By now, I am sure that everyone has an opinion on the announced candidates for the Democratic nomination for President. Even though it is still ridiculously early to anoint one candidate as the presumptive nominee, certain trends are taking shape. Hillary Clinton is building a commanding lead, while Barack Obama and John Edwards are fighting to keep themselves within shouting distance. These three make up the top tier of the current candidates.
Until any of the other five announced candidates - only those who have filed with the Federal Election Commission are considered for this post - withdraws from the race, I'll include them here.
In alphabetical order:
Joseph Biden, Senior Senator from Delaware. Of the current candidates, Biden as well as Christopher Dodd, has the most foreign policy experience. Leans left of center on most issues, those is something of a social conservative, voting for the Defense of Marriage Act and against public funding of abortion. Is in line with liberal/progressive positions on the environment, taxes, gun control, education and several other topics. On Iraq, realizes that the United States cannot just pull out, and supports a gradual withdrawal accompanied by a concrete plan to address the political shortcomings there. Based on length of service and public positions, could be considered one of the candidates with the most "gravitas".
Hillary Clinton, Junior Senator from New York. There isn't much that can be added about Clinton that hasn't been said in the past 15 years encompassing her life as wife of a Presidential Candidate, to First Lady, to US Senator, to Presidential Candidate. Currently this space's pick for the Presidential nomination.
Christopher Dodd, Senior Senator from Connecticut. One of the more liberal Democratic candidates, has taken centrist-to-conservative positions on the issues of gay marriage and free trade. Virtually no chance at the nomination or even as Vice-President, especially if Clinton becomes the nominee.
John Edwards, former Senator from North Carolina. Previously a two-time candidate, he was the nominee for Vice President in 2004. Perhaps the activist with the best shot at capturing the nomination, he is known for mostly liberal positions that seek to increase the station of the poor in life. Made a fortune as a trial lawyer in the 90s.
Mike Gravel, former Senator from Alaska. Aside from supplying some (perhaps) unintended comic relief, the crusty former two-term Senator and 1972 Vice Presidential nomination-seeker has no chance at the nomination.
Dennis Kucinich, Representative from Ohio. Probably the most liberal Democratic candidate, he is also the one of the most outspoken and unwavering in his consistency. The only Democratic candidate to vote against the resolution authorizing force against Iraq in 2003. His only chance at a significant amount of votes in either the primaries or the general election would come from the far-left segments of the party.
Barack Obama, Junior Senator from Illinois. Charismatic first-term Senator who previously served in the Illinois legislature, he is fond of saying that he opposed the Iraq war from the start. Is fairly liberal, but is showing his political inexperience by "restating" - not exactly flip-flopping - his positions and statements. Would be a good candidate in the future, with some seasoning.
Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico. Known more for his lengthy political resume - he has been a Cabinet Officer, Ambassador to the UN, and US Representative in addition to Governor - than for his actual positions, he is a fairly centrist candidate, with liberal and conservative stances on various issues. As a special envoy to Iraq and North Korea for President Clinton, he was able to secure the release of American citizens being held by those governments. Extensive experience in foreign policy. While he shouldn't be thought of as a top-tier candidate, he is the Democrats' dark-horse candidate.
It is tough to handicap how any of the candidates would do in the primaries, since the schedule is like the weather in Florida - wait five minutes, it'll change. That is if Florida's primary actually counts.
16 May 2007
Still here.
For those who have been wondering, I am still here. Those that know me will realize how hectic life has been, so I apologize for any lack of posts in the recent past.
More is coming.
More is coming.
13 February 2007
The 2008 GOP Sweepstakes - Early '07 Edition
Given the fact that 2008 will be the first Presidential election since 1928 that does not involve a sitting president or vice-president, speculation has started amongst the chattering classes even earlier than usual. In a series of occasional posts, this space will attempt to handicap the coming '08 general election. First up will be the GOP.
In my cousin Dan's blog, he gives his take on the GOP side. His preferences are former NYC mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and Arizona Senator John McCain, though he admits a certain fondness for Newt Gingrich.
