Political Earthquakes (by Jim Wallis)
With the pivotal event of the Iowa Caucuses, news analyses have said that Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee are now the defining candidates of this campaign—even if they don't win their respective nominations. It appears Obama has a better chance to do that than Huckabee does, but there is no telling how far he can go and, win or not, he could help redefine the Republican Party. In Sunday's New York Times, Frank Rich acknowledged the clear policy differences between the two but described them as "flip sides of the same coin." They have made "change" and "hope" the defining words and themes of this presidential election year.
By winning in Iowa, Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee have created two political earthquakes in their respective parties. While there are significant differences between the two on political philosophy and policy positions, they both overturn the established orthodoxies of their respective parties and promise to exchange old politics for new. They are both populist, but not angry, and are insurgents who campaign on the two words most important to a new generation—"change" and "hope."
Many news reports have noted the similarities between the two.
Each is a "religious" candidate. Barack Obama is virtually a public theologian and the most sophisticated political leader in many years in articulating the relationship between faith and politics. Mike Huckabee is actually a former Baptist pastor who can out-preach, out-charm, and out-Bible almost anyone.
Both Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee are staking their political future on the U.S.'s hunger for change. Obama has turned the spiritual power of hope into a political vision that is inspiring a new generation. Huckabee also loves the religious language of hope and thinks of himself as a modern day David who has taken on the Goliaths who rule the people instead of serving them.
Each has a compelling personal story of humble beginnings leading to great success. Barack Obama's personal and racial history – having a white mother and African father and growing up in both Indonesia and multi-cultural Hawaii - makes him a very compelling agent of change. By winning over the majority of white voters (even in a place like Iowa) Obama has made new U.S. history and many consider him to have a serious chance to become the first African American president of the U.S.
Mike Huckabee also touts his poor beginnings and easily blends his social conservatism with a biblically sounding economic populism that takes on Wall Street Republican elites and appeals directly to the working class. After playing bass with Jay Leno's band, he told the late night television audience, "People are looking for a presidential candidate who reminds them more of the guy they work with rather than the guy that laid them off."
Both say they care about the poor. And both attack the special interests of wealth and power which stack the political deck against poor people and working class families. Barack Obama started his career as a community organizer in the streets of Chicago and peppers his political sermons with references to the biblical prophets' demands for social justice and Jesus' admonition to test our policies by their impact on "the least of these." Mike Huckabee easily blends his social conservatism with a biblical-sounding economic populism that appeals directly to middle and working-class families. And he did enough for the poor as governor of Arkansas that one conservative commentator has accused him of being a "Christian socialist."
Both Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee talk about moving beyond the political categories of left and right, liberal and conservative. Both call for real solutions instead of more blame, and pledge to work in a bi-partisan way to end the bitter political divisions and gridlock of Washington, D.C.
Both Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee believe that American foreign policy, over the last several years, has needlessly alienated the rest of the world and caused us to lose our moral standing among the nations. Obama continues to remind voters that he opposed the war in Iraq before it started. Both have criticized what Huckabee recently called the "arrogant bunker mentality" of U.S. foreign policy. And both believe the best way to change that is not through merely demonstrating the U.S.'s power, but rather by really talking to other nations - even our enemies - and by leading with more with generosity and compassion than with just military might.
Together, these two candidates—one Democrat and one Republican—are shaking up the presidential election contest of 2008. It remains to be seen if either of them will win their respective nominations, but they have already shaped and even defined the themes of this critical election year. Now, virtually all the candidates are using the language of "change" - now "change" defines the political paradigm of this election year.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Jesus won by "losing". What do you have to say of the "least of these" candidates, those virtually frozen out of the debate. How do you characterize the campaigns of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich?
Posted by: Betty K. Aberlin | January 7, 2008 7:04 PM
We have to remember that conservative evangelical Republicans also gave us George W. Bush's fraudulent "compassionate conservativism." Been there, done that. First, I still see very little Jesus in their brand of "Christianity." Second, I still see very little populism in the Republican Party. Even if Huckabee is not a fraud like Bush, the corporate GOP would put him on a short leash. Even if Obama were not a Christian -- and he is, despite the Right's addled rumors that he is a closest Muslim -- I would rather live in a country led by him than some other creature coughed up by the Religious Right.
Posted by: Andy | January 7, 2008 7:11 PM
Andy,
I don't think the Conservative Christians gave us the fraudulent Compassionate Conservative. George Bush committed the fraud. I think there are many Christians who are Conservative, and therefore by definition Compassionate Conservatives.
