Event Horizon

Vote!

 

Happy Election Day! I anticipated the long lines and voted early so now I’m just sitting back, eagerly awaiting the ballot counts. There is something truly majestic about the process of democracy. Perhaps it’s merely the mood of the day, but I do tend to get a stirring of patriotic sentiment as I watch the process unfold, the willingness of citizens to brave cold, wind, rain or snow and stand in lines for hours to cast their vote in this orderly nonviolent transition of awesome power. Like many of you, I've lived abroad and in a country where people did not have a say in choosing their leaders. That kind of experiences gives a special appreciation for the rights we have as U.S. citizens. If any of you reading this have not voted, you still have time to take part in this great drama, exercise your right, fulfill your duty, and make your voice heard. Vote!

The Vice Presidential Debate

My initial reaction to the vice presidential debate is that Biden and Palin both won. Neither made any major mistakes and they both hit the important talking points they needed to make to support their candidate and defend their party.

With Palin, I liked how she deflected questions on issues she didn't want to talk about by focusing on her strengths, that' s a real skill in debating. I like how she drilled, drilled, drilled her key themes, and I doubt anyone will walk away from the debate without thinking about McCain as a "maverick" and knowing that "reform" and "change is coming" to Washington. If you repeat keywords often enough, like a political mantra, it helps frame perceptions, even if it does become a bit annoying in a debate. I didn't like her folksy style, dog gone it, that doesn't belong in a national political debate. Maybe her style is real, maybe it's an affectation, either way I find it annoying, you betcha.

With Biden, I liked how he clearly defined policies and outlined plans, he left me with a sense that Obama knows exactly where he is going on issues. Biden owned the debate on the question about Iran, Pakistan and nuclear (not nucular) weapons. I was moved by his personal reference to his family and determination not to cede "kitchen table" issues to Republicans. I liked the way he countered McCain's maverick label with concrete examples of issues on which he has not been a maverick.I didn't like the way he referred to himself in the third person, and I often thought he was speaking more for himself than for Obama. Maybe that's unavoidable, after all, with so much experience, he is his own man, when I hear him talking I think of him as Senator Biden, and when I hear Palin speaking, I think of her as McCain's running mate.

I was hoping that one candidate or the other would decisively win this debate tonight, but from what I saw, it was a win for them both.

Debate Reaction

I watched the debate last night and thought it went pretty well. It appears that early opinion polls are leaning toward Obama as the winner (AP - 2 quick polls give Obama edge in debate):

A pair of one-night polls gave Barack Obama a clear edge over John McCain in their first presidential debate. Fifty-one percent said Obama, the Democrat, did a better job in Friday night's faceoff while 38 percent preferred the Republican McCain, according to a CNN-Opinion Research Corp. survey of adults. Obama was widely considered more intelligent, likable and in touch with peoples' problems, and by modest margins was seen as the stronger leader and more sincere. Most said it was McCain who spent more time attacking his opponent.

I feel like it was more of a tie or a draw. I thought Obama started out strong with quick and clear answers and ended weakly and McCain started off weakly with a rambling reference to his initial refusal to participate and an a reference to Senator Kennedy that was lost on the audience and then ended strong. They each hit their major talking points and each probably appeared to be the debate winner to their base of supporters. Neither candidate made a major mistake and each appeared competent and presidential. It's a win for both. As always with these kinds of things, I'm filled with patriotic pride about the American electoral process, about the way our candidates can debate issues and the voters can decide momentous issues and then we have the peaceful transition of power to the highest office in the land. I'm looking forward to the VP dabte: The Pro vs. the Neophyte.

McCain Will Debate After All

The first presidential debate of the season is back on. John McCain has decided that he will attend the debate at the University of Mississippi after all (Washington Post - McCain Says Yes to Debate in Miss.):

Sen. John McCain announced in a statement that he is resuming his campaign and will travel to Oxford, Miss., this afternoon to face Sen. Barack Obama at 9 p.m. EST. In the statement, the McCain campaign said that there had been "significant progress" this morning toward a deal on a financial sector bailout, including the return of House Republicans to negotiations.