As anyone who reads the papers today knows, all except Gingrich are acknowledged leaders for the Republican nomination. McCain has been running for the last seven years, Giuliani practically the last three, since the Republican nominating convention in New York City in 2004. Romney is a fairly new addition.
Wikipedia lists the announced and potential candidates for 2008, as well as a number of those who were thought to be considering campaigns in the last year or so but have for various reasons decided not to. At the moment, the site lists thirteen men who are official or presumed candidates. In order:
Sam Brownback, Senior Senator from Kansas. He is a social conservative who has been raising his profile a bit by publicly opposing the "surge" in troops in Iraq ordered by the President. Most of his support will come from the conservative base of the Republican Party. He was raised a Methodist before becoming an evangelical Christian who then converted to Catholicism several years ago. Not very well-known nationally. A long-shot in the general election, he could do some damage in the primaries.
Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts. Another social conservative, he is more of a moderate when it comes to business and has shown flashes of liberalism in issues such as healthcare. Better known than Brownback, he too faces an uphill battle in the general election.
Duncan Hunter, Representative from California. Very conservative, member and former Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee who also strongly opposes illegal immigration and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Won't get far in the primaries and has no shot in November '08.
Jim Gilmore, former Governor of Virginia. Who's he?
Rudolph Giuliani, former Mayor of New York City. One of the best known Republicans nationally, he is noted for leadership of the Big Apple during which crime decreased to near-historic lows, as well as his performance during the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001. Social liberal, he has been married three times - once to his second cousin - and divorced twice, and supports gun control and gay rights. Though he would be a strong candidate in November, he won't get more than a cup of coffee during the primaries, where the base rules. They'll listen to him politely, then vote for somebody more like them.
Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas. The "other man from Hope" after Bill Clinton. Well spoken, polite, a social conservative who could be expected to work well with the loyal opposition. Not well known, but is a potential dark horse in 2008.
John McCain, Senior Senator from Arizona. Probably the best known Republican, is a social moderate-conservative who is known for taking some unpopular positions with the base and refusing to back down on such issues as campaign finance reform and judicial nominations. Vietnam Veteran who spent five and one-half years as a Prisoner of War in North Vietnam. Potentially the candidate who would draw the most independent and even some conservative Democratic votes, he may be hurt by two issues, one new and one old: his support for the President's troop surge, and his involvement with the Keating Five. Currently this space's pick to win the nomination.
Ron Paul, Representative from Texas. See Jim Gilmore.
Tom Tancredo, Representative from Colorado. See Jim Gilmore.
Tommy Thompson, former Governor of Wisconsin, and former Secretary of Health and Human Services. Social moderate with no shot at the primaries or the nomination.
Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Reprentatives from Georgia. Architect of the GOP's 1994 Congressional majority, he has become something of a moderating voice in the Republican Party, pointing out things that the White House would rather not hear. Because of his role in the Contract With America, has probably more credibility than most of the current candidates save McCain and Giuliani, though he still may have problems in the general election due to the public's disgust of late for anybody called "Congressman".
Chuck Hagel, Senior Senator from Nebraska. Another decorated Vietnam Veteran, he has become a favorite of some liberal groups for his open hostility to the President's conduct of the war in Iraq, and has been so since the start. Even though he is more of a traditional conservative than McCain, his opposition to the Iraq War should be enough to derail him with the base, though might do fairly well in the general election, should he get that far. Fairly blunt when he talks.
George Pataki, former Governor of New York. Not very well known nationally, a fiscal and social moderate, which alone would give him no shot in the primaries past the week before Iowa. Wasn't very popular when he decided not to run for a fourth term as governor.
No one has a crystal ball, of course. As Anna Quindlen pointed out in Newsweek's February 5th issue, Bill Clinton was an unknown around this point in the 1992 election season, and George H. W. Bush was considered unbeatable. Does anybody remember Paul Tsongas?
In my cousin Dan's blog, he gives his take on the GOP side. His preferences are former NYC mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and Arizona Senator John McCain, though he admits a certain fondness for Newt Gingrich.
