In time for President's Day, C-SPAN is releasing their new list of presidential rankings.
Here are parts of their overall list, with their 2009 rankings in the 1st column, 1999 rankings in the 2nd column, and some of my commentary in italics):
Top 10
01 - 01 - Abraham Lincoln
02 - 03 - George Washington
03 - 02 - Franklin D. Roosevelt
04 - 04 - Theodore Roosevelt
05 - 05 - Harry S. Truman
06 - 08 - John F. Kennedy
07 - 07 - Thomas Jefferson
08 - 09 - Dwight D. Eisenhower
09 - 06 - Woodrow Wilson
10 - 11 - Ronald Reagan (Ronny breached the top 10, baby; woohoo!)
Excerpts from the Middle of the List
12 - 12 - James Polk (Born in North Carolina)
15 - 21 - Bill Clinton (Holy crap, how did he jump up six spots?)
18 - 20 - George H. W. Bush
21 - 17 - Grover Cleveland (Wow, how'd he drop 4 spots? I thought he was a good one.)
23 - 33 - Ulysses S. Grant (Up 10 spots?!? Is he coming back from the grave and bribing historians?)
25 - 22 - Jimmy Carter
Bottom 10
33 - 26 - Rutherford B. Hayes
34 - 34 - Herbert Hoover
35 - 36 - John Tyler
36 - n/a - George W. Bush (Any surprise?)
37 - 35 - Millard Fillmore
38 - 38 - Warren G. Harding
39 - 37 - William Henry Harrison
40 - 39 - Franklin D. Pierce
41 - 40 - Andrew Johnson (President right after Lincoln)
42 - 41 - James Buchanan (President right before Lincoln)
C-SPAN also breaks down the list of Presidents by several categories. Here's how some of the presidents did in those categories:
Public Persuasion
01. Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR)
02. Lincoln
03. Reagan
04. Teddy Roosevelt (TR)
05. Washington
10. Clinton
30. GHW Bush
36. GW Bush
Crisis Leadership
01. Lincoln
02. FDR
03. Washington
04. Truman
05. TR
11. GHW Bush
12. Reagan
15. Clinton
25. GW Bush
Economic Management
01. Washington
02. Lincoln
03. Clinton
04. TR
05. FDR
17. Reagan
23. GHW Bush
40. GW Bush
Moral Authority
01. Wash
02. Linc
03. FDR
04. TR
05. Eisenhower
08. Reagan
19. GHW Bush
35. GW Bush
37. Clinton
International Relations
01. Wash
02. FDR
03. Linc
04. Truman
05. TR
08. Reagan
09. GHW Bush
16. Clinton
41. GW Bush
Administrative Skills
01. Wash
02. Linc
03. FDR
04. TR
05. Eisenhower
16. GHW Bush
20. Clinton
30. Reagan
37. GW Bush
Relations With Congress
01. FDR
02. Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ)
03. Linc
04. Wash
05. Jefferson
08. Reagan
19. Clinton
20. GHW Bush
36. GW Bush
Vision/Setting An Agenda
01. Linc
02. FDR
03. Wash
04. Wilson
05. TR
07. Reagan
15. Clinton
25. GW Bush
34. GHW Bush
Pursued Equal Justice For All
01. Linc
02. LBJ
03. Truman
04. Clinton
05. Carter
14. GHW Bush
16. Reagan
24. GW Bush
Performance Within Context of Times
01. Linc
02. Wash
03. FDR
04. TR
05. Truman
07. Reagan
16. Clinton
19. GHW Bush
36. GW Bush
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, February 16, 2009
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Sam Brownback Out of Republican Presidential Race
When I checked the news on the internet today, I was surprised to see that Sam Brownback had dropped out of the Republican presidential race. I liked Brownback. I didn't necessarily think he'd make the best president, but he seemed to be one of the more honest and moral candidates in the race (emphasis on "seemed," since I admit I don't know enough about him to be sure).
It is about time that the field get narrowed a bit, especially with Fred Thompson and Alan Keyes having joined recently. The next logical departure would be from Tom Tancredo. In debates, he rarely seems to get his point across well. I have a hard time even understanding what he stands for. I like certain aspects of Duncan Hunter, but he probably isn't a strong candidate either, in terms of poll numbers and money (not that that should matter, even though it does).
Of course, Fred Thompson and the "big three" are in it for the long haul, and it would be stupid for Keyes to exit too soon after just getting in. Huckabee is considered by many to be the top of the 2nd-tier candidates. And, Ron Paul, as the best defender of the Constitution of them all, is the deserving dark horse of the race. I'd like to see these seven go at in the next few debates.
Going back to Brownback... I wonder which candidate(s) his supporters will most likely support next, and I wonder if Brownback himself will endorse one of the remaining candidates any time soon. My guess is his supporters would go toward McCain or Huckabee, but of course, I'd love to see more support for Ron Paul.
It is about time that the field get narrowed a bit, especially with Fred Thompson and Alan Keyes having joined recently. The next logical departure would be from Tom Tancredo. In debates, he rarely seems to get his point across well. I have a hard time even understanding what he stands for. I like certain aspects of Duncan Hunter, but he probably isn't a strong candidate either, in terms of poll numbers and money (not that that should matter, even though it does).
Of course, Fred Thompson and the "big three" are in it for the long haul, and it would be stupid for Keyes to exit too soon after just getting in. Huckabee is considered by many to be the top of the 2nd-tier candidates. And, Ron Paul, as the best defender of the Constitution of them all, is the deserving dark horse of the race. I'd like to see these seven go at in the next few debates.
Going back to Brownback... I wonder which candidate(s) his supporters will most likely support next, and I wonder if Brownback himself will endorse one of the remaining candidates any time soon. My guess is his supporters would go toward McCain or Huckabee, but of course, I'd love to see more support for Ron Paul.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Ron Paul & Mike Huckabee Videos
Ron Paul on the Daily Show, Monday 04 June 2007
Ron Paul in 3rd Republican Debate, Tuesday 05 June 2007
Mike Huckabee in 3rd Republican Debate, Tuesday 05 June 2007
Ron Paul in 3rd Republican Debate, Tuesday 05 June 2007
Mike Huckabee in 3rd Republican Debate, Tuesday 05 June 2007
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
3rd Republican Presidential Debate
Here we go again. Republican Debate, Round 3. I wonder if CNN will have audio problems again tonight.
Wolf Blitzer gave each candidate a chance to *briefly* introduce themselves, as he did with the Dems Sunday night. Brownback and Romney stretched their intros more than the others. Huckabee said he was from Hope, Arkansas (where Bill Clinton is from). Then he said, "You may have heard of it. I'm asking that you give us one more chance." That got a decent laugh from the audience. That's what I like about Huckabee. He has charisma and a sense of humor but without coming off looking clownish. Very dignified. Ron Paul concluded his introduction by saying, "I am the champion of the constitution." Sweet!
Well, so far no microphones are cutting out, but something has made a loud buzzing noise four times. Once during McCain's intro, once during the moderator's first question, once during Giuliani's first answer, and again between Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul's answers. ...And several more times. I'm going to stop keeping track.
Oh, okay, it's storming over the debate's location, and it's the lightning that's causing the buzzing noise over the sound system. What's funny is that Wolf Blitzer asked Giuliani about a Catholic bishop's quote in which he harshly compared Rudy's stance on abortion to Pontias Pilate being against Jesus's crucifixion but allowing it to happen anyway, and at several points during Rudy's answer, the buzzing noise from the lightning really kicked up. Rudy's microphone also cut out for a few seconds. People laughed about it, thinking the lightning was coincidental timing considering the Biblical overtone of the question. McCain and Brownback, who flank Rudy, even moved back away from him out of jest.
I'm not rating the question about Scooter Libby because I'm just not informed enough on that issue. Right after that question, they start moving out the podiums and moving in the chairs in preparation for the audience getting to ask questions.
At the halfway point, the three front-runners have had 7 or 8 questions each. Everyone else has had between 3 and 5 questions each. No one has had 6 questions. It'd be nice if they gave the 2nd tier candidates more chance to talk.
The first voter question of the night is about the Iraq war from someone whose brother died in the war. When it was McCain's turn to answer, he chose to stand up and walk near the edge of the stage to address the voter. So, now from this point, anyone who doesn't stand up may be criticized for not connecting with the audience well enough, but anyone who does stand up may be accused of copycatting McCain who did it first. On the 2nd question, Giuliani has already chosen option B and has stood up and has walked to the edge of the stage.
I'll bet a million dollars I don't have that Romney will definitely stand up when he gets a question, and I wouldn't be surprised if, from this point forward, everyone stands when they get a question. Who'da thunk we'd get the "Clinton Maneuver" this soon in the debates (no, not that "Clinton Maneuver").
Gilmore is next up on the third question. Yeap, he stands up. Huh, Tancredo didn't stand up. Hunter didn't stand up either. Thompson did stand up on the health care question. Romney did stand up; I'll take my million dollars in direct deposit, check, or $50 & $20 bills, thanks. Huckabee stood up on the question about the most pressing moral issue. He jokes that he's getting all the moral questions tonight which is better than getting all the immoral questions. Good one.
Yay, Ron Paul stood up on the moral question too. He says that our biggest moral issue is that we have now accepted the concept of pre-emptive war and using nukes against countries that haven't done anything to us first (he didn't say this, but isn't weird logic that we'd use nukes against a country because we think it's unacceptable for them to have nukes). Brownback stood up for the moral question too. So far, Tancredo is the only one who hasn't stood. Surely he will next time. Yeap, he's standing on the English-as-official-language question.
Hmm, McCain just answered one question standing up; now he's getting another question again but is sitting down this time. Either he's made his I-can-connect-with-the-people point or he's just tired.
Under my usual scoring system of 3 = excellent answer, 2 = good answer, 1 = fair answer, and 0 = poor answer, the averages really got turned around this time...
[2.000] Rep. Ron Paul (based on 8 questions)
[2.000] Gov. Mike Huckabee (based on 7 questions)
[1.833] Sen. John McCain (based on 12 questions)
[1.429] Gov. Jim Gilmore (based on 7 questions)
[1.429] Rep. Duncan Hunter (based on 7 questions)
[1.429] Rep. Tom Tancredo (based on 7 questions)
[1.333] Gov. Mitt Romney (based on 12 questions)
[1.308] Mayor Rudy Giuliani (based on 13 questions)
[1.250] Sen. Sam Brownback (based on 8 questions)
[1.000] Gov. Tommy Thompson (based on 6 questions)
Ron Paul had two excellent answers, one regarding the mixing of religion and politics, and the other regarding our country's biggest moral issue. Mike Huckabee had one excellent answer regarding creation by God vs. evolution. Tommy Thompson had one poor answer regarding how he would use George W. Bush as a former president. It was poor because he said he would use George W. Bush for motivation and speeches around the world. On the flip side, Tancredo implied he'd leave Bush out of politics altogether. If he hadn't butchered the deliver of his overly elaborate explanation, I would have counted Tancredo's answer as excellent rather than just good. Romney had one poor answer to the very first question about whether it was a mistake to invade Iraq (he basically dodged the question even after Wolf requested he get back on track). All other answers were only good or just fair.
Adding the averages from this debate to the two previous ones, we get...
[6.458] Gov. Mike Huckabee
[6.030] Rep. Ron Paul
[4.850] Sen. Sam Brownback
[4.816] Gov. Mitt Romney
[4.785] Rep. Duncan Hunter
[4.762] Sen. John McCain
[4.543] Gov. Jim Gilmore
[4.308] Mayor Rudy Giuliani
[4.150] Gov. Tommy Thompson
[2.985] Rep. Tom Tancredo
...Which works out to the following rankings:
Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul remain my two favorites. Brownback had a really bad night tonight, but his earlier high scores kept him in third place anyway. Romney maintains the fourth spot although I'm starting to like his answers less and less. Hunter is just barely hanging in the better half of the ten.
McCain is getting better. Even when I don't agree with him, I at least feel that he's starting to sound and act more "presidential." He and Thompson basically swapped the #6 & #9 spots in just one night.
Gilmore and Giuliani maintained their #7 & #8 spots, respectively. A smile might do some good for Gilmore, or else I'll continue to wonder if he really wants to run (or if the party drafted him to service). And, it would help Giuliani if he were actually a Republican. Despite coming out of the gate strong in the first debate, Thompson is slipping fast.
Tancredo, amazingly enough, redeemed himself some tonight with some decent answers and getting himself in a three-way tie for #4. He's still painfully inarticulate, but I'm starting to hear past the stammering and beginning to hear a good message--on some topics. He got burned by the others near the end of the night when he chose to attack not just illegal immigration but *legal* immigration too. I don't know if that was a verbal slip up or his actual stance, but I think it'll hurt him. His scores from the first two debates were still low enough to keep him in last place overall.
I'm guessing my opinions are fairly "alternative" in that I like the 2nd tier candidates better than the front-runners, but I really wish a few people would drop out so that other 2nd tier guys would have a chance of breaking into the upper echelon. If Tancredo and either Gilmore or Tommy Thompson would drop out, Huckabee, Paul, Brownback, or Hunter might actually have a chance. In my eyes Biden has the best chance of breaking through on the Democrat side, but somehow, despite being lackluster candidates, Giuliani, McCain, and Romney seemed to have the front-runner Republican status locked up amongst themselves.
Wolf Blitzer gave each candidate a chance to *briefly* introduce themselves, as he did with the Dems Sunday night. Brownback and Romney stretched their intros more than the others. Huckabee said he was from Hope, Arkansas (where Bill Clinton is from). Then he said, "You may have heard of it. I'm asking that you give us one more chance." That got a decent laugh from the audience. That's what I like about Huckabee. He has charisma and a sense of humor but without coming off looking clownish. Very dignified. Ron Paul concluded his introduction by saying, "I am the champion of the constitution." Sweet!