The report goes on the note the text of the official McCain statement, which puts the best spin on this as possible. I think McCain really made a mistake with this whole "I can't campaign during a crisis" position. He is old enough to remember that FDR campaigned during the Great Depression and in the darkest days of WWII and that didn't seem to be a problem. The electoral process does not come to a halt just because there is a national crisis. I think McCain is guilty of political grandstanding and trying to use this financial crisis for political purposes. He really misplayed this.

Political Pastimes

I've been watching the Democratic National Convention and I think it's off to a great start. I tend to take all of this a bit seriously and I really get into the news coverage. I'll do the same thing for the Republicans next month. Are you a political spectator still unsure of who you should vote for? If so, check out the USA Today issues game, it lets you compare your views with those of Obama and McCain (Candidate Match Game II):

As you answer the questions, you can roll over each issue button to find background on their positions. Your answers are matched with the positions of the presidential hopefuls to reveal who is closest to your views. The sliders allow you to assign relative weights to match the importance that you place on each issue.

I like the visual representation of issues displayed as circles that float over to one candidate or the other depending on how you vote and how you weight the issues.

Paris Hits Back

Back when I was a Congressional intern I toyed with the idea of attending campaign school. Yes, they actually have intensive seminars where young politicos go to learn how to manage campaigns. I'm sure that the Paris Hilton video reply to John McCain's commercial slam against Obama will be required watching for generations to come. The object lesson: don't mock media personalities in your ads, they can and will hit you right back. And, wow, if she doesn't actually sound intelligent. Who knew?

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

FISA Politics

Longtime readers of this blog know that I've been following the politics behind the FISA issue for some time, so I was not surprised this week to learn that the House version of the "new and improved" Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act includes retroactive immunity for telecom companies and weak judicial oversight. Congress essentially told Bush, "hey, that law your breaking now, we'll just amend it so you can keep doing what your doing but it won't be illegal anymore." I have a visceral reaction to an Executive Branch that believes it is above the law and doesn't have to bother with the checks and balances that were put into place precisely to prevent the abuse of power. What did surprise me though, was learning that Barack Obama supports the amended law (Politico - Netroots jilted by Obama FISA stand):

Disappointed over his position on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the online activists feel jilted and betrayed and have taken to questioning his progressive credentials. One prominent blogger, Atrios, has even given him the moniker “Wanker of the Day.” “He broke faith,” said Matt Stoller, a political consultant and blogger at OpenLeft.com. “Obama pledged to filibuster, and he is part of that old politics, in this case, that he said he wasn’t. It will spur us to challenge him.”

It's interesting to me that this has become an issue for those on the left, when I see it as a particularly sensitive issue for those on the right as well. After all, changing our American system and getting away from the checks and balances that our Founder's wisely put into place between the branches of government is not a conservative idea, it's a radical idea. As things stand now, unless the Senate takes a stand, the Congress will have handed President Bush almost unlimited authority to spy on citizens. And it's not really Bush that bothers me, it's the precedent and the absolute certainty that eventually power will be abused in the absence of checks and balances. It's just human nature, and our system of government was designed to function in defiance of a human nature which tends to tyranny and not liberty.

Court Recognizes Right to Guns

The Supreme Court made an important ruling today on the Second Amendment, affirming that the U.S. Constitution does recognize a right to gun ownership in general, and for personal defense in particular. At issue in the case was whether this right was retained by the people or was associated only with membership in a militia (AP - High court affirms gun rights in historic decision):

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia, a once-vital, now-archaic grouping of citizens. That's been the heart of the gun control debate for decades. The answer: Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms exists and is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