I believe that we cannot ignore the role of government in caring for the poor, particularly in the anonymous society we occupy today. Conservative brothers and sisters will disagree and suggest that caring for the poor must be done through personal conviction.
Simarly, I think the government should stay out of my bedroom and marriage. That doesn't mean I profess anything goes with regard to sex or marriage, it just means that I don't think it is the government's job to regulate it.
I hope Huckabee can stay in long enough to be a solid example of a faithful person who is a Christian. I think it will be really good for the discussion of faith in America.
Prophetic Progress: Earning & Deserving
Posted by: JimII | January 7, 2008 7:22 PM
Mike Huckabee is a nobody, and earns Sojo's support (at least obliquely). Jim Wallis pens a post darn near endorsing the guy... Then, Huckabee surges, the post is immediately removed (as are posts even referencing its existence) and Sojo cease to mention the man for two weeks. Now, Huckabee is a nominal candidate again, and he has Sojo's support.
Is this how we pretend to be bi-partisan?
"Both Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee talk about moving beyond the political categories of left and right, liberal and conservative."
And both are full of crap. Huckabee is a Bush clone. How is this changing the paradigm?
"Jesus won by "losing". What do you have to say of the "least of these" candidates, those virtually frozen out of the debate. How do you characterize the campaigns of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich?"
In a sense, you could say they are very Christlike.
"Second, I still see very little populism in the Republican Party."
Really? Bush is pretty populist, and Huckabee moreso. What is your definition of populism?
"and he is, despite the Right's addled rumors that he is a closest Muslim"
What about Hillary's addled rumors? She's done quite a bit more to add fuel to the fire.
Oh, and what the hell happened to Hillary today? She starts crying? Are you kidding me? Who told her to cry? Who thought that was a good idea? Why didn't she strip naked and fling poo at reporters while she was at it?
She totally Howard Deaned. She Deaned everywhere. I did NOT see that coming.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 7, 2008 7:37 PM
"Second, I still see very little populism in the Republican Party."
Can we please have no more popuilism?
And why is it so hard to elect a conservative in a GOP primary? Huckabee is no conservative.
Sorry for the rant. It just astounds me that in this GOP primary season, Republicans are not able to get behind the guy closest to being an actual conservative.
Paul C. Quillman
Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | January 7, 2008 9:42 PM
It just astounds me that in this GOP primary season, Republicans are not able to get behind the guy closest to being an actual conservative.
That's because the GOP knows that Reagan-style conservatism has been thoroughly discredited and that people are now running from it.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 7, 2008 11:16 PM
The concepts of change and hope are quite refreshing, especially when we fling these archaic terms such as "conservative" and "liberal" around like anyone knows what they mean. IT is a tragedy in the world of politics when conservative has been reduced to no-taxes, against gay-marriage, anti-environment, and pro-life, while "liberal" has been reduced to big-government, pro-environment, pro-choice, and for gay-marriage. IS that what we have come to? People its the 21st c. and the world IS changing. Perhaps it would do us good to listen more to politicians that are willing to think out of the box, come up with some fresh ideas, do a little collaboration, bridge-building, and partnership with whomever wants to lead this country through the issues we are facing.
What's more, it would be refreshing to see all of us blessed individuals living in this amazing country, look around and find ways we can bridge gaps, reconcile our differences, or at least begin to dialogue. We need to get out of our fox holes and comfortable settings, put down our grenades and sniping rifles and learn what it means to be neighbors and build community.
Posted by: B Sallee | January 8, 2008 1:16 AM
To be honest, I'm not quite sure how much to make of the Iowa results or even the New Hampshire results tomorrow. Neither state is really one of those bell-weather states. Now, when we start getting to the Michigan's and the South Carolina's, me-thinks those will be better indicators of the general current.
Sorry...that's not to belittle Iowa or New Hampshire. I'd say the same about my own state, especially my county and city. We're just - well, ourselves. And we're not your average bears. And I don't think NH or IA are either.
Regarding Obama, I wish he'd give more specifics. I'm really having problems with that. We have a lot of time to make up our minds here, because our state doesn't vote until near the end. But....Obama's generalities BUG me! Perhaps he's still learning because he's still a relative newcomer.
Sorry, but I make decisions based on specifics. And that's what it's fighting. Be it a car or a new computer or even what firewall and anti-virus to use. I don't just look at ads in magazines and decide, "Hey that's a good price!" I compare bytes of memory, size of hard drive, speed of processor, what spyware it catches. And try to match what will best fit my needs.
