Month: February 2004

Missouri Republicans are up in arms after a media company backed out of a deal for a billboard along I-70 in St Louis’ predominently white suburbs. The billboard showed a picture of a white man against an American flag, with the legend, “Missouri Democrats have a plan. You are not a part of it.”

The GOP called the ad “fact-stating and informative,” but local Democrats called the billboard “race-baiting.”

Another case of the GOP using wedge issues to try to stir up racial trouble and appeal to their prejudiced constituencies, right? Just what we’ve come to expect. I’m sure that sort of exploitation of race will be roundly condemned, and rightfully so, by Terry McAuliffe and the DNC.

Continue reading “Hue & Cry, Part II”

I watched my first Democratic Debate this season last night. I only caught the last half of it. My conclusions:

• Every candidate had about five vital things they wanted to spend the same dollars (the “Bush Tax Cut for the Rich”) on. For all the talk condemning the deficit on said tax cut, I didn’t hear anyone indicating that any of the tax cut that they would automagically repeal (the parts for “the rich”) would actually go into retiring the debt. Instead, it would go to health care proposals, education proposals, house purchase proposals, etc. And, apparently, it’s an unlimited well of money, since it could all be spend several times over without having to allocate any further funds to these things.
• Reasonably decent job to nail the candidates — Kerry in particular — on trying to have it all ways (NAFTA is good, jobs going overseas is bad, free trade zones are good, job losses at home are bad, cheap goods for American consumers is good, lack of price-increasing labor and environmental standards abroad is bad).

• Al Sharpton’s in it all for the public forum. He clearly knows it. So does everyone else. And he certainly provided some entertainment.

• As the Official Fringe Candidate, Kucinich was in a great position to assail Edwards and Kerry for their lack of ideological purity. Most amusing was his assertion that since the WTO and other international orgs of that sort keep us from punishing countries that don’t adhere to trade and labor and environmental standards we like, we should withdraw from them so we can take the actions we feel are needful.

  Which sure sounds like unilateralism to me, but …

• Kerry sure is a stiff. Even when he had a good line prepped for him by his people, it came out like a rock. Edwards is affable and has a great speaking style (acknowledged as such even by Kerry), but his answer to everything seems to be a new, exciting, shiny governmental program (that was everyone else’s answer, too, but Edwards’ tended to be brigher and shinier). Give Edwards another 4-8 years, and he’ll be a force to be reckoned with; Kerry, on the other hand, is either in this year or outta there.

• The debate was held at a table, with the candidates along one side, and the reporters/interlocutors on the other. Kerry looked really uncomfortable being jammed up against Edwards that way; Edwards, on the other hand, was quite touchy-feely.

  Despite Larry King’s unsuccessful efforts to pin them down, it was blindingly clear that neither Kerry nor Edwards would ever consider the other being on the ticket with them.

• There was an entertaining balancing act going on between folks trying to put their own positions ahead of their opponents, trying to leverage the national audience into pressure to get others to support their proposals, and to take a few pot shots at front-runner Kerry — all the while constantly returning to the axiom that George Bush is the worst president, if not worst human being, in the history of the United States. Lots of posturing and program outline dropping, but not much substance.

I didn’t come out of the debate feeling much better informed about anyone’s message in particular, or any warmer toward any of the Dem candidates. I am more convinced that Kerry is going to be the candidate, since everyone there (even Edwards) seemed convinced of it, too. How the points raised play out in the general campaign will be interesting to see.

Oh, for the Heaven’s Sake … is this becoming the new litmus test in politics?

The debate over same-sex marriage has apparently lead one person to lead an effort to recall Denver’s mayor. The Denver Post is reporting that a city resident has notified leads that he plans to try to recall Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper.
Joel Levitt, a veterans’ representative in the Denver Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development, says he plans to collect signatures for a recall. He says he wants to punish Hickenlooper for taking a stand against the constitutional amendment idea to prohibit same-sex marriage. While Hickenlooper is against a possible amendment, he has said he will not violate state law by allowing same-sex marriages in Denver.
Levitt told City Councilman Charlie Brown that Hickenlooper “could have remained mute to his personal beliefs.”

So is he trying to get a recall going because Hickenlooper spoke out about it? Or against it? I strongly suspect it’s the latter.

Going to the Post story, Levitt makes it clearer.

He could have remained mute to his personal beliefs and been a mile ahead,” Levitt wrote in an e-mail message to Denver City Councilman Charlie Brown.
Hickenlooper has crossed the line, Levitt wrote, “and we intend to do something positive about it unless he steps back from the abyss. It is still not too late for an apology.”

So Levitt would have been happier if Hick had kept silent about his beliefs. Kept them in the closet, so to speak. Yeesh.

Frankly, I’d rather my politicians make their beliefs on a major public policy issue like this clear, than that they keep silent — even if I disagree with them. Using recall efforts to punish expressed opinions (not official actions or professional conduct) is ludicrous.

(via Stan)