I've been a proponent of gun rights for many years and for me it goes back to some early research I did for a school project that convinced me that reference to "a well regulated militia" in the Amendment actually supported the idea of the right belonging to the people. I participated in an (and won) an essay contest sponsored by the Daughters of the American Revolution. The essay was on life in early America and in researching it I found that guns were part of the fabric of colonial life and much more prevalent than they are now. Guns were needed for personal protection from both other humans (criminals and thugs) and from animals (it was an agrarian society, after all, and wild nature was much closer). So when a local militia was called up the men would serve just as they were, as most militias were ad hoc at the time (which means uniforms were not provided, nor were weapons), the men would bring their own guns with them, and this was not a burden, since most men had their own guns to begin with. So, if anything, militia service depended on the right of local men to have their own guns. The causal chain seemed clear to me in the phrasing of the amendment, namely, that because it's necessary for neighbors to sometimes band together for the defense of life, liberty and property, their right to arms is protected. It's only because we, from our modern standpoint, confuse the idea of a militia with an organization like the National Guard, that we started questioning this right. Hopefully, the Court's ruling today will put an end to that questioning.

Remembering Tim Russert

I watched the memorial service held today (MSNBC video) in memory of Tim Russert. The service was moving and I was impressed with the speakers and the memories they imparted. I was also impressed with the wisdom they shared, wisdom distilled from the life of Tim Russert. The passing of a great public figure helps us to grapple with the great questions of life and death. How does one live a well-lived life? What really counts in life? From those who shared their memories we learned that he had a great joy and passion for living and that he shared this with his family, his friends, and his co-workers. He had a genuine love of people, a sense of caring and compassion that was authentic, a rarity in politics and media, and something which others sensed in him, and it endeared him to them. He also had great professional and personal integrity and a sense of calling that allowed us to believe with him that politics could be noble. In a mean partisan season he raised the level of public debate by holding politicians accountable in a civil yet firm manner. I never met Tim Russert, but as a citizen I was a beneficiary of the gifts he so freely shared with the country he loved, and it's my hope that his colleagues will honor his memory by resolving to maintain and carry on his tradition of high journalistic standards. He would expect nothing less.

MSM and Impeachment

I was reminded of President Bush's former spokesman, Scott McClellan, today as I watched the NBC Nightly News broadcast and heard nothing about what I was sure would be one of the top news stories of the day:  Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the former Democratic presidential contender, said he would like to introduce 35 articles of impeachment against the President (C-SPAN video). You will recall that McClellan had criticized the American news media for failing to fulfill the role of an independent press in the run up to the Iraq War, which prompted some media personnel to say that they felt pressure from their media companies to spin the news. Is that happening here, is the media purposely not reporting a major news story because it would adversely impact the Bush White House? Say that you like about President Bush, love him or hate him, impeachment is serious business and even if only one of the thirty-five articles of impeachment has merit, then Congress has a duty to at least hold hearings and vote, and the media has a duty to at least report that 35 articles of impeachment have been proposed by a distinguished member of Congress.

I don't know the answer to my question, I don't think the news media is monolithic and can conspire to totally suppress a story (I first read about it on the internet), but they certainly have it in their power to under-report a story. For example, compare these two news reports, one from the Associated Press and the other from the Belfast Telegraph. What do you notice about how the U.S. report compares to the Irish news report? Notice how brief the U.S. report is, and then notice how richly detailed the Irish report is, full of background information, an itemized list of the proposed articles of impeachment, and video of Rep. Kucinich delivering his remarks. Did a domestic editor for the AP request such a brief report, or did they edit a larger report down to size? And how did it work in the NBC newsroom? Did an editor consciously decide that in all of the important news of the day (about the weather, killer tomatoes and the wonderful world of insects) that they had no time to report on a matter of Constitutional importance? Is the modern media mindset so well constrained by subtle corporate control that they no longer consciously consider broadcasting reports that may challenge the vested political interests? I kept expecting to receive a CNN Breaking News Alert about it, but the alert never came, nor did CNN rate it as a top news story.

There are very good political reasons why Rep. Kucinich will not get his articles of impeachment before a committee, much less to the floor of the House, but as an American, as a voter, and as a taxpayer, when someone seeks to impeach my president, I'm interested and I'd like to learn about it from the mainstream media, if that's not asking too much. Mainstream news media, that brief period of self-reflection you flirted with after reading McClellan's book, it wasn't long enough.