Well, so far no microphones are cutting out, but something has made a loud buzzing noise four times. Once during McCain's intro, once during the moderator's first question, once during Giuliani's first answer, and again between Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul's answers. ...And several more times. I'm going to stop keeping track.
Oh, okay, it's storming over the debate's location, and it's the lightning that's causing the buzzing noise over the sound system. What's funny is that Wolf Blitzer asked Giuliani about a Catholic bishop's quote in which he harshly compared Rudy's stance on abortion to Pontias Pilate being against Jesus's crucifixion but allowing it to happen anyway, and at several points during Rudy's answer, the buzzing noise from the lightning really kicked up. Rudy's microphone also cut out for a few seconds. People laughed about it, thinking the lightning was coincidental timing considering the Biblical overtone of the question. McCain and Brownback, who flank Rudy, even moved back away from him out of jest.
I'm not rating the question about Scooter Libby because I'm just not informed enough on that issue. Right after that question, they start moving out the podiums and moving in the chairs in preparation for the audience getting to ask questions.
At the halfway point, the three front-runners have had 7 or 8 questions each. Everyone else has had between 3 and 5 questions each. No one has had 6 questions. It'd be nice if they gave the 2nd tier candidates more chance to talk.
The first voter question of the night is about the Iraq war from someone whose brother died in the war. When it was McCain's turn to answer, he chose to stand up and walk near the edge of the stage to address the voter. So, now from this point, anyone who doesn't stand up may be criticized for not connecting with the audience well enough, but anyone who does stand up may be accused of copycatting McCain who did it first. On the 2nd question, Giuliani has already chosen option B and has stood up and has walked to the edge of the stage.
I'll bet a million dollars I don't have that Romney will definitely stand up when he gets a question, and I wouldn't be surprised if, from this point forward, everyone stands when they get a question. Who'da thunk we'd get the "Clinton Maneuver" this soon in the debates (no, not that "Clinton Maneuver").
Gilmore is next up on the third question. Yeap, he stands up. Huh, Tancredo didn't stand up. Hunter didn't stand up either. Thompson did stand up on the health care question. Romney did stand up; I'll take my million dollars in direct deposit, check, or $50 & $20 bills, thanks. Huckabee stood up on the question about the most pressing moral issue. He jokes that he's getting all the moral questions tonight which is better than getting all the immoral questions. Good one.
Yay, Ron Paul stood up on the moral question too. He says that our biggest moral issue is that we have now accepted the concept of pre-emptive war and using nukes against countries that haven't done anything to us first (he didn't say this, but isn't weird logic that we'd use nukes against a country because we think it's unacceptable for them to have nukes). Brownback stood up for the moral question too. So far, Tancredo is the only one who hasn't stood. Surely he will next time. Yeap, he's standing on the English-as-official-language question.
Hmm, McCain just answered one question standing up; now he's getting another question again but is sitting down this time. Either he's made his I-can-connect-with-the-people point or he's just tired.
Under my usual scoring system of 3 = excellent answer, 2 = good answer, 1 = fair answer, and 0 = poor answer, the averages really got turned around this time...
[2.000] Rep. Ron Paul (based on 8 questions)
[2.000] Gov. Mike Huckabee (based on 7 questions)
[1.833] Sen. John McCain (based on 12 questions)
[1.429] Gov. Jim Gilmore (based on 7 questions)
[1.429] Rep. Duncan Hunter (based on 7 questions)
[1.429] Rep. Tom Tancredo (based on 7 questions)
[1.333] Gov. Mitt Romney (based on 12 questions)
[1.308] Mayor Rudy Giuliani (based on 13 questions)
[1.250] Sen. Sam Brownback (based on 8 questions)
[1.000] Gov. Tommy Thompson (based on 6 questions)
Ron Paul had two excellent answers, one regarding the mixing of religion and politics, and the other regarding our country's biggest moral issue. Mike Huckabee had one excellent answer regarding creation by God vs. evolution. Tommy Thompson had one poor answer regarding how he would use George W. Bush as a former president. It was poor because he said he would use George W. Bush for motivation and speeches around the world. On the flip side, Tancredo implied he'd leave Bush out of politics altogether. If he hadn't butchered the deliver of his overly elaborate explanation, I would have counted Tancredo's answer as excellent rather than just good. Romney had one poor answer to the very first question about whether it was a mistake to invade Iraq (he basically dodged the question even after Wolf requested he get back on track). All other answers were only good or just fair.
Adding the averages from this debate to the two previous ones, we get...
[6.458] Gov. Mike Huckabee
[6.030] Rep. Ron Paul
[4.850] Sen. Sam Brownback
[4.816] Gov. Mitt Romney
[4.785] Rep. Duncan Hunter
[4.762] Sen. John McCain
[4.543] Gov. Jim Gilmore
[4.308] Mayor Rudy Giuliani
[4.150] Gov. Tommy Thompson
[2.985] Rep. Tom Tancredo
...Which works out to the following rankings:
1st 2nd 3rd Overall Candidate
----- ----- ----- --------- -----------
[1] [1] [1 tie] [1] Huckabee
[4] [2] [1 tie] [2] Paul
[3] [3] [9] [3] Brownback
[5] [5] [7] [4] Romney
[7] [4] [4 tie] [5] Hunter
[9] [7] [3] [6] McCain
[6] [8] [4 tie] [7] Gilmore
[8] [6] [8] [8] Giuliani
[2] [9] [10] [9] Thompson
[10] [10] [4 tie] [10] Tancredo
Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul remain my two favorites. Brownback had a really bad night tonight, but his earlier high scores kept him in third place anyway. Romney maintains the fourth spot although I'm starting to like his answers less and less. Hunter is just barely hanging in the better half of the ten.
McCain is getting better. Even when I don't agree with him, I at least feel that he's starting to sound and act more "presidential." He and Thompson basically swapped the #6 & #9 spots in just one night.
Gilmore and Giuliani maintained their #7 & #8 spots, respectively. A smile might do some good for Gilmore, or else I'll continue to wonder if he really wants to run (or if the party drafted him to service). And, it would help Giuliani if he were actually a Republican. Despite coming out of the gate strong in the first debate, Thompson is slipping fast.
Tancredo, amazingly enough, redeemed himself some tonight with some decent answers and getting himself in a three-way tie for #4. He's still painfully inarticulate, but I'm starting to hear past the stammering and beginning to hear a good message--on some topics. He got burned by the others near the end of the night when he chose to attack not just illegal immigration but *legal* immigration too. I don't know if that was a verbal slip up or his actual stance, but I think it'll hurt him. His scores from the first two debates were still low enough to keep him in last place overall.
I'm guessing my opinions are fairly "alternative" in that I like the 2nd tier candidates better than the front-runners, but I really wish a few people would drop out so that other 2nd tier guys would have a chance of breaking into the upper echelon. If Tancredo and either Gilmore or Tommy Thompson would drop out, Huckabee, Paul, Brownback, or Hunter might actually have a chance. In my eyes Biden has the best chance of breaking through on the Democrat side, but somehow, despite being lackluster candidates, Giuliani, McCain, and Romney seemed to have the front-runner Republican status locked up amongst themselves.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
2nd Democratic Presidential Debate
Okay, instead of getting way behind on Presidential Debate commentary, I'm actually writing about it while I watch on the night it first airs. I'm TiVo'ing it, so I'm starting it about 30 minutes into the debate.
This debate starts off a little differently in that the candidates are asked to *briefly* introduce themselves. Mike Gravel starts off with a non-brief quote that doesn't seem to lead in well to him just saying his name and profession. John Edwards says his name but doesn't even say what position(s) he's held. He's a former senator and former V.P. candidate. I guess right *now* he's, well, nothing, so maybe that's why he only said his name.
Clinton was just asked about her voting record on troop funding. She was answering the question well until she claimed that in two nights the Republicans will be up on the same stage and that they "all" support the war. Not true. *Not* "all". Ron Paul has voted against the war from the beginning and is about the only Republican who would bring the troops home immediately, and I'm not even sure the Democrats would or could bring them home immediately. If she hadn't so incorrectly and arrogantly generalized her answer, I would have counted this as a good answer; instead, I'm counting it as poor.
We're about 30 minutes into the debate, and Clinton has had the opportunity to answer about five questions. I really don't like her. *All* she seems capable of doing so far is pointing the finger at George Bush. I don't like George Bush either, but I think you have to run for President on more than the fact that you aren't George Bush. Her angry complaining, blaming, and finger-pointing is already starting to grate on my ears. I wish she'd talk more about what to do right rather than about what went wrong. When it comes to poise, charisma, and eloquence, I don't see much that is presidential in her. She's just an unpleasant-sounding angerball.
Huh. Interesting. They're going to switch around the stage, seats, podiums, etc. such that they can have audience members ask questions directly to the candidates.
While they're doing that, I'll agree with the commentators that this has been a lively debate with more back-and-forth action than the first Democrat debate.
The break is over, and candidates are now seated with no podium in front of them.
The rest of the debate involved questions from the audience with more flexibility in answering questions with more give and take between candidates.
With the debate over, my point average with 3 pts. = excellent answer, 2 pts. = good answer, 1 pt. = fair answer, and 0 pts. = poor answer, is as follows:
[1.700] Sen. Joe Biden (based on 10 questions)
[1.538] Former Sen. John Edwards (based on 13 questions)
[1.429] Sen. Barrack Obama (based on 14 questions)
[1.444] Sen. Chris Dodd (based on 9 questions)
[1.444] Rep. Dennis Kucinich (based on 9 questions)
[1.333] Former Sen. Mike Gravel (based on 9 questions)
[1.091] Gov. Bill Richardson (based on 11 questions)
[1.000] Sen. Hillary Clinton (based on 14 questions)
There were only four excellent answers. Amazingly enough, three came from lower-tier candidates, even one from Gravel. The four were: Dodd with the question about English as the official language, Edwards with the question about Iran, Gravel with the question about gas prices, and Kucinich with the question about fixing the deficit.
And, here are the totals of this debate's scores added with the those of the first debate:
[3.316] Former Sen. John Edwards
[3.300] Sen. Joe Biden
[3.029] Sen. Barrack Obama
[2.587] Sen. Chris Dodd
[2.466] Gov. Bill Richardson
[2.400] Sen. Hillary Clinton
[2.319] Rep. Dennis Kucinich
[1.621] Former Sen. Mike Gravel
And, here are the rankings for the two debates and overall (just like I did with the Republican's 2nd debate blog):
I'm shocked again that my scores work out so high for Edwards. I consistently maintain that he doesn't seem to have the experience necessary to be a presidential candidate now nor back in 2004. Earlier today, I watched a political focus group on C-SPAN in which 12 people from Maryland were asked a variety of political questions for two hours. At one point one of the focus group participants described Edwards as "smarmy" which is *exactly* the word I was thinking of at that moment. Despite his smarminess, I guess he's pretty good at these debates.
Biden is, far and away, my favorite Democrat. I like him and trust him more than any other. Obama has done well in both debates, but he doesn't always answer questions as clearly as I would like. I'm more impressed with both Dodd and Kucinich this time around. Richardson had a bad night. Gravel still came off as angry, but compared to the first debate, he was a little more articulate and a seemed a little less crazed.
Hillary, as I've already described, was horrible. Even when I agree with what she's saying, I find it hard to listen to her because she's so unpleasant. That problem was also brought up a few times during the focus group I watched this afternoon.
Dodd and Kucinich and, amazingly, even Gravel have redeemed themselves just enough for me to want to see them in a third debate, but I think the field needs to start narrowing down after that.
As far as CNN's job hosting and televising the event, let me say--they suck. They had horrible audio problems throughout the entire debate and during the commentary coverage afterwards. Certain microphones weren't working part of the time; a lot of time you could hear overlapping audio from multiple sources. After the debate, while the CNN correspondants were handling commentary, it sounded like several commentators were standing right beside a commercial-sized air conditioning unit. As far as the camera work, cameramen were in the shot half the time; some of the directing was bad. Has CNN not done this kind of thing before? They have been in the TV business for a few years now haven't they? I didn't see or hear these kind of technical problems in the 2nd Republican debate on Fox News.
This debate starts off a little differently in that the candidates are asked to *briefly* introduce themselves. Mike Gravel starts off with a non-brief quote that doesn't seem to lead in well to him just saying his name and profession. John Edwards says his name but doesn't even say what position(s) he's held. He's a former senator and former V.P. candidate. I guess right *now* he's, well, nothing, so maybe that's why he only said his name.
Clinton was just asked about her voting record on troop funding. She was answering the question well until she claimed that in two nights the Republicans will be up on the same stage and that they "all" support the war. Not true. *Not* "all". Ron Paul has voted against the war from the beginning and is about the only Republican who would bring the troops home immediately, and I'm not even sure the Democrats would or could bring them home immediately. If she hadn't so incorrectly and arrogantly generalized her answer, I would have counted this as a good answer; instead, I'm counting it as poor.
We're about 30 minutes into the debate, and Clinton has had the opportunity to answer about five questions. I really don't like her. *All* she seems capable of doing so far is pointing the finger at George Bush. I don't like George Bush either, but I think you have to run for President on more than the fact that you aren't George Bush. Her angry complaining, blaming, and finger-pointing is already starting to grate on my ears. I wish she'd talk more about what to do right rather than about what went wrong. When it comes to poise, charisma, and eloquence, I don't see much that is presidential in her. She's just an unpleasant-sounding angerball.
Huh. Interesting. They're going to switch around the stage, seats, podiums, etc. such that they can have audience members ask questions directly to the candidates.
While they're doing that, I'll agree with the commentators that this has been a lively debate with more back-and-forth action than the first Democrat debate.