And when it comes to presidential candidates, I do the same. I like to hear specifics of what they'd like to see implemented. And I'm not hearing that from Obama.
I'm always delighted when Clinton answers - because she answers specifically and not simplistically, but in a way that shows she's really considered the details of these matters from different angles. Now I don't always agree with all of her ideas, but at least when she's done answering - I KNOW that. She answers the question.
Huckabee is refreshing. I'm not sure he has the experience to be president of the United States, but I'd sure like to see him in at least a cabinet position.
Posted by: Amazon Creek | January 8, 2008 2:10 AM
The intense anger and hatred of the Secular Humanist (Progressives) towards Christians cloud everything they do. Obama is far more like them in the lascivious licentious stance and so gets the nod. Huckabee is a man NOT from Harvard and believes the way Jesus does on marriage and family. He is the real deal and Barak is more of the same social ills that have arisen to literally kill our children in far more places now than in the inner-city. What "change" could Obama bring? More abortion clinics and condoms is not exactly social change.
Posted by: Donny | January 8, 2008 6:16 AM
Wallis wrote, "both overturn the established orthodoxies of their respective parties" (about Huckabee and Obama). Wallis identifies one way Huckabee has done that - his economic populism.
However, Wallis does not identify any way in which Obama's policies differ from the established orthodoxy of his party. I don't think this was an inadvertent oversight. As far as I can determine, there isn't any difference. Obama is the quintessential establishment candidate. He sounds good to those that want change, but will safely follow the establishment line on the issues. If you look at his statements, you will see a pattern of taking a position that assures the establishment he will not rock any boats.
Wallis points out that Obama opposed the Iraq War at the start (but doesn't note that he went out of his way at the time to make clear he wasn't for peace). But what has happened since? After promising in his Senate campaign not to vote to fund the war, he switched sides once elected and voted to continue war funding. And he has supported huge increases in the military budget.
When asked some time back if they would promise all troops would be out of Iraq by the end of their first term of office, all three top tier Democratic candidates said no. But since that time, both Edwards and Clinton have changed their positions and now favor a more rapid withdrawal. Obama is the only remaining Democratic candidate who still seems to favor a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq.
Ah! Maybe that's where Obama differs from Party orthodoxy. Most of the Party has moved towards a fairly rapid withdrawal from Iraq. So Obama is indeed getting isolated in his position. But is this the kind of move away from Party orthodoxy that Christians should be praising?
Wallis' analysis is incredibly shallow, based mainly on images candidates project. Wallis needs to start looking at the substance (or lack thereof - Obama is best at avoiding substance of the candidates) of the candidates.
Posted by: Bill Samuel | January 8, 2008 7:25 AM
The Republican Establishment will unite to ensure that Huckabee does not get the nomination. Of all of the viable Republican candidates (I have excluded Ron Paul), Mike is the only one to raise any challenge to our conduct in Iraq. I think that Huckabee stands a good chance of winning some other states in the south (SC). I am really surprised that Huckabee has not received more support from the Religious Right since he has embraced their hot-button issues. It's very telling how they have selective they have been (support the war that kills thousands of Iraquis, but oppose abortion).
Obama has been criticized for his lack of experience, but in 1860 America elected a president from Illinois with a similar resume. In fact, he had actually been defeated two years earlier in his bid for the Senate. I think he would do very well in a debate with any of the leading candidates. (The starkest contrast would be him facing the graying McCain.) The Religious Right will strongly oppose whoever the Democrats nominate, but their venom would be most effective against Clinton since they hate her and all that she stands for.
Posted by: George | January 8, 2008 9:00 AM
"That's because the GOP knows that Reagan-style conservatism has been thoroughly discredited and that people are now running from it."
Rick,
When did Reaganism get discredited? Reagan, in terms of economic policy, did much of what JFK did in the 60's, cut taxes, lowered spending.
I did ok under Reagan and Bush. THe minimum wage increase that Clinton passed did a great deal of damage to not only me, but many small businesses that could not afford the increase. Now, under the current administration, with the tax cuts, I an doing better than I ever have before. Taxes being raised, or worse terrorism being ignored will kill my business. How is that compassionate?
Paul C. Quillman
Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | January 8, 2008 9:15 AM
Meanwhile, National Journal (not to be confused with National Review) has issued an expose of the Lancet survey of deaths in Iraq. Veterans of this blog may recall that Sojo was much exercised over the Lancet report, which put civilian deaths in Iraq at over 600,000, ten times higher than other organizations doing similar work.
National Journal found that the data collection was not properly supervised, that important records were missing, and that important demographic data, needed to ensure a representative sample and prevent faked entries, was not collected.
