The Palin Option

When McCain announced Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, I, along with millions of Americans, was shocked. After Obama’s choice of Biden, there was nothing but rumors for six straight days regarding who McCain will or should pick. Moreover, few if any of these rumors involved Palin who until now has been rather unknown for citizens outside of the state of Alaska.

To say the least, Palin was a masterful choice for McCain’s running mate. Is Palin my favorite politician? No. Are there other potential vice presidents I personally might have preferred? Yes. However, in terms of a political strategy in an attempt to capture the White House, I honestly do not think McCain could have chosen better. Palin is articulate, charismatic and she seems to share the country first at all costs philosophy that has gotten McCain where he is. You may not agree with all of her views, but she certainly is not stupid and her introduction speech was excellent. This is a progressive reformer who I can back. Also, McCain picking her has not only maintained his maverick unorthodox self, but also showed the public that voting Republican will also change the make-up of Washington by electing the first woman as Vice President. Choosing Palin was a smart choice for letting Obama knows that completely overlooking Hillary was a mistake. Obama’s biggest claim is that he represents the people in that he is a break away from “Carl Rove” politics and he was the self-made man representing some of the poorest in Chicago. However, to some extend Palin represents Americans in an even greater way that a lot of American families can relate too, especially the most hardworking of them all. Palin is conservative a mother of five who characterizes herself as your typical “hockey mom.” She also has a young child with down syndrome as well as a son who is a soldier in Iraq so she really knows what it is like to be a hardworking mother. I really do think this will encourage McCain to get some of the “soccer mom” vote that he wouldn’t have got otherwise. To be honest, I really do think that a lot of Democrats will vote McCain in November, who definitely would not have voted for a Romney or Huckabee candidacy.

The choice of Palin not only encourages bipartisan support, but it definitely helps unite conservatives. Name one Republican figure that hard-line conservatives can legitimately be happy with, while still allowing McCain to preserve his maverick image. To be honest, I really can’t name anyone outside of Palin. McCain has a lot of buddies, some of who I really like including independent Joe Lieberman; however, you as well as I know that this pick would have been political suicide for capturing the conservative base. Palin has a strong conservative philosophy also representing religious family values.

At the same time Mitt Romney seemed like the obvious choice for McCain, and I feel that most people who are unhappy with McCain’s choice of Palin are the people upset the Romney didn’t get picked. However, Romney would have been an awful pick in several ways.

First, had McCain picked Romney, he would have had to somehow resolve all of the banter that was going on during the race to the White House including the name calling. I even believe the word “pig” was used at one point. To see the vehement disagreement just YouTube the “Republican Debate Ronald Reagan Library.” Secondly, Romney is your traditional Republican, there really is not anything that truly makes him stand out from your old-fashioned hard-line conservative. Choosing Romney would signal a regression to the past Washington which is exactly what both Obama and McCain are trying to avoid. Politics as usual seems to clearly be the opposite of what voters want.

As I have mentioned before. Obama’s primary message which is “change we can believe in” is really lost with a McCain candidacy and even more so now that McCain has chosen Palin, a “soccer mom” outside of Washington beaurocratics. Yes, this was a true maverick choice, yet still a Republican choice. Palin is a progressive Replublican with a soaring approval rate. Nonetheless, I really like how perfectly the New York Times put it:
“Yet if he disregarded more conventional prospects, like former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, it might be that Ms. Palin was still the fallback from a more audacious decision that Mr. McCain ultimately eschewed.”

Politics has gotten interesting and the playing field is getting much tougher than I thought possible.

Playing Cards with a Political Twist

PoliticallyWild.com has unleashed a humorous and innovative form of playing cards called Politically WILD! Playing Cards. Forget the mundane deck of playing cards, now you can get a full version of playing cards that feature political figures. Each numbered card features the face of a political celebrity with the body of the animal. Above each image there is a brief description of the animal of the politician’s body. These descriptions can often be quite comical. For example, for Ann Coulter is a pink flamingo in the eight of hearts and above her image the description reads: Pink Flamingo: Bird having very long legs and neck. Additionally, beneath the image of each politician there is a funny comment. The royalty cards (Jack, Queen and King) are extremely original because they each feature a hot-button political issue with a witty comment. Even cooler is that you submit your own ideas for each card by posting a comment on the Politically Wild Blog at http://blog.politicallywild.com/.