The break is over, and candidates are now seated with no podium in front of them.
The rest of the debate involved questions from the audience with more flexibility in answering questions with more give and take between candidates.
With the debate over, my point average with 3 pts. = excellent answer, 2 pts. = good answer, 1 pt. = fair answer, and 0 pts. = poor answer, is as follows:
[1.700] Sen. Joe Biden (based on 10 questions)
[1.538] Former Sen. John Edwards (based on 13 questions)
[1.429] Sen. Barrack Obama (based on 14 questions)
[1.444] Sen. Chris Dodd (based on 9 questions)
[1.444] Rep. Dennis Kucinich (based on 9 questions)
[1.333] Former Sen. Mike Gravel (based on 9 questions)
[1.091] Gov. Bill Richardson (based on 11 questions)
[1.000] Sen. Hillary Clinton (based on 14 questions)
There were only four excellent answers. Amazingly enough, three came from lower-tier candidates, even one from Gravel. The four were: Dodd with the question about English as the official language, Edwards with the question about Iran, Gravel with the question about gas prices, and Kucinich with the question about fixing the deficit.
And, here are the totals of this debate's scores added with the those of the first debate:
[3.316] Former Sen. John Edwards
[3.300] Sen. Joe Biden
[3.029] Sen. Barrack Obama
[2.587] Sen. Chris Dodd
[2.466] Gov. Bill Richardson
[2.400] Sen. Hillary Clinton
[2.319] Rep. Dennis Kucinich
[1.621] Former Sen. Mike Gravel
And, here are the rankings for the two debates and overall (just like I did with the Republican's 2nd debate blog):
1st 2nd Overall Candidate
----- ----- --------- -----------
[1] [2] [1] Edwards
[3] [1] [2] Biden
[2] [3] [3] Obama
[6] [4 tie] [4] Dodd
[5] [7] [5] Richardson
[4] [8] [6] Clinton
[7] [4 tie] [7] Kucinich
[8] [6] [8] Gravel
I'm shocked again that my scores work out so high for Edwards. I consistently maintain that he doesn't seem to have the experience necessary to be a presidential candidate now nor back in 2004. Earlier today, I watched a political focus group on C-SPAN in which 12 people from Maryland were asked a variety of political questions for two hours. At one point one of the focus group participants described Edwards as "smarmy" which is *exactly* the word I was thinking of at that moment. Despite his smarminess, I guess he's pretty good at these debates.
Biden is, far and away, my favorite Democrat. I like him and trust him more than any other. Obama has done well in both debates, but he doesn't always answer questions as clearly as I would like. I'm more impressed with both Dodd and Kucinich this time around. Richardson had a bad night. Gravel still came off as angry, but compared to the first debate, he was a little more articulate and a seemed a little less crazed.
Hillary, as I've already described, was horrible. Even when I agree with what she's saying, I find it hard to listen to her because she's so unpleasant. That problem was also brought up a few times during the focus group I watched this afternoon.
Dodd and Kucinich and, amazingly, even Gravel have redeemed themselves just enough for me to want to see them in a third debate, but I think the field needs to start narrowing down after that.
As far as CNN's job hosting and televising the event, let me say--they suck. They had horrible audio problems throughout the entire debate and during the commentary coverage afterwards. Certain microphones weren't working part of the time; a lot of time you could hear overlapping audio from multiple sources. After the debate, while the CNN correspondants were handling commentary, it sounded like several commentators were standing right beside a commercial-sized air conditioning unit. As far as the camera work, cameramen were in the shot half the time; some of the directing was bad. Has CNN not done this kind of thing before? They have been in the TV business for a few years now haven't they? I didn't see or hear these kind of technical problems in the 2nd Republican debate on Fox News.
Ron Paul Coming to Comedy Central; Mike Huckabee Debate Videos
According to his campaign MySpace site, Ron Paul will be on...
The Daily Show: Monday 04 June 2007 at 11:00PM on Comedy Central
New Hampshire Pres. Primary Debate: Tuesday 05 June 2007 at 7:00 on CNN
The Colbert Report: Wednesdary 13 June 2007 at 11:30 on Comedy Central
Just as a reminder, his links are:
Ron Paul Official Campaign Website
Ron Paul Congressman Website
Ron Paul @ Wikipedia
Ron Paul @ MySpace (Pres. 2008 page)
Ron Paul @ MySpace (Congressman page)
Ron Paul @ FaceBook (profile)
Ron Paul @ FaceBook (group 1)
Ron Paul @ FaceBook (group 1)
Ron Paul YouTube Channel
The video below is from Ron Paul's appearance on Bill Maher's show:
And, in case Ron Paul isn't your cup of tea, I also like another Republican candidate, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Please give these non-frontrunners a chance. If you have problems with McCain, Giuliani, or Romney, they're not the only ones in the race.
Huckabee's links are:
Mike Huckabee Official Campaign Website
Mike Huckabee @ Wikipedia
Mike Huckabee @ MySpace (official)
Mike Huckabee @ MySpace (supporters)
Mike Huckabee @ FaceBook (profile)
Mike Huckabee @ FaceBook (group 1)
Mike Huckabee @ FaceBook (group 2)
Mike Huckabee YouTube Channel
The videos below are from Mike Huckabee's answers to six questions in the 2nd Republican debate (I think I may have miscounted him at five questions & answers in my previous blog entry):
The 2nd Democratic Presidential Debate is tonight at 7:00PM on CNN and the 3rd Republican Presidential Debate is Tuesday at 7:00PM on CNN.
The Daily Show: Monday 04 June 2007 at 11:00PM on Comedy Central
New Hampshire Pres. Primary Debate: Tuesday 05 June 2007 at 7:00 on CNN
The Colbert Report: Wednesdary 13 June 2007 at 11:30 on Comedy Central
Just as a reminder, his links are:
Ron Paul Official Campaign Website
Ron Paul Congressman Website
Ron Paul @ Wikipedia
Ron Paul @ MySpace (Pres. 2008 page)
Ron Paul @ MySpace (Congressman page)
Ron Paul @ FaceBook (profile)
Ron Paul @ FaceBook (group 1)
Ron Paul @ FaceBook (group 1)
Ron Paul YouTube Channel
The video below is from Ron Paul's appearance on Bill Maher's show:
And, in case Ron Paul isn't your cup of tea, I also like another Republican candidate, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Please give these non-frontrunners a chance. If you have problems with McCain, Giuliani, or Romney, they're not the only ones in the race.
Huckabee's links are:
Mike Huckabee Official Campaign Website
Mike Huckabee @ Wikipedia
Mike Huckabee @ MySpace (official)
Mike Huckabee @ MySpace (supporters)
Mike Huckabee @ FaceBook (profile)
Mike Huckabee @ FaceBook (group 1)
Mike Huckabee @ FaceBook (group 2)
Mike Huckabee YouTube Channel
The videos below are from Mike Huckabee's answers to six questions in the 2nd Republican debate (I think I may have miscounted him at five questions & answers in my previous blog entry):
The 2nd Democratic Presidential Debate is tonight at 7:00PM on CNN and the 3rd Republican Presidential Debate is Tuesday at 7:00PM on CNN.
2nd Republican Presidential Debate
The 2nd Republican Presidential Debate aired on Fox News Channel in mid-May in South Carolina. I've had it on my TiVo for a while, and I'm finally getting around to reviewing it.
One difference from the previous debate is that they introduce each candidate in more detail. On the screen they show the age, religion, family, and career or each candidate. I'll list the candidate and each of their stats below. For family, I'll abbreviate w=wife, s=sons, d=daughters, sd=step-daughters, and c=children (no gender specified). For career, I'll abbreviate USS=US Senate, USHR=US House or Reps., USDoEo=US Dept. of Education official, fCHASC=former Chairman of House Armed Service Committee
I won't go into great detail on each candidate's answers, but I will keep stats of excellent, good, fair, and poor answers like I have with previous debates.
One thing I'm noticing is that there is less pause between questions, that all the candidates seem to be talking faster, and that all candidates seem to be making their points better. Maybe that first debate was a nice practice round, and everyone is more polished this time.
Mike Huckabee just had a line that almost brought the house down with laughter. In refering to outrageous spending by Congress, he said, "We've had a Congress that's spent more than John Edwards at a beauty shop."
Another great thing about this debate is that there is occasionally better follow up to a question. They asked Gilmore a question about a quote of his in which he implied the front-runners were not conservative enough. In his answer, he also got in a hit on Huckabee. Giuliani was given a chance to respond, but he kind of dodged the question. So, the moderator said that he'd give Giuliani another 30 seconds to answer the question he was actually asked.
Ron Paul was asked if he was out of step with his party or if the party was out of step with the world, since he's the only one that opposes the war in Iraq. His answer was very good, but a small part of it almost made it sound like we invited the 9/11 attack. He was able to finish his answer, as well as a 30 second follow up, but when he concluded, Giuliani interjected out of turn, and he seemed pretty angry about Paul's answer, calling the explanation for 9/11 absurd and even asking if the Congressman wished to withdraw the statement.
Paul had 30 more seconds in which he talked about "blowback," a concept in which countries hate and/or attack us for things we do to them first. Giuliani asked for 30 more seconds, and several others, including Romney asked for 30 seconds too. Paul obviously shook things up on this topic. However, the moderators chose to change the topic.
A new question from the internet for McCain was about whether Confederate flags should be flown from South Carolina state buildings. Before the question had even fully been asked, there were audible moans and boos from the South Carolina audience.
I could have sworn this debate was moving faster than the previous Republican and Democrat debates, but oddly, each candidate got less chance to speak. Instead of the regular seven to 13 questions each, this debate had about four to seven questions per candidate. Ron Paul and Tommy Thompson each had only four questions to respond to while McCain had six and Romney had seven.
I tallied the points for each question as usual with 3 points = excellent answer, 2 pts. = good answer, 1 pt. = fair answer, and 0 pts. = poor answer. The averages are as follows:
[2.333] Gov. Mike Huckabee
[2.250] Rep. Ron Paul
[1.800] Sen. Sam Brownback
[1.800] Rep. Duncan Hunter
[1.714] Gov. Mitt Romney
[1.500] Mayor Rudy Giuliani
[1.500] Sen. John McCain
[1.400] Gov. Jim Gilmore
[1.250] Gov. Tommy Thompson
[1.000] Rep. Tom Tancredo
Out of all the questions, I only thought there were six excellent answers: three from Mike Huckabee, two from Ron Paul, and one from Mitt Romney. I felt Gilmore, Giuliani, and Tancredo had one poor answer each.
Below are the totals of each candidate's averages from this debate plus the first one.
[4.458] Gov. Mike Huckabee
[4.030] Rep. Ron Paul
[3.600] Sen. Sam Brownback
[3.483] Gov. Mitt Romney
[3.356] Rep. Duncan Hunter
[3.150] Gov. Tommy Thompson
[3.114] Gov. Jim Gilmore
[3.000] Mayor Rudy Giuliani
[2.929] Sen. John McCain
[1.556] Rep. Tom Tancredo
And, here are the rankings from the two debates and overall...
So, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul are still my favorite candidates. Mike Huckabee does excellent in the debates, but his demeanor comes off as "soft" compared to the other candidates, which is beginning to worry me. Ron Paul has some great policies, but his viewpoint on "blowback" and 9/11 responsibility might earn him too much controversy. I'm surprised by how much I like Sam Brownback, and Duncan Hunter isn't bad either. Oddly, I'm not thrilled with Romney overall, but he does perform well in these debates.
My impression of Thompson plummeted since the first debate. Gilmore seems like a decent enough guy, but I don't think he's very presidential. He spouts out his resume too much, and he doesn't seem to be enthused about being in the race. Despite being two of the front-runners, I'm obviously not thrilled with Giuliani nor McCain. I'm also kind of shocked that I like Giuliani's performances in the debates slightly more than McCain despite the fact that I disagree with Giuliani more often. And, Tancredo is just a waste of time. As a favor and a boost to his party, Tancredo ought to just drop out now so that other candidates can have more time each at the next debates.
One difference from the previous debate is that they introduce each candidate in more detail. On the screen they show the age, religion, family, and career or each candidate. I'll list the candidate and each of their stats below. For family, I'll abbreviate w=wife, s=sons, d=daughters, sd=step-daughters, and c=children (no gender specified). For career, I'll abbreviate USS=US Senate, USHR=US House or Reps., USDoEo=US Dept. of Education official, fCHASC=former Chairman of House Armed Service Committee
- Sen. John McCain of Arizona: 70; Episcopalian; w/4s/3d; USS '87-now, USHR 2 terms, Navy '59-'81
- Rep. Ron Paul of Texas: 71; Protestant; w/5c; USHR 10 non-consective terms; Libertarian Pres. Nom. '88
- Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani of NYC: 62; Catholic; w/1s/1d/1sd; NYC Mayor '93-'01, US Attorney '83-'91
- Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado: 61; Presbyterian; w/2s; USHR '99-now; USDoEo; former state legislator
- Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas: 51; Baptist; w/2s/1d; AR Gov. '97-'07, Baptist Minister
- Former Gov. Jim Gilmore of Virginia: 57; Methodist; w/2s; VA Gov. '98-'01, RNC Chairman '01-'02
- Rep. Duncan Hunter of California: 58; Baptist; w/2s; USHR '81-now, Attorney mid 70's-'81, fCHASC
- Former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts: 60; Mormon; w/5s; MA Gov. '03-'07, ran 2002 Olympics, CEO Bain Capital Investments '84-'00
- Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas: 50; Catholic; w/2s/3d; USS '96-now, KS Sect. of Agr. '86-'93
- Former Gov. Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin: 65; Catholic; w/3c; WI Gov. '87-'01, US Sect. of HHS '01-'05
I won't go into great detail on each candidate's answers, but I will keep stats of excellent, good, fair, and poor answers like I have with previous debates.