Oh, and the survey was run by committed opponents of the Bush administration and funded by Ted Soros' Open Society Institute.
This is not a conservative or partisan paper; to the best of my knowledge, National Journal plays it right down the middle. It looks like Sojo hyped a politically motivated and scientifically flawed study. Now this doesn't mean that the entire anti-war movement is invalid, but intentionally or not Sojo exaggerated the death toll from the Iraq invasion by a factor of ten. Christian honesty, I would think, calls for some sort of clarification.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | January 8, 2008 10:00 AM
Here's the link to the National Journal report. Read 'em and weep. Or you could do the Christian thing and express relief that the death toll wasn't as high as you had been led to believe:
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | January 8, 2008 10:04 AM
"The Republican Establishment will unite to ensure that Huckabee does not get the nomination."
They will? How will they do this?
"Of all of the viable Republican candidates (I have excluded Ron Paul), Mike is the only one to raise any challenge to our conduct in Iraq."
So has McCain, which is why he is running hot right now.
"Obama has been criticized for his lack of experience, but in 1860 America elected a president from Illinois with a similar resume."
Thank you Captain Talkingpoints. While their national service is comparable in length, their resumes were not at all similar.
Lincoln rose to prominence by taking strong stands on a variety of national policy issues, whether or not he was elected to public office. This leadership manifested itself during the Civil War.
Anyone voting for Lincoln had a very strong idea of what Lincoln believed and why he believed it. All we know about Obama is that he wants to move beyond party lines (yawn) and that he is hopeful. He has never taken a stand that served to damage his political career.
"The Religious Right will strongly oppose whoever the Democrats nominate,"
Whereas the left will gently and politely oppose whoever the Republicans nominate. It's politics. Get real.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 8, 2008 10:04 AM
When did Reaganism get discredited? Reagan, in terms of economic policy, did much of what JFK did in the 60's, cut taxes, lowered spending.
As early as 1986, when the GOP lost the Senate; a couple of years later during Iran-Contra; in 1992 when Clinton was elected just after the resultant recession ended (many, many white-collar workers lost their jobs precisely because of Reagan economic policies but the effects weren't felt until after he left office); and most recently in 2006, when the GOP pretty much lost its shirt. It could be argued that GWB was in many cases the epitome of Reagan-style conservatism.
I did ok under Reagan and Bush. THe minimum wage increase that Clinton passed did a great deal of damage to not only me, but many small businesses that could not afford the increase. Now, under the current administration, with the tax cuts, I an doing better than I ever have before. Taxes being raised, or worse terrorism being ignored will kill my business. How is that compassionate?
On the other hand, I did terribly under GOP administrations. When Reagan was president I couldn't even find a full-time job and feel I lucked out when I finally did during Bush I. But during Clinton I flourished, even going back to school and finishing my degree, and I work in my field today. The company I work for now, on the other hand, is suffering; contract negotations last year were so contentious I actually started a prayer meeting in response.
My point is that there are two sides to every story -- just because you benefited from Reaganism doesn't mean that everyone else did either, and in fact a case might be made that most people actually did worse.
Donny -- For God's sake (and I mean that literally), go away.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 8, 2008 10:46 AM
Change, change, change. Nice word, and completely meaningless unless it is followed by specifics of what we will change from, and what we will change to. Hope, hope, hope. . . . "I am the candidate of hope and change," candidates say. Meaningless, completely meaningless.
Let's remember to read our history books, and discover some of the greatest 'change agents' of previous years: Adolph Hitler, Tojo, Lenin, Marx, Stalin. . . all agents of amazing change!! I urge us to take great care as we pick our candidate. . . make sure we know just exactly what they are hinting at, so vaguely.
Posted by: joekc | January 8, 2008 10:54 AM
Hope and change are not meaningless.
Consider the actions of citizens and elected officials when they adapt a stance of "Change is not possible" and cynicism.
We get non-participation and non-governance.
I am very sad at the never-ending political assault (as distinct from legitimate disagreement and exercise of power) directed at our presidents.
I am not going to cast my votes for Hope and Change--but neither will I cast my votes for persons who lack the same.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 8, 2008 11:17 AM
Donny:
To try and say it as kindly as I can, you have no idea what you are talking about. My son attended Barak Obama's church in Chicago one Sunday. Do you know what his church has been doing in the inner city there? If not, then don't lash out in judgment against a brother in Christ.
Be careful what you say, Donny. Remember, God will take care of his own.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 8, 2008 11:27 AM
I will do my best to respond to Kevin S without resorting to name calling. (I am a retired military officer, but not a Captain.