As anyone who reads the papers today knows, all except Gingrich are acknowledged leaders for the Republican nomination. McCain has been running for the last seven years, Giuliani practically the last three, since the Republican nominating convention in New York City in 2004. Romney is a fairly new addition.
Wikipedia lists the announced and potential candidates for 2008, as well as a number of those who were thought to be considering campaigns in the last year or so but have for various reasons decided not to. At the moment, the site lists thirteen men who are official or presumed candidates. In order:
Sam Brownback, Senior Senator from Kansas. He is a social conservative who has been raising his profile a bit by publicly opposing the "surge" in troops in Iraq ordered by the President. Most of his support will come from the conservative base of the Republican Party. He was raised a Methodist before becoming an evangelical Christian who then converted to Catholicism several years ago. Not very well-known nationally. A long-shot in the general election, he could do some damage in the primaries.
Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts. Another social conservative, he is more of a moderate when it comes to business and has shown flashes of liberalism in issues such as healthcare. Better known than Brownback, he too faces an uphill battle in the general election.
Duncan Hunter, Representative from California. Very conservative, member and former Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee who also strongly opposes illegal immigration and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Won't get far in the primaries and has no shot in November '08.
Jim Gilmore, former Governor of Virginia. Who's he?
Rudolph Giuliani, former Mayor of New York City. One of the best known Republicans nationally, he is noted for leadership of the Big Apple during which crime decreased to near-historic lows, as well as his performance during the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001. Social liberal, he has been married three times - once to his second cousin - and divorced twice, and supports gun control and gay rights. Though he would be a strong candidate in November, he won't get more than a cup of coffee during the primaries, where the base rules. They'll listen to him politely, then vote for somebody more like them.
Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas. The "other man from Hope" after Bill Clinton. Well spoken, polite, a social conservative who could be expected to work well with the loyal opposition. Not well known, but is a potential dark horse in 2008.
John McCain, Senior Senator from Arizona. Probably the best known Republican, is a social moderate-conservative who is known for taking some unpopular positions with the base and refusing to back down on such issues as campaign finance reform and judicial nominations. Vietnam Veteran who spent five and one-half years as a Prisoner of War in North Vietnam. Potentially the candidate who would draw the most independent and even some conservative Democratic votes, he may be hurt by two issues, one new and one old: his support for the President's troop surge, and his involvement with the Keating Five. Currently this space's pick to win the nomination.
Ron Paul, Representative from Texas. See Jim Gilmore.
Tom Tancredo, Representative from Colorado. See Jim Gilmore.
Tommy Thompson, former Governor of Wisconsin, and former Secretary of Health and Human Services. Social moderate with no shot at the primaries or the nomination.
Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Reprentatives from Georgia. Architect of the GOP's 1994 Congressional majority, he has become something of a moderating voice in the Republican Party, pointing out things that the White House would rather not hear. Because of his role in the Contract With America, has probably more credibility than most of the current candidates save McCain and Giuliani, though he still may have problems in the general election due to the public's disgust of late for anybody called "Congressman".
Chuck Hagel, Senior Senator from Nebraska. Another decorated Vietnam Veteran, he has become a favorite of some liberal groups for his open hostility to the President's conduct of the war in Iraq, and has been so since the start. Even though he is more of a traditional conservative than McCain, his opposition to the Iraq War should be enough to derail him with the base, though might do fairly well in the general election, should he get that far. Fairly blunt when he talks.
George Pataki, former Governor of New York. Not very well known nationally, a fiscal and social moderate, which alone would give him no shot in the primaries past the week before Iowa. Wasn't very popular when he decided not to run for a fourth term as governor.
No one has a crystal ball, of course. As Anna Quindlen pointed out in Newsweek's February 5th issue, Bill Clinton was an unknown around this point in the 1992 election season, and George H. W. Bush was considered unbeatable. Does anybody remember Paul Tsongas?
Coming soon, the Democratic predictions.
04 February 2007
Abolish the Death Penalty
Last week, a cretin by the name of Ronell Wilson was sentenced to die for the 2003 execution-style slaying of two New York City Police officers, one of whom begged for his life upon seeing the other one shot in the back of the head without warning.