One thing I'm noticing is that there is less pause between questions, that all the candidates seem to be talking faster, and that all candidates seem to be making their points better. Maybe that first debate was a nice practice round, and everyone is more polished this time.
Mike Huckabee just had a line that almost brought the house down with laughter. In refering to outrageous spending by Congress, he said, "We've had a Congress that's spent more than John Edwards at a beauty shop."
Another great thing about this debate is that there is occasionally better follow up to a question. They asked Gilmore a question about a quote of his in which he implied the front-runners were not conservative enough. In his answer, he also got in a hit on Huckabee. Giuliani was given a chance to respond, but he kind of dodged the question. So, the moderator said that he'd give Giuliani another 30 seconds to answer the question he was actually asked.
Ron Paul was asked if he was out of step with his party or if the party was out of step with the world, since he's the only one that opposes the war in Iraq. His answer was very good, but a small part of it almost made it sound like we invited the 9/11 attack. He was able to finish his answer, as well as a 30 second follow up, but when he concluded, Giuliani interjected out of turn, and he seemed pretty angry about Paul's answer, calling the explanation for 9/11 absurd and even asking if the Congressman wished to withdraw the statement.
Paul had 30 more seconds in which he talked about "blowback," a concept in which countries hate and/or attack us for things we do to them first. Giuliani asked for 30 more seconds, and several others, including Romney asked for 30 seconds too. Paul obviously shook things up on this topic. However, the moderators chose to change the topic.
A new question from the internet for McCain was about whether Confederate flags should be flown from South Carolina state buildings. Before the question had even fully been asked, there were audible moans and boos from the South Carolina audience.
I could have sworn this debate was moving faster than the previous Republican and Democrat debates, but oddly, each candidate got less chance to speak. Instead of the regular seven to 13 questions each, this debate had about four to seven questions per candidate. Ron Paul and Tommy Thompson each had only four questions to respond to while McCain had six and Romney had seven.
I tallied the points for each question as usual with 3 points = excellent answer, 2 pts. = good answer, 1 pt. = fair answer, and 0 pts. = poor answer. The averages are as follows:
[2.333] Gov. Mike Huckabee
[2.250] Rep. Ron Paul
[1.800] Sen. Sam Brownback
[1.800] Rep. Duncan Hunter
[1.714] Gov. Mitt Romney
[1.500] Mayor Rudy Giuliani
[1.500] Sen. John McCain
[1.400] Gov. Jim Gilmore
[1.250] Gov. Tommy Thompson
[1.000] Rep. Tom Tancredo
Out of all the questions, I only thought there were six excellent answers: three from Mike Huckabee, two from Ron Paul, and one from Mitt Romney. I felt Gilmore, Giuliani, and Tancredo had one poor answer each.
Below are the totals of each candidate's averages from this debate plus the first one.
[4.458] Gov. Mike Huckabee
[4.030] Rep. Ron Paul
[3.600] Sen. Sam Brownback
[3.483] Gov. Mitt Romney
[3.356] Rep. Duncan Hunter
[3.150] Gov. Tommy Thompson
[3.114] Gov. Jim Gilmore
[3.000] Mayor Rudy Giuliani
[2.929] Sen. John McCain
[1.556] Rep. Tom Tancredo
And, here are the rankings from the two debates and overall...
1st 2nd Overall Candidate
----- ----- --------- -----------
[1] [1] [1] Huckabee
[4] [2] [2] Paul
[3] [3] [3] Brownback
[5] [5] [4] Romney
[7] [4] [5] Hunter
[2] [9] [6] Thompson
[6] [8] [7] Gilmore
[8] [6] [8] Giuliani
[9] [7] [9] McCain
[10] [10] [10] Tancredo
So, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul are still my favorite candidates. Mike Huckabee does excellent in the debates, but his demeanor comes off as "soft" compared to the other candidates, which is beginning to worry me. Ron Paul has some great policies, but his viewpoint on "blowback" and 9/11 responsibility might earn him too much controversy. I'm surprised by how much I like Sam Brownback, and Duncan Hunter isn't bad either. Oddly, I'm not thrilled with Romney overall, but he does perform well in these debates.
My impression of Thompson plummeted since the first debate. Gilmore seems like a decent enough guy, but I don't think he's very presidential. He spouts out his resume too much, and he doesn't seem to be enthused about being in the race. Despite being two of the front-runners, I'm obviously not thrilled with Giuliani nor McCain. I'm also kind of shocked that I like Giuliani's performances in the debates slightly more than McCain despite the fact that I disagree with Giuliani more often. And, Tancredo is just a waste of time. As a favor and a boost to his party, Tancredo ought to just drop out now so that other candidates can have more time each at the next debates.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
1st Republican Presidential Debate
Thanks to being out of town for a few days, a temporary glitch in Blogger.com's post preview functionality, and just some general procrastination, I haven't gotten around to blogging about the first Republican presidential debate until now. It happened earlier this month, and it's been on my TiVo for several weeks. They've already had the 2nd debate (which I also TiVo'ed), so my comments here on the first debate will be brief.
It was moderated by Chris Matthews with some questions coming from viewers online. It took place at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, so there was a lot of mentioning of Ronald Reagan.
In case you're not familiar with all the candidates, they are:
In my answer tallies below, I skipped certain questions such as one toward Mitt Romney, "What do you hate most about America?" as well as questions speficially about Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. I also skipped a few Yes/No questions or show-of-hands questions such as, "Do you believe in evolution," as well as just plain stupid questions like, "Do you believe it would be a good thing to have Bill Clinton back in the White House?".
Many of McCain's answers seem oddly "speechified". Throughout the debate, Tancredo seems nervous or just ineloquent.
Thompson believes that:
1. Iraq should be allowed to vote on whether they want us there or not. If "Yes" our presence is legitimized; if "No" we get out.
2. Iraq's 18 territories should be treated like our 50 states, each one with locally elected regional governments.
3. Split oil reserves: one third for federal governmnet; one third for state governments; one third for "every man, woman, and child" (for investing).
Ron Paul says the war should not have been used for political gain, to enforce UN sanctions, or to pretend that the Iraqis were a threat to us. He believes that the U.S. should have a non-intervention foreign policy that is more traditionally conservative and Republican. He believes if we wanted to go to war, Congress should have voted to officially declare war.
When asked whether he'd feel comfortable with Tom Tancreo in charge of immigration, McCain said, "In a word, no," and then immediately went on to address a previous question about terroists with an answer that felt overly practiced, that included a reference to following Bin Laden to the gates of hell, and that was concluded with a creepy grin.
Each candidate is asked if he'd be willing to change the Constitution such that non-US born citizens, like Gov. Arnold Schwarzeneggar could be president. Most say no, and those that say yes seem to be joking. The best answer comes from Mike Huckabee who says, "After I've served eight years as President, I'd be happy to change the constitution for Gov. Schwarzeneggar." McCain says, "It depends on whether he endorses me or not."
When Mike Huckabee was asked if he believed in global warming, he talked about how much we have a responsibility to be "good stewards" of the earth and leave it in as good a shape or better than we found it. It was an eloquent answer that fit perfectly within the 30 seconds allotted, and I would have counted this as an excellent answer rather than just good if he had been more specific on how to take to care of the environment.
When asked if he is a compassion conservative like Bush, Duncan Hunter also gave a one word answer, and then gave his opinion about Iraq.
When asked if he would plan on phasing out the IRS, Ron Paul said, "Immediately," and elaborated on how it is not government's role to police the world or protect people cradle to grave.
When asked if abortion within first eight weeks of pregancy is okay, Jim Gilmore said he believed it to be okay but that there should be several provisions such as 24-hour waiting period, parental consent for minors, partial-birth ban, etc. Tommy Thompson said that the states should be responsible for decisions on abortion. Romney said he is personally pro-life but upheld his state's pro-choice stance as law until he felt Roe v. Wade had gone too far when cloning was discussed. When asked about public funding for abortions, Giuliani said states should decide and was forced to admit that he supported it in New York.
When asked about which tax each candidate would like to cut, I especially like Duncan Hunter's answer. He says he would cut taxes on domestic manufacturing to help encourage the production of goods in the U.S. rather than importing at higher costs due to the free trade agreement. Ron Paul repeats that he would get rid of the IRS but also says that he would get rid of "inflation tax." He explains that when we spend way beyond our means, we print more money which lowers the value of the dollar, thus inflation. The answer is wiser spending.
When asked what mistake by a president he's learned not to make, Mike Huckabee says we should stop letting jobs get shifted overseas while CEOs get enormous bonuses.
Overall, most of the candidates had a decent number of good answers, but there were fair and poor answers sprinkled throughout. Tancredo was consistently unimpressive, having nothing but fair and poor answers. Much of that was bad delivery and bad timing (not ending his answers well within allotted time), but the content of his answers wasn't always decent either.
The only excellent answers were as follows:
When scoring excellent answers 3 points, good answers 2 points, fair answers 1 point, and poor answers 0 points, my averages are as follows:
These results kind of surprise me. I like at least certain aspects of almost all the candidates. I like Huckabee's way of thinking, and yet I'm not sure I get a complete sense of his plans and policies. His answers to questions, while sometimes idealistic and vague, were always eloquently delivered. That, and his overall likeability, sense of integrity, and lack of obvious flaws pushed him to the top in this debate.
I've seen Thompson be lackluster in one-on-one interviews, but he was really good in this debate. Sam Brownback seems nearly worthy of being a front-runner. I really like Ron Paul and his policies, but he's the most extreme of the candidates and sometimes comes off sounding less sensible--even when I agree with him. It's not that I don't like the front-runners of McCain, Giuliani, and Romney, but they tended to have their drawbacks exposed too much in this debate. Gilmore and Hunter should not be written off yet either.
Out of the ten, only Tancredo seems totally over his head.
It was moderated by Chris Matthews with some questions coming from viewers online. It took place at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, so there was a lot of mentioning of Ronald Reagan.
In case you're not familiar with all the candidates, they are:
- Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas
- Former Governor Jim Gilmore of Virginia
- Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York City
- Former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas
- Congressman Duncan Hunter of California
- Senator John McCain of Arizona
- Congressman Ron Paul of Texas
- Former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts
- Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado
- Former Governor Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin
In my answer tallies below, I skipped certain questions such as one toward Mitt Romney, "What do you hate most about America?" as well as questions speficially about Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. I also skipped a few Yes/No questions or show-of-hands questions such as, "Do you believe in evolution," as well as just plain stupid questions like, "Do you believe it would be a good thing to have Bill Clinton back in the White House?".
Many of McCain's answers seem oddly "speechified". Throughout the debate, Tancredo seems nervous or just ineloquent.
Thompson believes that:
1. Iraq should be allowed to vote on whether they want us there or not. If "Yes" our presence is legitimized; if "No" we get out.
2. Iraq's 18 territories should be treated like our 50 states, each one with locally elected regional governments.
3. Split oil reserves: one third for federal governmnet; one third for state governments; one third for "every man, woman, and child" (for investing).
Ron Paul says the war should not have been used for political gain, to enforce UN sanctions, or to pretend that the Iraqis were a threat to us. He believes that the U.S. should have a non-intervention foreign policy that is more traditionally conservative and Republican. He believes if we wanted to go to war, Congress should have voted to officially declare war.
When asked whether he'd feel comfortable with Tom Tancreo in charge of immigration, McCain said, "In a word, no," and then immediately went on to address a previous question about terroists with an answer that felt overly practiced, that included a reference to following Bin Laden to the gates of hell, and that was concluded with a creepy grin.
Each candidate is asked if he'd be willing to change the Constitution such that non-US born citizens, like Gov. Arnold Schwarzeneggar could be president. Most say no, and those that say yes seem to be joking. The best answer comes from Mike Huckabee who says, "After I've served eight years as President, I'd be happy to change the constitution for Gov. Schwarzeneggar." McCain says, "It depends on whether he endorses me or not."
When Mike Huckabee was asked if he believed in global warming, he talked about how much we have a responsibility to be "good stewards" of the earth and leave it in as good a shape or better than we found it. It was an eloquent answer that fit perfectly within the 30 seconds allotted, and I would have counted this as an excellent answer rather than just good if he had been more specific on how to take to care of the environment.
When asked if he is a compassion conservative like Bush, Duncan Hunter also gave a one word answer, and then gave his opinion about Iraq.
When asked if he would plan on phasing out the IRS, Ron Paul said, "Immediately," and elaborated on how it is not government's role to police the world or protect people cradle to grave.
When asked if abortion within first eight weeks of pregancy is okay, Jim Gilmore said he believed it to be okay but that there should be several provisions such as 24-hour waiting period, parental consent for minors, partial-birth ban, etc. Tommy Thompson said that the states should be responsible for decisions on abortion. Romney said he is personally pro-life but upheld his state's pro-choice stance as law until he felt Roe v. Wade had gone too far when cloning was discussed. When asked about public funding for abortions, Giuliani said states should decide and was forced to admit that he supported it in New York.
When asked about which tax each candidate would like to cut, I especially like Duncan Hunter's answer. He says he would cut taxes on domestic manufacturing to help encourage the production of goods in the U.S. rather than importing at higher costs due to the free trade agreement. Ron Paul repeats that he would get rid of the IRS but also says that he would get rid of "inflation tax." He explains that when we spend way beyond our means, we print more money which lowers the value of the dollar, thus inflation. The answer is wiser spending.
When asked what mistake by a president he's learned not to make, Mike Huckabee says we should stop letting jobs get shifted overseas while CEOs get enormous bonuses.
Overall, most of the candidates had a decent number of good answers, but there were fair and poor answers sprinkled throughout. Tancredo was consistently unimpressive, having nothing but fair and poor answers. Much of that was bad delivery and bad timing (not ending his answers well within allotted time), but the content of his answers wasn't always decent either.