First, I believe the Republican Establishment is comprised of the talking heads on the radio (and the corporations that fund them) who dole out the party line for the obedient sheep. They are largely responsible for stopping McCain in 2000, and you can rest assured that they would do a hatchet job on Huckabee.
Second, anyone who believes that McCain will reverse the carnage in Iraq is smoking the same thing that Bill Clinton didn't inhale. Iraq did not attack the United States, they did not have weapons of mass destruction. Their single transgression was that their leader was a prick, but since when have we been appointed to rid the world of pricks?
Third, though I have great admiration for Lincoln, his record prior to his elevation was undistinguished. Even after he was elected, he exhibited a poor track record in selecting his generals, and waited until after a Union victory to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.
Finally, I have no problem with the RR's opposition to the Democratic nominee. However, I think they reveal their hypocrisy when they coalesce around candidates who are on their third mate. (Is Rudy the LDS candidate?)
Posted by: george | January 8, 2008 12:19 PM
Republican Establishment
1. Ester-C
2. Andy Willoughby (i.e.'Three Step Plan')
If you need further proof, consider the headline:
"Romney concedes Iraq "a mess," describes three-step plan"
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 8, 2008 1:27 PM
“Oh, and what the hell happened to Hillary today? She starts crying? Are you kidding me? Who told her to cry? Who thought that was a good idea?” Kevin s.
I think history has shown repeatedly that when Democrats cry in public they won’t be in the public eye for long.
“Veterans of this blog may recall that Sojo was much exercised over the Lancet report” Wolverine
Yes, and I recall participating in a rather ‘spirited’ debate with you and Kevin over that one. Thanks for the link – I’ll read it over.
“The intense anger and hatred of the Secular Humanist (Progressives) towards Christians cloud everything they do.” Donny
After trying to have a dialog with atheists on a liberal blog, I am inclined to agree with you on that point.
Did I read that right – Huckabee plays bass? My opinion of him just changed dramatically. Just one question: is he a Fender man? (J)
Posted by: neuro_nurse | January 8, 2008 1:29 PM
Huckabee does play bass, but I believe an Ibanez (definitely not Fender). He was recently featured on the front page of Making Music magazine and, I think, started out as a guitarist.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 8, 2008 1:48 PM
Paul Qullman,
"The minimum wage increase that Clinton passed did a great deal of damage to not only me, but many small businesses that could not afford the increase."
But not the minimum wage increase that G. H. W. Bush passed after Reagan held it down to $3.35 an hour for eight years? If you look at a chart of the historical trendline of the minimum wage, you will see that it is worth much less, MUCH less, than it was under LBJ. Yes, sometimes we need to sacrifice, and that includes businesses paying a livable wage.
I was confused by this quote:
"Reagan, in terms of economic policy, did much of what JFK did in the 60's, cut taxes, lowered spending."
Reagan increased military spending dramatically and got us into a huge deficit that wasn't erased until Clinton. Come on! What on earth are you talking about? (Oh, yes, you must be talking about the "comic book" Reagan who didn't give amnesty to undocumented immigrants, who appointed three staunch anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court, and who balanced the budget.)
Posted by: I and I | January 8, 2008 3:10 PM
I have put two comments up in the last couple days that haven't been posted. What's the deal? My posts had html tags but it says: "you may use HTML tags for style".
Posted by: Andy Rowell | January 8, 2008 3:28 PM
Jim Wallis writes:
Barack Obama is virtually a public theologian and the most sophisticated political leader in many years in articulating the relationship between faith and politics.
Dear Jim and Sojourners Friends,
I like Obama and plan on voting for him. But I have read everything I can find on Obama's religious views and listened to the Sojourner's Call to Renewal speech (available on the web if you just search for Call to Renewal Obama) which is almost identical to his "Faith" chapter in Audacity of Hope.
He is not a theologian in any sense of the word and does not know all that much about Scripture. He is in my estimation a Christian like Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. He is not Martin Luther King, Jr. whose speeches were filled with Christian rhetoric because he was seeped in it.
Note well his description of his conversion:
And in time, I came to realize that something was missing as well -- that without a vessel for my beliefs, without a commitment to a particular community of faith, at some level I would always remain apart, and alone. From his Call to Renewal speech
Christianity is a vessel for his beliefs. A friend said to me, "Shouldn't it be the other way?" It is the other way around for those of us who read Sojourners.
I like Obama because he seems to understand different sides to the issues, has taught congregational law, and I like him better than the other candidates.