If any case deserved the application of the penalty of death, it was this one. The rub, however, is that this poor excuse for a human being was sentenced to die not by a jury empaneled by the State of New York, but a federal one instead. The feds took over the case because, at this writing, the State of New York does not currently permit capital punishment.
This raises a number of important points, not the least of which is states' rights. But the central question - for me, anyway - is "Why do we continue to have a death penalty?"
Just because there is no doubt as to the guilt of a person accused in a specific case - and there seems to be none in the case of Mr. Wilson - does not change the overarching issue: the morality of the death penalty itself. There are a number of reasons why I believe the death penalty should be abolished:
If any case deserved the application of the penalty of death, it was this one. The rub, however, is that this poor excuse for a human being was sentenced to die not by a jury empaneled by the State of New York, but a federal one instead. The feds took over the case because, at this writing, the State of New York does not currently permit capital punishment.
This raises a number of important points, not the least of which is states' rights. But the central question - for me, anyway - is "Why do we continue to have a death penalty?"
Just because there is no doubt as to the guilt of a person accused in a specific case - and there seems to be none in the case of Mr. Wilson - does not change the overarching issue: the morality of the death penalty itself. There are a number of reasons why I believe the death penalty should be abolished:
- Civilized nations do not execute their own citizens. Of the so-called "first world" countries, those with the most advanced societies and economies, only two, the United States and Japan, permit executions and continue to carry them out. This puts the United States in such illustrious company as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Cuba, and the two remaining members of the "Axis of Evil", Iran and North Korea, as well as sixty-five other countries. According to Amnesty International, Russia, of all places, has not executed a prisoner since 1999.
- There are no absolute guarantees in the guilt of the accused. Sure there are some cases in which there is no doubt as to who is responsible for a murder. There are, however, some cases, more than you might realize, which have been overturned because of DNA evidence. According to the Innocence Project (www.innocenceproject.org) 188 persons have had convictions overturned on DNA evidence since 1989, including 51 murder convictions. In 2000, then-Governor George Ryan of Illinois instituted a moratorium on the death penalty after thirteen people on death row were exonerated on new evidence.
- The Death Penalty is applied unevenly. By some accounts, minority defendants are two-to-five times more likely to be sentenced to death than non-minority defendants in similar circumstances, with the likelihood increasing in cases where the defendant is a minority and the victim is white. Economics is also a factor: persons with public defenders for their attorney are much more much more subject to conviction than those who can afford their own lawyer. The better the lawyer, the lower the chance of a sentence of capital punishment.
- Capital Punishment does not act as a deterrent. If that were the case, you would expect murders, especially the most heinous, would drop off dramatically. Statistically, in states that employ the death penalty with vigor, such as Texas and Florida, the murder rates are often no different, or in some cases higher, than those without capital punishment. Additionally, it can be argued that those who commit murder, either out of revenge or for other cold, calculating reasons - a category in which Mr. Wilson belongs - are not exactly tethered to reality to begin with. So how can you expect such individuals to stop short of killing someone because they thought, "I could die for this"?
- Cost. Because of the expenses associated with Death Penalty cases, including the numerous lawyers involved, lengthy searches for "impartial" (yeah, right) jurors, the length of the trials themselves, the mandatory post-trial reviews and automatic appeals on behalf of the convicted, to say nothing of the long pre-trial and pre-execution incarceration as well as the execution itself, the total cost of the death penalty can run into the tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars. An eight-by-eight cell and three squares a day for the rest of the convicted's life looks pretty economical by comparison.
- Being "Pro-life" and "Pro-Death Penalty" at the same time. All I will say about this is the obvious conflicts of those who will rail against the murder of the unborn, and say that all life is sacred, while at the same time citing Biblical passages in justification of capital punishment. Can you really be "Pro-life" and "Pro-death" at the same time?
This is not often a stance that is politically very popular, but the death penalty raises more problems than it solves. Does anyone really think that executing someone years after the original crime brings "closure" - to employ a very popular and very overused term - to the aggrieved parties?
And what do you say to the family of someone who was put to death, only to later be found innocent of the crime?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)