western conservatives, has got some serious momentum this year. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas gave the movement a jolt with his surprisingly successful campaign that garnered national attention for Libertarian issues.
The Libertarians have the right position on several issues right now. Firstly, they are anti-war. Many Americans are tired of the war in Iraq, and the Libertarian belief that we should stop meddling in foreign affairs is soothing, if unrealistic.
Secondly, the Libertarians are firm believers in a smaller, more accountable government. Americans are aware of the huge pile of debt that has accumulated on the head of the American government. Roosevelt, Johnson, Reagan, and Bush all have distorted Keynesian economics to justify consistent deficit spending. However, Americans are aware of the dangers of borrowing against our country, especially to the tune of $31,100 per capita (as of April 2008). Fiscal responsibility has traditionally been the hallmark of Republican and Democratic campaigns; unfortunately, it has not been so for their governments.
In addition, Libertarians are firmly opposed to the snooping allowed by the Patriot Act. Our society is growing increasingly concerned about the intrusions by the federal government into our personal lives that have been justified by the need to secure our defenses against terror. Our present situation draws to mind a quote from Benjamin Franklin, "He who sacrifices liberty to gain security will lose both and deserves neither."
However, we will have to see how effective former Rep. Bob Barr is in conveying that message. He would do well to piggyback on Ron Paul's libertarian campaign machinery which combines the powers of a motivated pool of young voters with older, experienced activists of principle.
Bob Barr could be a force that the GOP needs to reckon with. Many conservatives are either upset with Bush's economics or suspicious of John McCain's maverick reputation. This could be a Barr's gain and McCain's boon, especially in the big western square states and Barr's home state of Georgia, a state that is crucial to McCain's re-election. In addition, if Barr's campaign gains any real momentum, a state like New Hampshire, which would probably favor McCain, would be harder for to GOP to win.
The Libertarian platform is right to twist the playing field for the 2008 election. If Bob Barr is the right candidate, and he runs the right campaign, it could spell real trouble for the GOP and make some predictable and some not so predictable changes to the 2008 election scene.
For example, many credit Ralph Nader with defeating Al Gore in 2000. There is certainly merit to the argument that Ross Perot gave Clinton the office in 1992. Theodore Roosevelt wrecked the Republican Party in 1912, giving Woodrow Wilson a spin at the helm.
This year should be another year of third-party fun.
The Libertarian party, once a backwards-looking group of New England and Western conservatives, has got some serious momentum this year. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas gave the movement a jolt with his surprisingly successful campaign that garnered national attention for Libertarian issues.
The Libertarians have the right position on several issues right now. Firstly, they are anti-war. Many Americans are tired of the war in Iraq, and the Libertarian belief that we should stop meddling in foreign affairs is soothing, if unrealistic.
Secondly, the Libertarians are firm believers in a smaller, more accountable government. Americans are aware of the huge pile of debt that has accumulated on the head of the American government. Roosevelt, Johnson, Reagan, and Bush all have distorted Keynesian economics to justify consistent deficit spending. However, Americans are aware of the dangers of borrowing against our country, especially to the tune of $31,100 per capita (as of April 2008). Fiscal responsibility has traditionally been the hallmark of Republican and Democratic campaigns; unfortunately, it has not been so for their governments.
In addition, Libertarians are firmly opposed to the snooping allowed by the Patriot Act. Our society is growing increasingly concerned about the intrusions by the federal government into our personal lives that have been justified by the need to secure our defenses against terror. Our present situation draws to mind a quote from Benjamin Franklin, "He who sacrifices liberty to gain security will lose both and deserves neither."
However, we will have to see how effective former Rep. Bob Barr is in conveying that message. He would do well to piggyback on Ron Paul's libertarian campaign machinery which combines the powers of a motivated pool of young voters with older, experienced activists of principle.
Bob Barr could be a force that the GOP needs to reckon with. Many conservatives are either upset with Bush's economics or suspicious of John McCain's maverick reputation. This could be a Barr's gain and McCain's boon, especially in the big western square states and Barr's home state of Georgia, a state that is crucial to McCain's re-election. In addition, if Barr's campaign gains any real momentum, a state like New Hampshire, which would probably favor McCain, would be harder for to GOP to win.
The Libertarian platform is right to twist the playing field for the 2008 election. If Bob Barr is the right candidate, and he runs the right campaign, it could spell real trouble for the GOP and make some predictable and some not so predictable changes to the 2008 election scene.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
A Whole New Dynamic
Whew... aren't you glad it's over?
In an election year, that's normally our nation's sigh of relief right around the second week of November. After the long haul of the presidential race, most Americans return their attention to issues that deserve it more, like football, celebrity news, and American Idol.
This time around, we're saying it in June. This time around is a lot different.
On June 3rd, Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination by securing enough delegates in the Montana and South Dakota primaries to score a clear majority, ending Hillary Clinton's equally historic bid for the White House in the process. In addition, John McCain, who has been the presumptive GOP nominee for months, released figures for May indicating he had $31.5 million on hand to battle Barack Obama through the summer and into the fall.
Finally, the process of picking our candidates has come to a conclusion. Now it's time to pick between them! Once America recovers its collective breath, that is. This year has tested the average American stomach for politics, and I would have to say that we have responded admirably.
Already the political analysts and pundits have begun hedging bets on who will win what state, and plugging those estimates into a national view. Who will win the magical 270? Most of the analysts agree that the election maps of 2000 and 2004 will repeat themselves again, though there are a fresh crop of swing states.
I don't agree.