But let's not overstate his Christian credentials or his similarities to leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr.
Keep up the good work Sojourners.
Andy Rowell
Th.D. Student
Duke Divinity School
andyrowell.net
Posted by: Andy Rowell | January 8, 2008 3:36 PM
Poor Polling: We have no idea how many evangelicals voted for Democrats
How many evangelicals voted for Democrats in Iowa? We'll never know. And if things don't change, we won't know in future primaries either.
Iowa has many evangelicals. Many more Democrats (239,000) voted than Republicans (112,000). But the press is making a big deal about how most evangelicals picked Mike Huckabee. This is based on polling of only Republicans. If there are many evangelicals in Iowa and twice as many Iowans voted for a Democrat, then probably many evangelicals voted for Democrats. (In an informal poll at Christianity Today, Obama only trails Huckabee). But we'll never know how many evangelicals voted for Democrats because all of the media organizations use the same polling data and the pollsters didn't ask Democratic voters anything about their religion.
It seems that Edison Media Research and Mitofsky Interational is doing the entrance/exit polls for all of the primaries for all of the major news organizations. Here is a quote on the Edison site:
"In partnership with Mitofsky International, Edison currently conducts all exit polls and provides election projections and analysis for ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, NBC and the Associated Press." No wonder all of the headlines today sound the same. They are all relying on the same very limited data!
Edison/Mitofsky asked very different questions to the Republican and Democratic voters. The results are at the New York Times website. The exact same results are at CNN's website: Republican results, Democratic results. No questions about religious preferences were asked of Democratic voters while two questions were asked of Republican voters.
Worse, if things don't change in the polling, we won't know for any information about the religious preferences of voters for the other primaries either because Edison/Mitofsky is the only one doing polling for all of those primaries as well.
The media organizations should demand better from Edison/Mitofsky.
Links are available on my blog. Apparently on this site HTML tags stop your comments from being posted.
Andy Rowell
Th.D. Student
Duke Divinity School
andyrowell.net
Posted by: Andy Rowell | January 8, 2008 3:39 PM
All we know about Obama is that he wants to move beyond party lines (yawn) and that he is hopeful. He has never taken a stand that served to damage his political career.
Posted by: kevin s.
Kevin , you know he wants to nationalize health care . He is more forth right on that then many of the republican candidates.
What will say a Thompson do on the health care issue ?
You know he was against the Iraq War , and that is when Congress gave up their Constitutional responsibilty to decide what to do about it and GAVE the responsibility and decision to Bush ,
.
I don't see myself voting for Obama unless say a Ron Paul type took the Republican Party over , he is way to the left on most issues . but because he has no dirt on him does not mean he is not qualified either . Look how the other cdandidates often answer questions , Hillary with the Driver Liscense question , Rudi in front of pro choice crowd or Republican Conservative crowd . They may be better at being specific , but they are more slippery then OBama is in my opinion .
Posted by: Mick | January 8, 2008 4:28 PM
I read that article on the Lancet already, Wolverine. I've never been fully convinced by the Lancet paper--at the same time, that article is not a refutation. What we need are further surveys to settle the issue once and for all.
And anyway, other surveys (not just the ORB one last August) also suggest an Iraq death toll considerably higher than the one suggested by Iraq Body Count. This isn't the place to get into that, but it's likely the true death toll is in the hundreds of thousands, even if it isn't necessarily as high as the 2006 Lancet paper said.
Getting back to this article, I agree with the person above who said Wallis's analysis is amazingly superficial. Obama is long on rhetoric and short on substance. As for Huckabee, I've heard he's proposed a Palestinian state--in Saudi Arabia. Exactly the sort of Christian Zionist nonsense that guarantees an unending conflict and no justice for the Palestinians.
Posted by: Donald | January 8, 2008 6:00 PM
One other thing, Wolverine. "Straight down the middle" doesn't mean anything, if you're trying to argue that some journalist has more credibility. In this case you smean the magazine is centrist. Assuming that's right, so what? That just means they hug the political center, iand on foreign policy issues the political center would probably be biased against the belief that the US has caused the deaths of nearly a million people, and would lean in favor of lower estimates. We all have biases on various issues--it's a centrist myth that centrists are unbiased. Their biases are just those of mainstream Americans.
Posted by: Donald | January 8, 2008 6:22 PM
Rick: My point is that there are two sides to every story -- just because you benefited from Reaganism doesn't mean that everyone else did either, and in fact a case might be made that most people actually did worse.