The only excellent answers were as follows:
- Mike Huckabee's answer to "Which mistakes have you learned not to repeat?"
- Mike Huckabee's answer to "How would you be different from George W Bush""
- Duncan Hunter's answer to "What tax would you like to cut?"
- Ron Paul's answer to "You voted against the war; why are the other wrong?"
- Ron Paul's answer to "Would you phase out the IRS?"
When scoring excellent answers 3 points, good answers 2 points, fair answers 1 point, and poor answers 0 points, my averages are as follows:
- [2.125] Mike Huckabee (based on 8 questions)
- [1.900] Tommy Thompson (based on 10 questions)
- [1.800] Sam Brownback (based on 10 questions)
- [1.780] Ron Paul (based on 9 questions)
- [1.769] Mitt Romney (based on 13 questions)
- [1.714] Jim Gilmore (based on 7 questions)
- [1.556] Duncan Hunter (based on 9 questions)
- [1.500] Rudy Giuliani (based on 12 questions)
- [1.429] John McCain (based on 14 questions)
- [0.556] Tom Tancredo (based on 9 questions)
These results kind of surprise me. I like at least certain aspects of almost all the candidates. I like Huckabee's way of thinking, and yet I'm not sure I get a complete sense of his plans and policies. His answers to questions, while sometimes idealistic and vague, were always eloquently delivered. That, and his overall likeability, sense of integrity, and lack of obvious flaws pushed him to the top in this debate.
I've seen Thompson be lackluster in one-on-one interviews, but he was really good in this debate. Sam Brownback seems nearly worthy of being a front-runner. I really like Ron Paul and his policies, but he's the most extreme of the candidates and sometimes comes off sounding less sensible--even when I agree with him. It's not that I don't like the front-runners of McCain, Giuliani, and Romney, but they tended to have their drawbacks exposed too much in this debate. Gilmore and Hunter should not be written off yet either.
Out of the ten, only Tancredo seems totally over his head.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
1st Democratic Presidential Debate (Part 2)
Picking up where I left off...
Clinton is asked about Guiliani's quote about Republican's being better at protecting America and fighting terrorism. Her answer includes a lot of complaining about the current administration. Dodd answers similarly.
Another show-of-hands question... Do you believe there is a global war on terror? Kucinich does not raise his hand. He addresses that by saying he would not use war as an instrument and would increase diplomatic efforts.
Obama is asked how he would respond to any new terrorist attacks. His answer is a bit rambling, but he concentrates on good intelligence and communication with the world community. Edwards is given the same question and concentrates on finding out how terrorists would have gotten weapons through the borders. He says that there are dangerous people and nations in the world that need to be dealt with strongly but that there are more instruments at our disposal than bombs. Good answer. Clinton concentrates on the idea of swift retaliation but also emphasizes that we should not go looking for other fights. And, she works in a complaint against the Bush administration.
Show-of-hands: Does anyone want to join Kucinich's efforts to impeach Dick Cheney? No one raises their hand. Kucinich addresses the question by getting out a pocket copy of the constitution and claims that Cheney has violated the constitution. His passion for the constitution is admirable, but he doesn't do a good job explaining how and why he thinks Cheney violated it.
Dodd is asked if there is a difference between gay marriage and civil unions. He says he does not support gay marriage because of the traditions of marriage but that he does strongly support civil unions.
Biden is asked what he would do about the climate and energy problem. He says that he and Obama have a bill in proposal that would require every car produced in America to be a "flex fuel" automobile, require gas stations to pump ethanol by 2009, encourage research into lithium battery technology, cappin emissions, etc.
Richardson is asked a question about relations with Castro's Cuba. He begins responding to a previous question about terrorism response, that he would respond militarily and aggresively and build international support for our goals. About Cuba, he says we should be planning for a post-Castro Cuba right now, re-examining the embargo, etc.
Gravel is asked if we're behind other countries when it comes to nuclear energy. Gravel barely and inarticulated answers the question and swerves over into ranting about terrorism. Brian Williams even comments how unbelievably the question went from environment to terrorism, earning a little laughter from the audience.
Obama is asked what he's doing to help the environment. He talks about planting trees on Earth Day, but Brian Williams interjects asking "What about fluorescent light bulbs?" Obama jokes that he thought the tree thing was pretty good. Then, startingly, even he swerves over into talking about terrorism. Bad move. I like it better when candidates answer the question they're given. Nearing the end of the debate, I think they just want to get in their last words on terrorism regardless of what the questions are.
Kucinich is eager to respond to Obama. He says we need to end both global warming and global warring. He says we attacked Iraq for oil, and we're about to attack Iran for oil. Until we change energy policies, we'll continue to have aggresive stance against other countries. Wow, score one for Kucinich.
Obama is eager to respond to Kucinich. He says he does not wish to go to war with Iran but emphasizes their growing potential to build nuclear weapons. He says that information is not disputed. Kucinich tries to interject that it is disputed. Gravel is given a chance to respond. He inarticulately spouts something about scaring the "bejezus" out of Iran for decades. Then he says the greatest violator of non-proliferation is the U.S. because we're not disarming as we pledged we would. Then he asks Obama, "Who the hell are we going to nuke? Tell me, Barrack" Obama responds, "I'm not planning to nuke anybody right now, Mike."
Edwards is aksed who is moral leader is? Edwards pauses for several seconds. He says he can't identify with just one person as moral leader. He says God is a moral leader, and he prays every day. He then mentions his wife and family as being strong moral support. Granted, that's a softball answer, but it was a weird, tough question. And, as softball answers go, I don't think he could have answered any other way, and I still like the answer.
Sweet, Brian Williams asks Clinton if Wal-Mart is a good or bad thing for the United States of America, earning some laughter from the audience. Please say bad. Please say bad. She starts by saying it's a mixed blessing. Okay, decent start. When Wal-Mart started, it brought goods to rural areas. As they've grown, they've raised controversy over fairness and treatment of employees. Then, she starts ranting about the current administration and corporate America being oblivious to the needs of the middle class. Granted, there may be some truth to that, but I wish she had stayed more on topic about Wal-Mart and not used it as an opportunity to rant. Almost an excellent answer, but I gotta go with good instead.
Biden is asked if the Democratic party will become extinct if they lose another presidential election. His answer is kind of rambling. He says something about how the Republicans should be more afraid of Hillary than they are. Then, we swerves into some kind of comment about international relations. Not well answered.
And, that was the last question of the night.
-----
Again using the same point system: excellent answer = 3 points, good answer = 2 points, fair = 1, and poor = 0, and including questions from all 90 minutes of the debate, my numbers work out to the following:
In the last third of the debate, there were three more excellent answers. Biden brought his excellent total up to three with his answer to the climate and energy crisis question. Edwards had an excellent answer to the moral leader question. And, oddly enough, Kucinich had an excellent answer to an environmental question.
As far as poor answers... Biden's answer to the last question of the night was poor. Otherwise, the poor answers remained confined to Kucinich and Gravel.
I'm kind of shocked that the final averages worked in favor of John Edwards. I've never been particularly impressed with him. It's always seemed odd to me that he's considered such a strong candidate now or back in 2004 after only one term as a senator from North Carolina. However, he does have a lot of poise and may handle debates well the way some people handle tests well. Also, he got a last minute boost by his moral leader question. While it was an excellent answer, I'm sure a few other candidates would have answered similarly.
It's interesting to see that Obama and Biden are tied for 2nd place. I'm somewhat more familiar with Biden because he appears on TV news shows all the time. From what I know, I'd say Biden is the strongest, most likable, and most straight-talking candidate among the Democrats. If he were to win the nomination, I'd be very tempted to vote for him, especially if the Republicans don't nominate a strong alternative.
It seems like every election has to have a crazy person in it, whether it's a good kind of crazy or a bad kind of crazy. In the '90's you had the good kind of crazy with Ross Perot. More recently, you've had the mixed bag kind of crazy with Rev. Al Sharpton. This year, we've got the bad kind of crazy with Mike Gravel. He's inarticulate and unmistakably angry. Seriously, that guy appeared to be ticked off at everything and everybody. He's a ticking timebomb. I think he himself is a weapon of mass destruction. If he were elected, I could envision him having a heart attack in the first week just from yelling at people. It's a shame too, because Perot, Sharpton, and the other "crazies" were at least fun to watch and listen to, and they cut through the crap dished out by the other candidates. But, Gravel is not fun or poignant or particularly helpful to the process. He's just scary. Some of his ideas are decent, but he needs some composure, and he needs to express his ideas better. Then, he might be okay.
As far as the other 2nd tier candidates, I think Richardson isn't that bad, Dodd isn't horrible but not nearly spectacular enough either, and Kucinich may be serving the Perot/Sharpton purpose without actually being a "crazy."
And as for Hillary Clinton... I'm not a fan of hers. There's just something about the way she talks that I don't believe her. She does not have a tenth of the charisma of her husband Bill. Bill Clinton could lie to my face, and I'd thank him for talking to me (okay, an obvious exaggeration, but you know what I mean). Hillary, however, could tell me the sky is blue, and I'd be tempted to look up "sky" on Wikipedia to see if she really was correct. She did a decent enough job in this debate, and I'm gradually finding her less annoying. However, she spends way too much time being negative about the current administration. Don't get me wrong, this administration deserves the insults, but I'd rather Hillary focus on her plans, her policies, her better ideas. I think it would help her if she talked more about what she would do rather than what Bush should have done.
Overall, a lackluster debate. Too few excellent answers. I've already watched the recent Republican debate but will need to watch it again for blogging purposes. From what I remember, there are too many among the ten Republican candidates that aren't very recognizable or distinguishable. I think Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are more articulate and eloquent than all eight Democratic candidates combined. I don't understand the appeal of Rudy Guiliani. I think, scarily enough, that McCain might be the "crazy" in the Republican camp. And, I think the best overall candidate, Ron Paul, could probably use a little polishing in his answers and some more visibility outside the internet (where he is already *extremely* popular).
I think I read somewhere that another debate is coming up this week. I look forward to it.
Clinton is asked about Guiliani's quote about Republican's being better at protecting America and fighting terrorism. Her answer includes a lot of complaining about the current administration. Dodd answers similarly.
Another show-of-hands question... Do you believe there is a global war on terror? Kucinich does not raise his hand. He addresses that by saying he would not use war as an instrument and would increase diplomatic efforts.
Obama is asked how he would respond to any new terrorist attacks. His answer is a bit rambling, but he concentrates on good intelligence and communication with the world community. Edwards is given the same question and concentrates on finding out how terrorists would have gotten weapons through the borders. He says that there are dangerous people and nations in the world that need to be dealt with strongly but that there are more instruments at our disposal than bombs. Good answer. Clinton concentrates on the idea of swift retaliation but also emphasizes that we should not go looking for other fights. And, she works in a complaint against the Bush administration.
Show-of-hands: Does anyone want to join Kucinich's efforts to impeach Dick Cheney? No one raises their hand. Kucinich addresses the question by getting out a pocket copy of the constitution and claims that Cheney has violated the constitution. His passion for the constitution is admirable, but he doesn't do a good job explaining how and why he thinks Cheney violated it.
Dodd is asked if there is a difference between gay marriage and civil unions. He says he does not support gay marriage because of the traditions of marriage but that he does strongly support civil unions.
Biden is asked what he would do about the climate and energy problem. He says that he and Obama have a bill in proposal that would require every car produced in America to be a "flex fuel" automobile, require gas stations to pump ethanol by 2009, encourage research into lithium battery technology, cappin emissions, etc.
Richardson is asked a question about relations with Castro's Cuba. He begins responding to a previous question about terrorism response, that he would respond militarily and aggresively and build international support for our goals. About Cuba, he says we should be planning for a post-Castro Cuba right now, re-examining the embargo, etc.
Gravel is asked if we're behind other countries when it comes to nuclear energy. Gravel barely and inarticulated answers the question and swerves over into ranting about terrorism. Brian Williams even comments how unbelievably the question went from environment to terrorism, earning a little laughter from the audience.
Obama is asked what he's doing to help the environment. He talks about planting trees on Earth Day, but Brian Williams interjects asking "What about fluorescent light bulbs?" Obama jokes that he thought the tree thing was pretty good. Then, startingly, even he swerves over into talking about terrorism. Bad move. I like it better when candidates answer the question they're given. Nearing the end of the debate, I think they just want to get in their last words on terrorism regardless of what the questions are.
Kucinich is eager to respond to Obama. He says we need to end both global warming and global warring. He says we attacked Iraq for oil, and we're about to attack Iran for oil. Until we change energy policies, we'll continue to have aggresive stance against other countries. Wow, score one for Kucinich.
Obama is eager to respond to Kucinich. He says he does not wish to go to war with Iran but emphasizes their growing potential to build nuclear weapons. He says that information is not disputed. Kucinich tries to interject that it is disputed. Gravel is given a chance to respond. He inarticulately spouts something about scaring the "bejezus" out of Iran for decades. Then he says the greatest violator of non-proliferation is the U.S. because we're not disarming as we pledged we would. Then he asks Obama, "Who the hell are we going to nuke? Tell me, Barrack" Obama responds, "I'm not planning to nuke anybody right now, Mike."
Edwards is aksed who is moral leader is? Edwards pauses for several seconds. He says he can't identify with just one person as moral leader. He says God is a moral leader, and he prays every day. He then mentions his wife and family as being strong moral support. Granted, that's a softball answer, but it was a weird, tough question. And, as softball answers go, I don't think he could have answered any other way, and I still like the answer.