There are two different types of decks a Democrat Deck and a Republican Deck. As it would appear, the Democrat Deck caters towards the Democrat Party and the Republican Deck caters to the Republican Party. The aces of the Democrat Deck advocate support for Barack Obama and the aces of the Republican Deck feature McCain. For just $15.98 you get two decks. You can elect to purchase two Democrat Decks, two Republican Decks or one of each. If you are interested in politics and enjoy some witty political humor, you will love these new political playing cards which are very pertinent to the current political arena.

Go to www.politicallywild.com today and get your own deck of Politically Wild! Playing Cards.

And What Change is that Mr. Obama?

“No more Carl Rove politics.” “Change you can believe in.” Sound familiar? If you have been following American Politics it should appear to follow pretty closely to the whole image of Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama. From Obama, we have heard the same old cheesy lines over and over again regarding how he represents change…but then again, doesn’t everybody? This message might have worked against a Mit Romney “I love America as it is” type of candidate, but against McCain simply claiming some ideological benefit is not going to do anything but start to make people question whether Obama is merely composed of false hopes. The problem with Obama is he does not stand for anything. He is the type of person that will outright avoid the loaded political questions, whereas McCain is very upfront on where he stands. Sure, McCain has made some mild flipped flops on issues such as tax cuts, but at least he will express his views in terms of policies. On the other hand, who knows where Obama stands. All we can assume is that he will take a very liberal platform.

A few weeks ago somebody asked Obama what individuals can do to help the oil crisis and Obama mentioned that people can inflate their tires to the appropriate dimensions and immediately the McCain campaign made a mockery of such a thing. McCain and his followers decided to pass out air gauges that said “Obama’s Energy Policy.” Once Obama caught word of this, Obama tried to do a two for one: he denied that his energy policy was to inflate tires as well as defended inflating tires. This approach may have actually worked if he actually detailed in his speech what his energy policy consisted of, but instead he avoided the policy issues all together. Obama tried to retaliate and made fun of the Republicans stating: “It’s like Republicans take pride in being ignorant.” Congratulations Obama, I am not a Republican and you still may have just lost my vote. Obama is very charismatic and a pleasure to listen to which makes him a widely followed candidate, however, he needs to find out what type of campaign he wants to run and he needs to choose fast. If Obama is going to make a mockery of the opposing candidate he is likely going to lose a lot of support particularly among the moderate swing voters who are key to win the election. Obama may lose the hard-line Republicans regardless, but McCain has a maverick appeal that may give him added support among moderates. These are the votes Obama needs to fight for, not simply joke around with some buddies who are going to vote for you anyway. You do that and you may have just lose the key to the White House.

Obama must begin to mention his specific goals as opposed to his general goals. We all know the generics, but how exactly is he going to change America? As of now Obama seems little more than a big mouth. As the old adage goes, “you can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?” This is the ultimate question that most people would like to at least get some indication of before going to the polling booths.

Time to Consult Nader!

The elections are coming up sooner than ever and in addition to Obama and McCain a third candidate is getting some weight, Ralph Nader. Most people have essentially waved Ralph Nader off as joke candidate. While he may or may not be a joke as a candidate, some of his views are of huge importance. In fact, I would argue that Ralph Nader is someone that the United States should seriously consider consulting. Ralph Nader is an experienced lawyer and has already run for President four times before making him a prominent political figure. His view would be vital in areas where he has had strong stances on especially involving environmental issues. Consulting Nader could help convince conservative hardliners to moderate their stances or at least compromise on some issues that the United States federal government has been trying to pass, but failed due to right-wing opposition. One issue of paramount importance involves alternative energy incentives. The federal government should start consulting Nader over domestic policies to provide a fresh perspective on issues that can only be found outside of Washington.