Paul: What precipitated the problem, Rick, Reagan policies, or market changes? In my case the minimum wage increase took away my disposable income, bankrupted several small businesses in the town I lived in, and a couple of those business owners lost their house in the proess.
Rick: As early as 1986, when the GOP lost the Senate; a couple of years later during Iran-Contra; in 1992 when Clinton was elected just after the resultant recession ended (many, many white-collar workers lost their jobs precisely because of Reagan economic policies but the effects weren't felt until after he left office); and most recently in 2006, when the GOP pretty much lost its shirt. It could be argued that GWB was in many cases the epitome of Reagan-style conservatism.
Paul: 1986, I was 11 then and so I am not sure what happened then. 1992, conservatives were fed up with Bush 41 broken "read my lips" promise, which was really a Democrat broken promise. The Democrats in Congresws promised Bush a large spending cut to go with a tax inrease on the rich, and the Democrats proved themselves to be liars. The Clinton recession was not as bad it could have been for 2 reasons:
1) The internet (thank you Bill Gates)
2) The Republican 1994 mid term victory, which reigned in much of Clintons distructive economic policy. The 2006 election was the result of Republicans in Congress forgeting their conservative roots. During GWB's term in office, he has not, nor is he currently, governing as a conservative. He is essentially a populist. THe closest thing to a conservative running this year is Fred Thompson, and he is not perfect.
I and I: But not the minimum wage increase that G. H. W. Bush passed after Reagan held it down to $3.35 an hour for eight years? If you look at a chart of the historical trendline of the minimum wage, you will see that it is worth much less, MUCH less, than it was under LBJ. Yes, sometimes we need to sacrifice, and that includes businesses paying a livable wage.
Paul: I have always been opposed to an arbitrary, government mandated minimum wage, espicially when I was trying to get jobs in high school. The minimum wage law kept me from being able to negociate a wage I was willing to accept, even if lower than the standard, thus made it more difficult to get work. There were 3 jobs I could have gotten, but because I could not offer to work for less than $4.25 an hour, I had nothing to bring to the table. Should business owners sacrifice their homes in order to pay a little more that in less than a year is worthless?
I and I: Reagan increased military spending dramatically and got us into a huge deficit that wasn't erased until Clinton.
Paul: You actually believe that Clinton erased a deficit? I am not convinced that the deficit was ever erased, even after the Republicans beat back a couple of bad budget bills.
I and I: Come on! What on earth are you talking about? (Oh, yes, you must be talking about the "comic book" Reagan who didn't give amnesty to undocumented immigrants,
Paul: Reagan had the guts to all the 1986 deal what it was, amnesty. He was promised boarder enforcement, if he would extend amnesty, but, the Democrats lied to him, and never provided enforcement. Shocking, isn't it?
I and I: who appointed three staunch anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court,
Paul: I didn't think that there was suppose to be an issue oriented litmus test for judges. Roe is bad law, and if you read the Constitution, aborition should be left to the states, not the federal government.
I and I: and who balanced the budget.)
Paul: Balancing the budget is not all that impressive, just play with the acounting and presto!!! You have a balanced budget. Why is it that Republicans are the ones that have to balane the budget, but Democrats always get a pass?
Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | January 8, 2008 6:48 PM
It's Tuesday and, as with every other day, prayers were offered for the safety of all soldiers in Iraq, as well as all Iraqi victims of the current war in their country.
In obedience to Matthew 5:43-48, prayers were also offered for Osama bin Ladin and al-Qaida.
Posted by: carl copas | January 8, 2008 7:26 PM
Andy--I completely agree on your polling concerns. The pollsters ask questions raised by the storylines currently being raised by the media. If they were telling stories about marital infidelity, they would be asking questions about how the importance of the candidate's marital status to the voters.
In the storyline they have been following for 25 years, Evangelicals don't vote Democrat--even though journalists know they do (including the vast majority of Black Evangelicals). The purpose of these polling questions was to document Evangelical support for Huckabee because that was the storyline. I expect about 25% of Evangelical caucus goers in Iowa supported Huckabee.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 8, 2008 8:25 PM
What precipitated the problem, Rick, Reagan policies, or market changes?
Reagan policies, no question. They led straight to the economic decline where I lived because economic and political power floated south, where the GOP was ascending because it had no one to challenge it.
1986, I was 11 then and so I am not sure what happened then.
Neo-con renegades, that's what happened, and his approval rating went into the tank. For that fiasco Reagan and Bush I should have been impeached (and would have been had the Democrats had any guts).
1992, conservatives were fed up with Bush 41 broken "read my lips" promise, which was really a Democrat broken promise. The Democrats in Congress promised Bush a large spending cut to go with a tax inrease on the rich, and the Democrats proved themselves to be liars.