Sweet, Brian Williams asks Clinton if Wal-Mart is a good or bad thing for the United States of America, earning some laughter from the audience. Please say bad. Please say bad. She starts by saying it's a mixed blessing. Okay, decent start. When Wal-Mart started, it brought goods to rural areas. As they've grown, they've raised controversy over fairness and treatment of employees. Then, she starts ranting about the current administration and corporate America being oblivious to the needs of the middle class. Granted, there may be some truth to that, but I wish she had stayed more on topic about Wal-Mart and not used it as an opportunity to rant. Almost an excellent answer, but I gotta go with good instead.
Biden is asked if the Democratic party will become extinct if they lose another presidential election. His answer is kind of rambling. He says something about how the Republicans should be more afraid of Hillary than they are. Then, we swerves into some kind of comment about international relations. Not well answered.
And, that was the last question of the night.
-----
Again using the same point system: excellent answer = 3 points, good answer = 2 points, fair = 1, and poor = 0, and including questions from all 90 minutes of the debate, my numbers work out to the following:
- [1.778] Former Senator John Edwards (9 questions)
- [1.600] Senator Barrack Obama (10 questions)
- [1.600] Senator Joe Biden (10 questions)
- [1.400] Senator Hillary Clinton (10 questions)
- [1.375] Governor Bill Richardson (8 questions)
- [1.143] Senator Chris Dodd (7 questions)
- [0.875] Congressman Dennis Kucinich (8 questions)
- [0.288] Former Senator Mike Gravel (7 questions)
In the last third of the debate, there were three more excellent answers. Biden brought his excellent total up to three with his answer to the climate and energy crisis question. Edwards had an excellent answer to the moral leader question. And, oddly enough, Kucinich had an excellent answer to an environmental question.
As far as poor answers... Biden's answer to the last question of the night was poor. Otherwise, the poor answers remained confined to Kucinich and Gravel.
I'm kind of shocked that the final averages worked in favor of John Edwards. I've never been particularly impressed with him. It's always seemed odd to me that he's considered such a strong candidate now or back in 2004 after only one term as a senator from North Carolina. However, he does have a lot of poise and may handle debates well the way some people handle tests well. Also, he got a last minute boost by his moral leader question. While it was an excellent answer, I'm sure a few other candidates would have answered similarly.
It's interesting to see that Obama and Biden are tied for 2nd place. I'm somewhat more familiar with Biden because he appears on TV news shows all the time. From what I know, I'd say Biden is the strongest, most likable, and most straight-talking candidate among the Democrats. If he were to win the nomination, I'd be very tempted to vote for him, especially if the Republicans don't nominate a strong alternative.
It seems like every election has to have a crazy person in it, whether it's a good kind of crazy or a bad kind of crazy. In the '90's you had the good kind of crazy with Ross Perot. More recently, you've had the mixed bag kind of crazy with Rev. Al Sharpton. This year, we've got the bad kind of crazy with Mike Gravel. He's inarticulate and unmistakably angry. Seriously, that guy appeared to be ticked off at everything and everybody. He's a ticking timebomb. I think he himself is a weapon of mass destruction. If he were elected, I could envision him having a heart attack in the first week just from yelling at people. It's a shame too, because Perot, Sharpton, and the other "crazies" were at least fun to watch and listen to, and they cut through the crap dished out by the other candidates. But, Gravel is not fun or poignant or particularly helpful to the process. He's just scary. Some of his ideas are decent, but he needs some composure, and he needs to express his ideas better. Then, he might be okay.
As far as the other 2nd tier candidates, I think Richardson isn't that bad, Dodd isn't horrible but not nearly spectacular enough either, and Kucinich may be serving the Perot/Sharpton purpose without actually being a "crazy."
And as for Hillary Clinton... I'm not a fan of hers. There's just something about the way she talks that I don't believe her. She does not have a tenth of the charisma of her husband Bill. Bill Clinton could lie to my face, and I'd thank him for talking to me (okay, an obvious exaggeration, but you know what I mean). Hillary, however, could tell me the sky is blue, and I'd be tempted to look up "sky" on Wikipedia to see if she really was correct. She did a decent enough job in this debate, and I'm gradually finding her less annoying. However, she spends way too much time being negative about the current administration. Don't get me wrong, this administration deserves the insults, but I'd rather Hillary focus on her plans, her policies, her better ideas. I think it would help her if she talked more about what she would do rather than what Bush should have done.
Overall, a lackluster debate. Too few excellent answers. I've already watched the recent Republican debate but will need to watch it again for blogging purposes. From what I remember, there are too many among the ten Republican candidates that aren't very recognizable or distinguishable. I think Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are more articulate and eloquent than all eight Democratic candidates combined. I don't understand the appeal of Rudy Guiliani. I think, scarily enough, that McCain might be the "crazy" in the Republican camp. And, I think the best overall candidate, Ron Paul, could probably use a little polishing in his answers and some more visibility outside the internet (where he is already *extremely* popular).
I think I read somewhere that another debate is coming up this week. I look forward to it.
1st Democratic Presidential Debate (Part 1)
Okay, I've had the first Democratic presidential debate on my TiVo for about two weeks now, and I'm finally getting around to watching it.
I like how Brian Williams says that the sponsors of the event "consider themselves thanked" and that the participants are asked not to make opening statements. That way we get right to the questions and the issues.
For a 90-minute debate, I won't comment on every question or every response. But, I am going to try to track how many questions each candidate gets and how well they answer those questions. Then, I'll tally the information in the end.
The first question goes to Senator Hillary Clinton regarding Senator Harry Reid's comment that "the war is lost." Clinton doesn't address Reid's statement directly and states her own opinion about the war and the American people's desire to end the war. Her answer is the standard, safe answer we've heard before. Senator Joe Biden is given the same question. His answer is similar with a little more emphasis on the responsibility of the Iraqis to take over their country. Biden is more of a straight-talked, which I like, but also has a twinge of arrogance in his voice.
So far, only seven minutes in, only three questions, responses from only Clinton, Biden, Obama, and Edwards, and already there's a lot of shots at President Bush. Not necessarily anything wrong with that. He deserves it.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich just got a question about whether you can oppose the war and yet still support it with funding. His answer was decent, although not very articulate. He did mention that he has a proposed bill for the House that would transfer responsibility to the Iraqis as our troops pull out. I would think that would be expected and under the control of the president, so I wonder how exactly his bill adds anything to that idea.
On the same question, Governor Bill Richardson really breaks down the actions he would do. It's good to hear that he can point to specifics of a plan.
Former Senator Mike Gravel gets a similar question. This guy seems like he could use some blood pressure medicine. He comes off as being really honked off. He even looks a little scary. He spends most of this time answering the question by trashing the president and being brazen. I think I caught him saying something about making it a felony to stay in Iraq, or something like that.
An audience member's question is directed to Obama regarding what a "mission complete status" would look like. His answer comes off a little vague and rambling. Clinton gets the same question and emphsizes the need for Republican support to get out of a sectarian civil war. Both their answers make sense and are true, but the don't quite address the question. What does a "mission complete status" look like? Or, are we past the point of worring about completing the mission and just getting out. If so, I think I'd have to agree, but neither of these candidates seemed willing to come right out and say that.
The next set of questions address possible character issues. Obama is asked about kickbacks from Illinois business deals. Edwards is asked how he justifies expensive hair cuts while having a theme on poverty. He admits he has a privileged lifestyle now, but that it's "not where [he] comes from."
Clinton is asked about hedge funds. Richardson is asked why he took so long to way in on Attorney General Gonzales and then said it was because he's Hispanic. He rambled a bit at first, but then finally admitted (again) that being Hispanic did factor in to his late decision. He said it's better to be honest. Plus, he did *eventually* give in and call for Gonzales's resignation.
Dodd is asked about his money from lobbyists while publicly being for reform. His answer is articulate but doesn't quite address the question. Kucinich gets a question about why his political "traction" isn't greater despite being against the war from the beginning. His answer is not very good at all.
Biden is given a review of times he's been outspoken or abrupt and then asked if he would have "discipline on the world stage." His answer is, "Yes." Laughter from the audience. Just, "Yes."
Gravel has been quoted as saying that it doesn't matter whether he's elected, so he's asked why is here tonight. He says that after being around the other candidates he wonders how they hell they got there too. He even says, quite angrily, that some of the candidates "scare" him. Brian Williams prods him further by asking specifically which ones worry him so much. He points to the "top tier" candidates (Clinton, Obama, Edwards), and then says he'll include Biden because he's arrogant and wants to tell the Iraqis how to run their country. Gravel says we "should just get out."
Clinton is asked why Republicans are so eager to defeat her. She explains how much she's ready to institute universal health care and to bring out change and renewed trust on the world stage.
The next question is about partial birth abortion. Edwards gets it first. He semi-dodges the question saying how tough an issue it is for people and talking about how the election will affect the Supreme Court, but he does eventually say that he is for a woman's right to choose. Obama steers the question toward reducing teen pregnancy and increasing prevention.
Biden says he strongly supports Roe v. Wade. He said he believes that partial birth abortions should only be in cases where the life of the mother is at risk. But, he also said he fears outlawing partial birth abortions is a stepping stone toward overturning Roe v. Wade. Even if I don't agree with him on this topic, at least his answer was rational and clear-cut.
Kucinich also steers the question toward pre-natal care, natal care, adoption, child care, universal health care, etc. Dodd even states that he agrees with Kucinich but elaborates more about the aspect of a woman's health in this issue.
Oddly, Clinton, Richardson, and Gravel are not asked the abortion question.
The next question is for each candidate: Who is your model Supreme Court Justice alive today.
Richardson: Whizzer White???, then he says Ginsberg after Brian Williams tells him to mention someone alive
Dodd: Ginsberg
Edwards: Ginsberg or Bryer(?)
(The question and answers took so long, they didn't get to everyone before moving on...)
Clinton is asked if any government failure played a role in the tragedy at Virgina Tech. She says yes, almost gets choked up, mentions Columbine, and talks about gun control. Richardson gets a similar question about gun control and Virginia Tech. He admits that he's from a state where the 2nd amendment is crucial, so he steers the question toward mental health checks.
Brian Williams asks a show-of-hands question about who, as an adult, has had a gun in the house. Richardson, Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, and Gravel all raise their hand. And, you know, the idea of Gravel with a gun is a little scary. Odd how the "front-runners" in the race are the ones that didn't raise their hand.
Biden clarifies that he owned a rifle, not a pistol and answered another similar question about gun control. He brings up his crime bill from the Clinton administration that put more cops on the street. He also said the assult rifle ban should not have lapsed and that they need to do something about the loophole in which you can buy a gun from a gun show that you couldn't get from a gun shop. Then, he also steers the topic toward mental illness saying that if a teacher can determine that a student may be a danger, they should have the right to get them taken off the campus.
The next question is about how they would pay for health care. Edwards focuses on eliminating Bush's tax cuts for the upper class and explains how he would work employer benefits and give employees choices. Obama says there should be a "national pool" for those that don't have benefits, that the country should do better about controlling costs, and that there should be catastrophic insurance to protect against enormous medical bills in families.
Clinton gets the same question and says that some of the current ideas have been tried before but that the insurance companies got nervous. She's ready to try again. She doesn't want to put new money into a new system; she wants to better use the money we have now. I like that answer.
Richardson says no new beauracracy, focus on prevention, deal with inefficiencies, and re-establish doctor-patient relationship.
One e-mail question for each of the candidates was to give an example of a mistake and whether you learned from it. One excellent came from Obama where he plainly admitted that he regretted the way the Terry Shivo case was handled, and in retrospect, felt that that decision should have been left to the family. Edwards also plainly admitted that voting for the war was a mistake, and that he learned he should listen to his own judgment more in the future. Richardson admits that he tried to rush the increase of the minimum wage in his state instead of pacing himself and handling the situation more diplomatically.
Clinton is aksed about amnesty for illegal aliens. She says we should tighten border security, sanction employers who get undocumented workers, help communities with cost caused by illegal immigration, better tracking of who's in the country, and better opportunity to pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn Engligh, and eventually become citizens legally.
On a question about education, Biden says he need the best teachers in the world and implied that teachers should make more money. While that's true, I don't think money is the only problem with the teaching profession, and I think there are already a lot of really excellent teachers out there who teach despite the bad pay. I think you need to do more for this problem, than just throw money at it. Part of the problem with the education system is everyone but the teachers: the administrators, the parents, and sometimes the students themselves. There needs to be more respect in school all around.
A question for all candidates is about what they would want to accomplish on the first day. Richardson says, first day, get out of Iraq with diplomacy, second day, energy indepdence, third day, climate change, fourth day, take the day off.
At the one hour mark, the debate questions switch to non-Iraq foreign policy.
What are the three most important world allies? Obama says European Union and Asia (Japan and China).
What are the three biggest non-Iraq threats? Biden says North Korea, Iran, and Russia. Gravel says we should deal with the rest of the world as equals. He complains about how much we pay for defense and war. As a follow-up, Edwards and Richardson are asked specifically about Russia. Edwards dodges the question; Richardson addresses it a little more directly and then braches off into Darfur.
-----
It's getting late, and I'm getting tired. So, I'll have to blog about the last 25 minutes of the debate tomorrow. But, here's my summary as to how well I feel the candidates answered the questions and addressed the issues so far (regardless or whether I agreed with them or not)...
If every excellent answer is worth 3 points, every good answer is 2 points, fair answer = 1, poor answer = 0, and I take the point total and divide by the number of questions each candidate got, the numbers would work out as follows:
So far, there have only been four excellent answers. Senator Biden had excllent answers to the questions about partial birth abortion and the Virginia Tech/gun control issue. Senator Obama had an excellent answer about what mistake he's made and what he's learned from it. And, Senator Clinton had an excellent answer to the question about illegal immigration.