This year's election season provides two candidates that pack so much more punch than Bush, Gore, or Kerry combined. Obama's rock start speeches and McCain's one-liners and feisty temper have excited the nation far and away more than Kerry's stuffy New England aura, Gore's awkward speech attempts, and Bush's folksy Texan manner.
In addition, each candidate has the ability to draw different constituencies. Obama can draw blacks, intellectuals, and liberals in record numbers without eroding the Democratic base. McCain can whittle away at the middle of the American political spectrum and entice older voters and blue-collar workers, albeit at the expense of some of the evangelical and socially conservative right.
These major differences have set the stage for some dramatic shifts in the way the electoral map has looked so far in the 21st century.
Who's Blue?: New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Illinois, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, Washington D.C., Hawaii, Massachusetts, Vermont.
Who's Red?: Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, West Virginia, New Hampshire.
Here's where the map shouldn't change much. New York and California are Democratic strongholds, as is New England. Look for the West Coast to develop into stronger Democratic areas as each state becomes more affluent and educated. In addition, Obama is from Illinois and should win there convincingly. McCain will draw from traditional Republican strongholds in the West and the South, and will pick up a large part of Appalachia without having to campaign there too much.
Who's Probably Blue?: Iowa, Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey.
Who's Probably Red?: Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Idaho, Montana.
A lot of states are leaning red at this point, but it will take a lot of work to lock them up. Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan are the big ones on here, and all are battlegrounds that are leaning right because of McCain's ability to draw older voters and blue-collar workers. However, most of these states are still battlegrounds for McCain, even if the fight isn't uphill. Expect Obama to proclaim his campaign's birthright in Iowa, and draw the large intellectual and black populations of Virginia.
Tipping Point: Alaska, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Maine.
Most of these states have traditionally voted Republican, but I think most of them will tilt towards the Democrats. Alaska, Maine, and Colorado will experience a great deal of Obama's grassroots campaigning. New Mexico is a battleground, but popular governor Bill Richardson could bring things blue, just like Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius could for Kansas (especially if one of them gets the VP nod). Arkansas could go blue if the Clinton's decide they want it to, and North Carolina has such a large black population that it's hard to tell where it will land.
In my summation, this is currently John McCain's election to win, about 276-262. However, that is a really close pick, and I think Obama has a better chance at winning as the underdog. Essentially, I think it's McCain's election to lose, and I think he will.
In an election year, that's normally our nation's sigh of relief right around the second week of November. After the long haul of the presidential race, most Americans return their attention to issues that deserve it more, like football, celebrity news, and American Idol.
This time around, we're saying it in June. This time around is a lot different.
On June 3rd, Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination by securing enough delegates in the Montana and South Dakota primaries to score a clear majority, ending Hillary Clinton's equally historic bid for the White House in the process. In addition, John McCain, who has been the presumptive GOP nominee for months, released figures for May indicating he had $31.5 million on hand to battle Barack Obama through the summer and into the fall.
Finally, the process of picking our candidates has come to a conclusion. Now it's time to pick between them! Once America recovers its collective breath, that is. This year has tested the average American stomach for politics, and I would have to say that we have responded admirably.
Already the political analysts and pundits have begun hedging bets on who will win what state, and plugging those estimates into a national view. Who will win the magical 270? Most of the analysts agree that the election maps of 2000 and 2004 will repeat themselves again, though there are a fresh crop of swing states.
I don't agree.
This year's election season provides two candidates that pack so much more punch than Bush, Gore, or Kerry combined. Obama's rock start speeches and McCain's one-liners and feisty temper have excited the nation far and away more than Kerry's stuffy New England aura, Gore's awkward speech attempts, and Bush's folksy Texan manner.
In addition, each candidate has the ability to draw different constituencies. Obama can draw blacks, intellectuals, and liberals in record numbers without eroding the Democratic base. McCain can whittle away at the middle of the American political spectrum and entice older voters and blue-collar workers, albeit at the expense of some of the evangelical and socially conservative right.
These major differences have set the stage for some dramatic shifts in the way the electoral map has looked so far in the 21st century.
Who's Blue?: New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Illinois, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, Washington D.C., Hawaii, Massachusetts, Vermont.
Who's Red?: Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, West Virginia, New Hampshire.
Here's where the map shouldn't change much. New York and California are Democratic strongholds, as is New England. Look for the West Coast to develop into stronger Democratic areas as each state becomes more affluent and educated. In addition, Obama is from Illinois and should win there convincingly. McCain will draw from traditional Republican strongholds in the West and the South, and will pick up a large part of Appalachia without having to campaign there too much.
Who's Probably Blue?: Iowa, Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey.
Who's Probably Red?: Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Idaho, Montana.
A lot of states are leaning red at this point, but it will take a lot of work to lock them up. Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan are the big ones on here, and all are battlegrounds that are leaning right because of McCain's ability to draw older voters and blue-collar workers. However, most of these states are still battlegrounds for McCain, even if the fight isn't uphill. Expect Obama to proclaim his campaign's birthright in Iowa, and draw the large intellectual and black populations of Virginia.
Tipping Point: Alaska, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Maine.
Most of these states have traditionally voted Republican, but I think most of them will tilt towards the Democrats. Alaska, Maine, and Colorado will experience a great deal of Obama's grassroots campaigning. New Mexico is a battleground, but popular governor Bill Richardson could bring things blue, just like Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius could for Kansas (especially if one of them gets the VP nod). Arkansas could go blue if the Clinton's decide they want it to, and North Carolina has such a large black population that it's hard to tell where it will land.
In my summation, this is currently John McCain's election to win, about 276-262. However, that is a really close pick, and I think Obama has a better chance at winning as the underdog. Essentially, I think it's McCain's election to lose, and I think he will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)