That's not all -- the conservatives considered him a squish as it was.
The Clinton recession was not as bad it could have been for 2 reasons:
1) The internet (thank you Bill Gates)
2) The Republican 1994 mid term victory, which reigned in much of Clintons distructive economic policy. The 2006 election was the result of Republicans in Congress forgeting their conservative roots.
False. What cost Clinton his majority in Congress was his targeted tax cuts for the middle-class (one rep in my home state voted for it and lost her seat as a result). But then the economy took off, frustrating GOP conservatives, and he won reelection when he offered a balanced budget but kept the social programs the conservatives wanted to cut. (I was a college newspaper columnist then, so I did the research.)
The GOP lost in 2006 not because it forgot its conservative roots but because it embraced them for the sake of cultural and political warfare. When you spend your time plotting to destroy your enemies for the sake of power, eventually you will get beat. (That was also the heart of the K Street corruption scandal.)
Posted by: Rick Nowln | January 8, 2008 8:49 PM
"I will do my best to respond to Kevin S without resorting to name calling. "
and then...
"obedient sheep."
Couldn't make it one sentence, eh?
"However, I think they reveal their hypocrisy when they coalesce around candidates who are on their third mate. "
How many states has Giuliani won?
Yes, McCain was divorced 27 years ago. If I am examining his character, I register that he made a poor decision to marry the woman that he did. I also hold this decision in light of the fact that his military career had stalled (and you might take some time to read what he went through to resurrect his military career... Cause holy crap... Just sayin'...)
So, no, I don't think I am hypocritical to support the now frontrunner simply because he has been divorced.
"Neo-con renegades, that's what happened,"
Sometime you have to just laugh... I mean you in the ubiquitous sense. By all means, Rick, stay absurdly serious.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 9, 2008 1:40 AM
It's Tuesday and, as with every other day, prayers were offered for the safety of all soldiers in Iraq, as well as all Iraqi victims of the current war in their country.
In obedience to Matthew 5:43-48, prayers were also offered for Osama bin Ladin and al-Qaida.
Posted by: carl copas
Carl I am hoping your sincere prayers are offered during the political conventiom of your choice .
Jesus loves you
Posted by: Mick | January 9, 2008 4:39 AM
Sometime you have to just laugh... I mean you in the ubiquitous sense. By all means, Rick, stay absurdly serious.
Kevin -- That was a personal attack. Just so you know.
Besides, that's precisely what happened -- and in fact the neo-cons became infuriated with Reagan, never forgiving him, after he fired the Cabinet members and others responsible for Iran-Contra.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 9, 2008 10:51 AM
I actually admire John McCain and would consider voting for him were it not for his unqualified support for the war in Iraq and his willingness to kiss up to the same faction of the Republican Party that squashed his candidacy in 2000. I believe that he is searching for a solution to the illegal immigration problem that does not include the deportation of 12 million people, and I also believe that he would take action to reduce the crushing debt that the last three Republican presidents have given us. However, I don't believe that his victory in NH has elevated him to front-runner status any more than the victories by Huckabee and Romney conferred that status to them. I believe that Romney will probably win his dad's home state, that Huckabee will pick off a few states in the south (not Florida), and then the Guliani juggernaut will take over with wins in the northeast, Florida, and California. There is a remote possibility of a brokered convention (no single candidate has enough votes to win the nomination), in which case, Huckabee would probably support McCain rather than Romney. My biggest criticism of McCain is that he will continue our involvement in Iraq with the loss of hundreds more American lives and thousands more Iraqui lives.
Posted by: george | January 9, 2008 12:20 PM
Mick: "Carl I am hoping your sincere prayers are offered during the political conventiom of your choice."
Mick, I'm an Independent. Thus my sincere prayers are offered during both political conventions.
It's Wednesday, and in obedience to Matthew 5:43-48, prayers were also offered for George Bush and Dick Cheney.
Posted by: carl copas | January 9, 2008 2:20 PM
Posted by: carl copas | January 9, 2008 2:20 PM
'It's Wednesday,...'
Be careful - you don't want to get into my camp.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 9, 2008 2:46 PM
"Be careful - you don't want to get into my camp."
Why not? I don't always agree with you, but you're still my brother.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | January 9, 2008 5:02 PM
Posted by: neuro_nurse | January 9, 2008 5:02 PM
You are always good for a shot in the arm!
Blessings -
.
Posted by: moderatelad | January 10, 2008 12:23 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?