Biden may be the only person with two excellent answers, but he's only had one good answer, and the other five have just been fair. Clinton has the same exact numbers except one fewer excellent answers and one fewer total. The only ones with poor answers have been Kucinich and Gravel.
More tomorrow (or, technically, later today).
I like how Brian Williams says that the sponsors of the event "consider themselves thanked" and that the participants are asked not to make opening statements. That way we get right to the questions and the issues.
For a 90-minute debate, I won't comment on every question or every response. But, I am going to try to track how many questions each candidate gets and how well they answer those questions. Then, I'll tally the information in the end.
The first question goes to Senator Hillary Clinton regarding Senator Harry Reid's comment that "the war is lost." Clinton doesn't address Reid's statement directly and states her own opinion about the war and the American people's desire to end the war. Her answer is the standard, safe answer we've heard before. Senator Joe Biden is given the same question. His answer is similar with a little more emphasis on the responsibility of the Iraqis to take over their country. Biden is more of a straight-talked, which I like, but also has a twinge of arrogance in his voice.
So far, only seven minutes in, only three questions, responses from only Clinton, Biden, Obama, and Edwards, and already there's a lot of shots at President Bush. Not necessarily anything wrong with that. He deserves it.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich just got a question about whether you can oppose the war and yet still support it with funding. His answer was decent, although not very articulate. He did mention that he has a proposed bill for the House that would transfer responsibility to the Iraqis as our troops pull out. I would think that would be expected and under the control of the president, so I wonder how exactly his bill adds anything to that idea.
On the same question, Governor Bill Richardson really breaks down the actions he would do. It's good to hear that he can point to specifics of a plan.
Former Senator Mike Gravel gets a similar question. This guy seems like he could use some blood pressure medicine. He comes off as being really honked off. He even looks a little scary. He spends most of this time answering the question by trashing the president and being brazen. I think I caught him saying something about making it a felony to stay in Iraq, or something like that.
An audience member's question is directed to Obama regarding what a "mission complete status" would look like. His answer comes off a little vague and rambling. Clinton gets the same question and emphsizes the need for Republican support to get out of a sectarian civil war. Both their answers make sense and are true, but the don't quite address the question. What does a "mission complete status" look like? Or, are we past the point of worring about completing the mission and just getting out. If so, I think I'd have to agree, but neither of these candidates seemed willing to come right out and say that.
The next set of questions address possible character issues. Obama is asked about kickbacks from Illinois business deals. Edwards is asked how he justifies expensive hair cuts while having a theme on poverty. He admits he has a privileged lifestyle now, but that it's "not where [he] comes from."
Clinton is asked about hedge funds. Richardson is asked why he took so long to way in on Attorney General Gonzales and then said it was because he's Hispanic. He rambled a bit at first, but then finally admitted (again) that being Hispanic did factor in to his late decision. He said it's better to be honest. Plus, he did *eventually* give in and call for Gonzales's resignation.
Dodd is asked about his money from lobbyists while publicly being for reform. His answer is articulate but doesn't quite address the question. Kucinich gets a question about why his political "traction" isn't greater despite being against the war from the beginning. His answer is not very good at all.
Biden is given a review of times he's been outspoken or abrupt and then asked if he would have "discipline on the world stage." His answer is, "Yes." Laughter from the audience. Just, "Yes."
Gravel has been quoted as saying that it doesn't matter whether he's elected, so he's asked why is here tonight. He says that after being around the other candidates he wonders how they hell they got there too. He even says, quite angrily, that some of the candidates "scare" him. Brian Williams prods him further by asking specifically which ones worry him so much. He points to the "top tier" candidates (Clinton, Obama, Edwards), and then says he'll include Biden because he's arrogant and wants to tell the Iraqis how to run their country. Gravel says we "should just get out."
Clinton is asked why Republicans are so eager to defeat her. She explains how much she's ready to institute universal health care and to bring out change and renewed trust on the world stage.
The next question is about partial birth abortion. Edwards gets it first. He semi-dodges the question saying how tough an issue it is for people and talking about how the election will affect the Supreme Court, but he does eventually say that he is for a woman's right to choose. Obama steers the question toward reducing teen pregnancy and increasing prevention.
Biden says he strongly supports Roe v. Wade. He said he believes that partial birth abortions should only be in cases where the life of the mother is at risk. But, he also said he fears outlawing partial birth abortions is a stepping stone toward overturning Roe v. Wade. Even if I don't agree with him on this topic, at least his answer was rational and clear-cut.
Kucinich also steers the question toward pre-natal care, natal care, adoption, child care, universal health care, etc. Dodd even states that he agrees with Kucinich but elaborates more about the aspect of a woman's health in this issue.
Oddly, Clinton, Richardson, and Gravel are not asked the abortion question.
The next question is for each candidate: Who is your model Supreme Court Justice alive today.
Richardson: Whizzer White???, then he says Ginsberg after Brian Williams tells him to mention someone alive
Dodd: Ginsberg
Edwards: Ginsberg or Bryer(?)
(The question and answers took so long, they didn't get to everyone before moving on...)
Clinton is asked if any government failure played a role in the tragedy at Virgina Tech. She says yes, almost gets choked up, mentions Columbine, and talks about gun control. Richardson gets a similar question about gun control and Virginia Tech. He admits that he's from a state where the 2nd amendment is crucial, so he steers the question toward mental health checks.
Brian Williams asks a show-of-hands question about who, as an adult, has had a gun in the house. Richardson, Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, and Gravel all raise their hand. And, you know, the idea of Gravel with a gun is a little scary. Odd how the "front-runners" in the race are the ones that didn't raise their hand.
Biden clarifies that he owned a rifle, not a pistol and answered another similar question about gun control. He brings up his crime bill from the Clinton administration that put more cops on the street. He also said the assult rifle ban should not have lapsed and that they need to do something about the loophole in which you can buy a gun from a gun show that you couldn't get from a gun shop. Then, he also steers the topic toward mental illness saying that if a teacher can determine that a student may be a danger, they should have the right to get them taken off the campus.
The next question is about how they would pay for health care. Edwards focuses on eliminating Bush's tax cuts for the upper class and explains how he would work employer benefits and give employees choices. Obama says there should be a "national pool" for those that don't have benefits, that the country should do better about controlling costs, and that there should be catastrophic insurance to protect against enormous medical bills in families.
Clinton gets the same question and says that some of the current ideas have been tried before but that the insurance companies got nervous. She's ready to try again. She doesn't want to put new money into a new system; she wants to better use the money we have now. I like that answer.
Richardson says no new beauracracy, focus on prevention, deal with inefficiencies, and re-establish doctor-patient relationship.
One e-mail question for each of the candidates was to give an example of a mistake and whether you learned from it. One excellent came from Obama where he plainly admitted that he regretted the way the Terry Shivo case was handled, and in retrospect, felt that that decision should have been left to the family. Edwards also plainly admitted that voting for the war was a mistake, and that he learned he should listen to his own judgment more in the future. Richardson admits that he tried to rush the increase of the minimum wage in his state instead of pacing himself and handling the situation more diplomatically.
Clinton is aksed about amnesty for illegal aliens. She says we should tighten border security, sanction employers who get undocumented workers, help communities with cost caused by illegal immigration, better tracking of who's in the country, and better opportunity to pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn Engligh, and eventually become citizens legally.
On a question about education, Biden says he need the best teachers in the world and implied that teachers should make more money. While that's true, I don't think money is the only problem with the teaching profession, and I think there are already a lot of really excellent teachers out there who teach despite the bad pay. I think you need to do more for this problem, than just throw money at it. Part of the problem with the education system is everyone but the teachers: the administrators, the parents, and sometimes the students themselves. There needs to be more respect in school all around.
A question for all candidates is about what they would want to accomplish on the first day. Richardson says, first day, get out of Iraq with diplomacy, second day, energy indepdence, third day, climate change, fourth day, take the day off.
At the one hour mark, the debate questions switch to non-Iraq foreign policy.
What are the three most important world allies? Obama says European Union and Asia (Japan and China).
What are the three biggest non-Iraq threats? Biden says North Korea, Iran, and Russia. Gravel says we should deal with the rest of the world as equals. He complains about how much we pay for defense and war. As a follow-up, Edwards and Richardson are asked specifically about Russia. Edwards dodges the question; Richardson addresses it a little more directly and then braches off into Darfur.
-----
It's getting late, and I'm getting tired. So, I'll have to blog about the last 25 minutes of the debate tomorrow. But, here's my summary as to how well I feel the candidates answered the questions and addressed the issues so far (regardless or whether I agreed with them or not)...
If every excellent answer is worth 3 points, every good answer is 2 points, fair answer = 1, poor answer = 0, and I take the point total and divide by the number of questions each candidate got, the numbers would work out as follows:
- [1.75] Senator Barrack Obama (8 questions)
- [1.63] Senator Joe Biden (8 questions)
- [1.57] Former Senator John Edwards (7 questions)
- [1.50] Governor Bill Richardson (6 questions)
- [1.43] Senator Hillary Clinton (7 questions)
- [1.20] Senator Chris Dodd (5 questions)
- [0.60] Congressman Dennis Kucinich (5 questions)
- [0.40] Former Senator Mike Gravel (5 questions)
So far, there have only been four excellent answers. Senator Biden had excllent answers to the questions about partial birth abortion and the Virginia Tech/gun control issue. Senator Obama had an excellent answer about what mistake he's made and what he's learned from it. And, Senator Clinton had an excellent answer to the question about illegal immigration.
Biden may be the only person with two excellent answers, but he's only had one good answer, and the other five have just been fair. Clinton has the same exact numbers except one fewer excellent answers and one fewer total. The only ones with poor answers have been Kucinich and Gravel.
More tomorrow (or, technically, later today).
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Mike Huckabee on CBS's "Face the Nation" Last Sunday
Now that I've won an iPod in an eBay auction, I've been subscribing to a few more podcasts, including the one for CBS's Sunday morning news show "Face the Nation" hosted by Bob Schieffer. I like Bob Schieffer. Occasionally his voice sounds like gravel in a soda can, but he's a cool old guy who asks good questions, makes insightful comments, and seems overall to be a "straight-shooter."
I remember watching Bob interview former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld one time about a year or two ago. Rumsfeld was being evasive and cryptic and half nuts as usual, and Bob wasn't satisfied with some of his answers. A few times Bob called Rumsfeld on his B.S. Rumsfeld stubbornly "answered" the questions with that squinty, "why-doesn't-anyone-understand-my-craziness" look on his face. Realizing he wasn't going to get a real answer out of Rumsfeld no matter how hard he tried, Bob practically giggled and gave up on the interview. He didn't give up in a defeated kind of way, more like a "this-guy-is-wasting-my-time" kind of way.
Anyway, the show from last Sunday included an interview with Mike Huckabee, one of my currently preferred presidential candidates. The interview went much better than the one with Rumsfeld because both Bob Schieffer and Mike Huckabee are as articulate as they are candid. Unfortunately, Bob focused a lot on campaign funds and with a fair bit of pessimism, considering how low on the totem pole Huckabee is on funds. On the other hand, Bob praised Huckabee for being an interesting, refreshing, alternative candidate. In a way, Bob affirmed that Huckabee is also a worthy candidate, despite the financial challenge. I wish the interview had been longer because Bob only got to ask two questions about the issues, one about Iraq, one about religion.
Unfortunately, the "Share" links from the CBS video viewer force you to sit through a Xerox commercial first (something you don't have to do if you access video by already being in the CBS website), and I found the links directly to the videos to be a bit buggy, so here's the link for the CBS page from which you can access the Mike Huckabee Face the Nation interview (and don't be fooled by the headline at the top--the mention of Romney's misleading hunting statement is only a tiny part of the interview). The video links are in the blue section in the right-side column.
I remember watching Bob interview former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld one time about a year or two ago. Rumsfeld was being evasive and cryptic and half nuts as usual, and Bob wasn't satisfied with some of his answers. A few times Bob called Rumsfeld on his B.S. Rumsfeld stubbornly "answered" the questions with that squinty, "why-doesn't-anyone-understand-my-craziness" look on his face. Realizing he wasn't going to get a real answer out of Rumsfeld no matter how hard he tried, Bob practically giggled and gave up on the interview. He didn't give up in a defeated kind of way, more like a "this-guy-is-wasting-my-time" kind of way.
Anyway, the show from last Sunday included an interview with Mike Huckabee, one of my currently preferred presidential candidates. The interview went much better than the one with Rumsfeld because both Bob Schieffer and Mike Huckabee are as articulate as they are candid. Unfortunately, Bob focused a lot on campaign funds and with a fair bit of pessimism, considering how low on the totem pole Huckabee is on funds. On the other hand, Bob praised Huckabee for being an interesting, refreshing, alternative candidate. In a way, Bob affirmed that Huckabee is also a worthy candidate, despite the financial challenge. I wish the interview had been longer because Bob only got to ask two questions about the issues, one about Iraq, one about religion.
Unfortunately, the "Share" links from the CBS video viewer force you to sit through a Xerox commercial first (something you don't have to do if you access video by already being in the CBS website), and I found the links directly to the videos to be a bit buggy, so here's the link for the CBS page from which you can access the Mike Huckabee Face the Nation interview (and don't be fooled by the headline at the top--the mention of Romney's misleading hunting statement is only a tiny part of the interview). The video links are in the blue section in the right-side column.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Mike Huckabee on The Daily Show
Mike Huckabee, former Republican governor of Arkansas, is one of the lower tier presidential candidates that I like and am wanting to learn more about.
The videos below are parts 1 & 2 of his appearance on The Daily Show. He and Jon mostly talk about Huckabee's book, "From Hope to Higher Ground," (which I own but have not gotten much of a chance to read yet), and no mention is made of running for president, so this appearance must have been before he announced his candidacy.