Now more than ever the federal government must seriously consider the views of Green Party/Independent activist Ralph Nader. The energy crisis is something that can be postponed no longer. We have seen the concerns and predictions that Nader has been heralding all along become a reality. We look outside the car window and notice that the gas station is charging us over four dollars for a gallon of unleaded gas! To say that this is a crisis that should continue to go unnoticed is absurd. Hybrid vehicles that combine standard gasoline with other fuels have helped reduce our oil dependency, but it does not go far enough. It is clear that the United States federal government should adopt greater incentives for consumers using alternative energies. Who better to consult over capitalizing such ideals into policy than Ralph Nader? He has been extremely adamant about the need for establishing a new diversified energy policy.

Don’t get my wrong, I by no means plan on voting for Nader in 2008; however, he has some important views on issues and if I had the opportunity to sit down and talk to him on environmental issues I would do so in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, I do not have such a luxury, whereas the United States federal government does. Yet lawmakers, who have the potential to make serious change in United States energy policy refuse to even listen to Nader. Members of both the Democrat and Republican parties should realize the problem associated with depleting non-renewable natural resources. If people of power are not going to ignore how vital this issue is, then hopefully Nader once consulted could at least convince a few more heads to turn in the right direction.

This may seem absurd for the most powerful political body in the United States to consult someone like Nader, but let’s not forget that it has been done before. While normally someone such as the President consults his Cabinet or other prominent advisers in Washington, it is not too unusual to see people or organizations outside of Washington to be consulted over policy issues. In fact, consultations with Nader are nothing new. Jimmy Carter consulted Nader over assigning advisers when discussing the makeup of the Executive. The consultations I propose are not nearly to that extreme. The make-up of Washington is fine as it is, but could use a word of advice and Nader might be just the one to do it.

If the United States federal government were to consult him, it would certainly legitimize him in the political arena. This may in turn give him some additional support in the November 2008 election. It is unclear, however, whether he will gain enough support to steal a victory from Obama. Nonetheless, it is still a concern that should be considered.

References:
CNN News, June 6, 2008 http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/06/poll.mccain.obama/index.html?iref=newssearch

“Green Party 2008 Presidential Candidate Questionnaire,” February 3, 2008

Marcello, Patricia Cronin. Ralph Nader: A Biography pg. 82

The Big Reason McCain Will Lose in 2008

It is almost June and Democrats are still bickering over who should win the Democratic Presidential nomination. This seems to doom the success of the Democrats in November as McCain is able to focus on the general elections and campaign in swing states – wrong. Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, which is looking like Obama, the Democratic candidate should be able to have a clear and easy path to the White House. Despite what some people have been saying, the reason for Democratic success has nothing to do with Iraq. Sure, the majority of Americans believe Bush failed in Iraq mostly by going in there in the first place. The problem is that we are there now and the question is not who could better wish away the fact that we sent troops in Iraq but rather who has the better plan on Iraq now that we are already there. Hillary Clinton can bash the Iraq War all she wants, but did she not originally support the Iraqi invasion? Did she not say that Iraq was a threat in 2003? Others look to Obama and point to the fact that he opposed the war from the start, but at this point, who honestly cares about what he would have done…we want to know what he will do now. I am not so naïve to believe that Al Qaeda was in Iraq when we entered the country, but one thing we can be sure of is that they are there now. Thus, it seems clear that the United States must have at least a minimal military role in Iraq simply to quell the threats coming from Al Qaeda. In fact, Obama and Clinton do not seem to be opposed to having military bases in Iraq. Both Clinton and Obama have recently been silent in Iraq and while they may plan to bring all of the troops home as soon as possible, who is to say that this will happen on day one. There is a reason for the Democrats’ silence on Iraq. The troop surge has reduced violence in Iraq as casualties are going down. In the end, it is not Iraq, but rather the economy that will doom McCain’s chance of winning the general election of November 2008.