The interview is pretty good. I like Huckabee. He has a good viewpoint on things and expresses it in an articulate way. Jon challenges him on whether what he says is rhetoric, but Huckabee seems pretty honest to me.
Huckabee is fresh on my mind right now because of an article I found online about him challenging the authenticity of a claim made by Mitt Romney's team regarding Romney's hunting experience. It prompted some clarification on the part of Romney's people, but I have to admit, it's kind of a "softball" challenge.
Anyway, here are two pieces of the Daily Show interview:
The videos below are parts 1 & 2 of his appearance on The Daily Show. He and Jon mostly talk about Huckabee's book, "From Hope to Higher Ground," (which I own but have not gotten much of a chance to read yet), and no mention is made of running for president, so this appearance must have been before he announced his candidacy.
The interview is pretty good. I like Huckabee. He has a good viewpoint on things and expresses it in an articulate way. Jon challenges him on whether what he says is rhetoric, but Huckabee seems pretty honest to me.
Huckabee is fresh on my mind right now because of an article I found online about him challenging the authenticity of a claim made by Mitt Romney's team regarding Romney's hunting experience. It prompted some clarification on the part of Romney's people, but I have to admit, it's kind of a "softball" challenge.
Anyway, here are two pieces of the Daily Show interview:
Sunday, March 25, 2007
America Is No Longer Made in the U.S.A.
I'm here at my workplace on Sunday to catch up on cleaning out my cubicle, retrieving personal items, and collecting anything like past performance reviews that might have helpful information for my resume, cover letters, and interviews. You see, last June, I found out that I was getting laid off on 31 March 2007 which--after a long wait--is now only five business days away.
I'm not exactly broken up about it. I had plenty of warning, the severance is decent enough, and I'm confident my next job will likely be much better. The part that bothers me the worst is why I'm getting laid off...
My job is getting outsourced, uh, I mean, off-shored to a company in India.
The even deeper irony is that the department I work in specializes in clients outsourcing a part of their business to us. Now we're outsourcing part of our business to someone else. Since it sounds funny to admit that we're "outsourcing our outsourcing," and since the destination of the work is another country, the new vocabulary is "off-shoring."
It just bothers me that so much of this country's jobs and services are moving overseas. We keep producing less and less in our own country, then we wonder why unemployment is rising and the value of the dollar is dropping. I don't think we should be so dependent on the rest of the world, especially when much of the world isn't too thrilled with us right now (or ever, for some parts).
The other reason this is fresh on mind is I was at Kohl's earlier today because I needed a couple new short-sleeve polo/golf-type shirts. I was just about to pay for the two nice looking, reasonably priced shirts that I found when I noticed some writing below the fabric content: "Made in India".
Those were the two best shirts I had found in the store, but just in case there were other nice shirts with a "Made in the U.S.A." label, I thought I'd be willing to compromise even if it cost a few dollars extra. Instead, I found:
And, did I find a single "Made in the U.S.A." label? No.
I confess, I went ahead and bought the shirts anyway--this time. But, this is something I want to get better about noticing and planning around in the future.
I did feel a little bit better when I bought a six-pack of white crew socks that I also needed. Not only did they say, "Made in the U.S.A." but they were Hanes brand, and Hanes is headquartered right here in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Thank goodness we have at least one thing we're known for other than cigarettes (and don't get me started on that topic).
If anyone knows of any stores that carry--or even specialize in--products made in the United States, leave me a comment or send me a message on my MySpace page (www.myspace.com/umberhaven).
I'm not exactly broken up about it. I had plenty of warning, the severance is decent enough, and I'm confident my next job will likely be much better. The part that bothers me the worst is why I'm getting laid off...
My job is getting outsourced, uh, I mean, off-shored to a company in India.
The even deeper irony is that the department I work in specializes in clients outsourcing a part of their business to us. Now we're outsourcing part of our business to someone else. Since it sounds funny to admit that we're "outsourcing our outsourcing," and since the destination of the work is another country, the new vocabulary is "off-shoring."
It just bothers me that so much of this country's jobs and services are moving overseas. We keep producing less and less in our own country, then we wonder why unemployment is rising and the value of the dollar is dropping. I don't think we should be so dependent on the rest of the world, especially when much of the world isn't too thrilled with us right now (or ever, for some parts).
The other reason this is fresh on mind is I was at Kohl's earlier today because I needed a couple new short-sleeve polo/golf-type shirts. I was just about to pay for the two nice looking, reasonably priced shirts that I found when I noticed some writing below the fabric content: "Made in India".
Those were the two best shirts I had found in the store, but just in case there were other nice shirts with a "Made in the U.S.A." label, I thought I'd be willing to compromise even if it cost a few dollars extra. Instead, I found:
- Made in Cambodia
- Made in China
- Made in Egypt
- Made in Guatemala
- Made in India
- Made in Indonesia
- Made in Jordan
- Made in Lesotho
- Made in Pakistan
- Made in Philippines
- Made in Vietnam
And, did I find a single "Made in the U.S.A." label? No.
I confess, I went ahead and bought the shirts anyway--this time. But, this is something I want to get better about noticing and planning around in the future.
I did feel a little bit better when I bought a six-pack of white crew socks that I also needed. Not only did they say, "Made in the U.S.A." but they were Hanes brand, and Hanes is headquartered right here in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Thank goodness we have at least one thing we're known for other than cigarettes (and don't get me started on that topic).
If anyone knows of any stores that carry--or even specialize in--products made in the United States, leave me a comment or send me a message on my MySpace page (www.myspace.com/umberhaven).
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Don't Overlook Rep. Non-Frontrunners: Ron Paul & Mike Huckabee
It seems like the race for President is starting earlier and with more energy and contention than usual. We're still 20 months out from the election, and already there more than a dozen candidates total.
The obvious frontrunners for the Democrats are Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, and John Edwards. And the frontrunning trio scraped up for the Republican side are Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney.
However, those aren't the only six people running (thank goodness), and I want to start keeping my eye on the "2nd tier" candidates, or even "3rd tier" if there is one.
Don't get me wrong, I haven't researched these candidates enough to pledge my support to either one yet, but the two I've started looking into and like what I see in them so far are: Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and former governor Mike Huckabee (R-Arkansas).
I happened to catch Mike Huckabee on C-SPAN being interviewed on a radio call-in show in a New England state (I think it was Vermont), and after that, I looked him up online. He's a former Baptist minister who lost over 100 pounds and plays bass in a rock band. From what I can tell so far, he has good values, he has a strong focus on health care, he advocates art & music in schools, and he's way way way more articulate than our current president. When he was still a governor of Arkansas, he led a campaign to apply 100% of the state's tobacco settlement revenues into the state's health care system instead of a general fund; he used tax money to improve roads, highways, and the state park system; and he handled very well the influx of Hurricane Katrina survivors into Arkansas from Louisana.
I'm just starting to look into Ron Paul, but a friend at work has really been signing praises for Ron Paul for some time. Ron Paul was a former Libertarian but is now a part of the Republican party. Despite being a Republican from a conservative district of Texas, he does not go along with everything the president does or says and seems to be much more open and honest about that fact in interviews. Paul is against the war in Iraq. He feels the American economy is on borrowed money and borrowed time and that we must change things before China owns any more of our debt. There is a website that summarizes his voting record, and I agree with most (not all but most) of his decisions.
For all I know, the next thing I read about either of these guys may change my mind about them. Plus, I admit I haven't researched the frontrunners yet. However, I just thought I'd mention Paul and Huckabee here so that people know they're around and they may be worth a 2nd look.
Ron Paul Links
Mike Huckabee Links
The obvious frontrunners for the Democrats are Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, and John Edwards. And the frontrunning trio scraped up for the Republican side are Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney.
However, those aren't the only six people running (thank goodness), and I want to start keeping my eye on the "2nd tier" candidates, or even "3rd tier" if there is one.
Don't get me wrong, I haven't researched these candidates enough to pledge my support to either one yet, but the two I've started looking into and like what I see in them so far are: Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and former governor Mike Huckabee (R-Arkansas).
I happened to catch Mike Huckabee on C-SPAN being interviewed on a radio call-in show in a New England state (I think it was Vermont), and after that, I looked him up online. He's a former Baptist minister who lost over 100 pounds and plays bass in a rock band. From what I can tell so far, he has good values, he has a strong focus on health care, he advocates art & music in schools, and he's way way way more articulate than our current president. When he was still a governor of Arkansas, he led a campaign to apply 100% of the state's tobacco settlement revenues into the state's health care system instead of a general fund; he used tax money to improve roads, highways, and the state park system; and he handled very well the influx of Hurricane Katrina survivors into Arkansas from Louisana.
I'm just starting to look into Ron Paul, but a friend at work has really been signing praises for Ron Paul for some time. Ron Paul was a former Libertarian but is now a part of the Republican party. Despite being a Republican from a conservative district of Texas, he does not go along with everything the president does or says and seems to be much more open and honest about that fact in interviews. Paul is against the war in Iraq. He feels the American economy is on borrowed money and borrowed time and that we must change things before China owns any more of our debt. There is a website that summarizes his voting record, and I agree with most (not all but most) of his decisions.For all I know, the next thing I read about either of these guys may change my mind about them. Plus, I admit I haven't researched the frontrunners yet. However, I just thought I'd mention Paul and Huckabee here so that people know they're around and they may be worth a 2nd look.
Ron Paul Links
- Wikipedia Entry
- Official Presidential Campaign Homepage
- Presidential Campaign MySpace Page
- Congressional MySpace Page
- Official Congressional Homepage
- Voting Record
- RonPaul2008DotCom YouTube Channel
Mike Huckabee Links
Clips from The Daily Show's Best Night This Past Week
I go in and out of phases in which I watch late night TV. In the last week or two, I've been back on a Daily Show kick.
It has been especially good lately, but they were really on their game one night last week, Wednesday, I believe.
In the first part of the show, Jon and one of the "expert" correspondants talked about the scandal in Washington. Then after the commercial break, Jon "summoned" a previous guest, who's an expert on Lincoln, to counter one of John Bolton's accusations that Jon Stewart was wrong about how Lincoln chose his cabinet members.
Below are the videos from that night. My favorite ones are the last two.
It has been especially good lately, but they were really on their game one night last week, Wednesday, I believe.
In the first part of the show, Jon and one of the "expert" correspondants talked about the scandal in Washington. Then after the commercial break, Jon "summoned" a previous guest, who's an expert on Lincoln, to counter one of John Bolton's accusations that Jon Stewart was wrong about how Lincoln chose his cabinet members.
Below are the videos from that night. My favorite ones are the last two.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Political Theories
Well, it’s one week after the elections (I did vote, by the way), and I’ve already heard or read several theories as to what the voting results mean for the next two years.
I’ve heard one theory that if the Democrats move toward getting us out of Iraq, that it will most likely cause civil war in that region. Thousands would probably die. It would make the Republicans look right for having started the war (or at least prolonging it), leaving Democrats with a no-win situation. If we stay, it looks like the Democrats are doing nothing; if we pull out, the Democrats will get blamed for whatever new mess that causes.
I’ve read one article online saying that things probably won’t get much better or much different in Iraq for quite some time. That author’s theory is that no one wants to take the blame for any mess in Iraq, past or future, and with no one willing to fall on the sword, nothing will really change.
Regarding the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, I’ve heard one theory on the radio that if Bush & Rumsfeld had timed the resignation for several months before the election, it might have made things at least slightly better for the Republicans in the vote. Another theory is that Bush is a Democrat in Republican clothing and didn’t care if Rumsfeld’s resignation on the day after elections made the backlash against the Republicans look that much worse. One final theory is that the day after elections was the best time for Rumsfeld to resign because it allowed for a one-day “bad news dump” in which media focus was split between stories and everything was out of the way at once.
This also seemed to be a major year of scandals, and while I haven’t kept up with the news enough to remember names & details, I think the Republicans carried the bulk of scandals this time around.
I’ll be honest, when it comes to politics, I’m not sure what to think. It’s so hard to trust anyone in power that almost anyone’s theory about strategy or corruption or media manipulation makes sense on some level. In a way, politics looks a lot like Survivor (secret alliances, constant strategizing, lies of omission, lies of misinformation, just plain lies, betrayal, broken promises, rats, etc.).
I’ve heard one theory that if the Democrats move toward getting us out of Iraq, that it will most likely cause civil war in that region. Thousands would probably die. It would make the Republicans look right for having started the war (or at least prolonging it), leaving Democrats with a no-win situation. If we stay, it looks like the Democrats are doing nothing; if we pull out, the Democrats will get blamed for whatever new mess that causes.
I’ve read one article online saying that things probably won’t get much better or much different in Iraq for quite some time. That author’s theory is that no one wants to take the blame for any mess in Iraq, past or future, and with no one willing to fall on the sword, nothing will really change.
Regarding the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, I’ve heard one theory on the radio that if Bush & Rumsfeld had timed the resignation for several months before the election, it might have made things at least slightly better for the Republicans in the vote. Another theory is that Bush is a Democrat in Republican clothing and didn’t care if Rumsfeld’s resignation on the day after elections made the backlash against the Republicans look that much worse. One final theory is that the day after elections was the best time for Rumsfeld to resign because it allowed for a one-day “bad news dump” in which media focus was split between stories and everything was out of the way at once.
This also seemed to be a major year of scandals, and while I haven’t kept up with the news enough to remember names & details, I think the Republicans carried the bulk of scandals this time around.
I’ll be honest, when it comes to politics, I’m not sure what to think. It’s so hard to trust anyone in power that almost anyone’s theory about strategy or corruption or media manipulation makes sense on some level. In a way, politics looks a lot like Survivor (secret alliances, constant strategizing, lies of omission, lies of misinformation, just plain lies, betrayal, broken promises, rats, etc.).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)