The economy has been very poor in the past few months as the US dollar is getting weaker and weaker. While in actuality the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy may be partially responsible for a dim economy the public is going to primarily look to one person…the President. With the poor economy, George W. Bush is not only tarnishing his own image before he leaves office, but the whole image of the Republican economy. Come November, many people will see John McCain as a fiscal conservative not much different from Bush who has let the economy get to where it is. When your Party’s President is in office you will have to pay the price of his unpopularity. While McCain is seen as a maverick in the eyes of many he is still a Republican who has been endorsed by Bush. Many likely voters have been hit in some way shape or form by the poor economy and their attitudes will be reflected in the polling booths in November. McCain better keep his fingers crossed that the economy has a massive turnaround if he wants to take the White House.

Anne Coulter Unfair on McCain

An edited version was published in the February 18, 2008 issue of the The Heights.

Politically, I am a registered Democrat but I consider myself to be very moderate. In fact, all of my more liberal friends would consider me to be crazy “right wing” (although I beg to differ). I am someone who does his best to keep up-to-date with politics especially now with the presidential primaries. Today, I would like to comment on something that really hit me hard.
Recently, Anne Coulter, a very conservative columnist, made several unreasonable shots at John McCain. I never particularly liked Anne Coulter, but nothing made me loathe her as much as Thursday’s interview with Fox News claiming that if it is a Clinton-McCain battle, she would not only vote but campaign for Hillary Clinton because McCain is too left-wing. Now it is one thing to support someone that I dislike or even flip-flop, but it is another to lie and make unreasonable attacks on someone. I agree with her that McCain is more left on immigration and detainee rights than your typical neoconservative, but Coulter goes so far as to say that McCain pushes a very liberal agenda on foreign policy particularly the war in Iraq. Far crazier, she says that if Hillary is elected she will have a substantially more conservative foreign policy than McCain. Her basis for this is that McCain was against the Rumsfeld plan on Iraq which most people would now agree was an awful way to approach Iraq. The Rumsfeld plan put troops on the ground that were incredibly under-resourced (and by now virtually everyone but Anne Coulter and a few others would agree that the Rumsfeld plan was an utter disaster). Coulter says that because Hillary did not directly speak out against the Rumsfeld plan as McCain did, Hillary must necessarily be for it. Additionally, she points to Hillary’s original approval for the War in Iraq to indicate she still supports the war. The problem I have is that Coulter has neglected way too many cold hard facts. One of the few clear plans Hillary has provided for America if elected President is this 100 Days plan where she plans to have all troops withdrawn within the first year of her presidency. This stands in stark contract with McCain’s support of the troop surge. Coulter claims that McCain’s support for the surge is a ruse, and she argues McCain only claims to support the surge because he needs the Republican nomination. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. McCain has been in favor of a comprehensive troop surge from the start, in fact, the reason he disapproved of the Rumsfeld plan and criticized the War on Iraq was because of the incredible mismanagement in terms of going in with too few troops who were left to die. Coulter claims that even if McCain is genuine about his support of the troop surge he has no right to claim that he is the only Republican who ran for the nomination to support the surge. Again, Coulter misrepresents what McCain has been claiming. McCain rightly states that he is the only Republican (of the nominees) to oppose the Rumsfeld plan in favor of a troop surge. While other nominees now favor a troop surge, NONE of them originally opposed the Rumsfeld plan.
One more point she made that is worth mentioning is that Coulter chastised McCain for opposing Bush’s tax cuts. She thinks that because he opposed those tax cuts he obviously opposes all tax cuts. Coulter again misses the boat by several nautical miles. McCain soundly claims that he opposed Bush’s original tax cuts because they were not accompanied by spending cuts. Additionally he argues that there were riders on the plan that would be devastating for an already weak economy. Most importantly, however, Bush’s tax cuts were not permanent, which was troubling for McCain. McCain continues to say that he is in favor of permanent tax cuts that are accompanied by spending cuts. Since Bush’s tax cuts were neither permanent nor mandated cuts in spending, it does not seem too hard to understand why McCain voted against Bush’s plan. This is something Coulter conveniently ignores.
It made me sick when I heard her mischaracterize issues, and I sure hope that people do not take her seriously. Congratulations Anne Coulter, if you had not done so before, you just lost all your credibility as a legitimate political columnist.

Please forward any comments to maerowit@bc.edu