Old People Make Bad Political Decisions

I know the title statement is a bit of a hypocritical thing to say for a Ron Paul supporter, but I guess it just depends on what you want in the type of politician you’re voting for. People seem to have a hard time making distinctions between politicians: executives, legislators, commissioners, freeholders. I personally don’t mind old (defining old as 60-80-year-olds) legislators: they are wise, much more cool and collected and have a very impressive ability to compromise. Compromise is a coveted asset for the learned legislator and invaluable to the bill-writing process; on the other hand, an executive with a flair for compromise is very much more capable of compromising (pun intended) the security of the land which they rule.

That said, I am a firm believer that the 80+ generation has no place in politics (perhaps this is fueled by my own grandparents’ staunch support for the atom bomb as the solution to all political dilemmas). And this June 3rd New Jersey has the chance to scourge their representative pool from the Lazarus of the New Jersey Democratic machine- Frank Lautenberg. While it feels strange to attack Lautenberg when the likes of the serpentine Bob Menendez are out and about stuffing their faces and pockets at our expense, but unfortunately this election only gives us the opportunity to get rid of his senile sidekick. Well, not me, because I made the horrid mistake of switching over to the Republican Party a few months ago to be able to vote for Giuliani, which I didn’t even have a chance to do because Giuliani dropped out before NJ (I think) and Bob Menendez made sure that absentee ballots weren’t sent out to college voters anyway to ensure of Hillary victory (no joke). I’ll be sure to swing my way to independent status soon enough.

I would go on a long rant about how the NJ Dems have royally screwed every single taxpayer in the state more than any US president has ever bothered to (yes, that includes Bill Clinton), but instead I’ll let this ad I caught on TV a few hours ago do the talking. Think John McCain is old? Check this out:

Unity 08 - What Happened?

This last fall, Sam Waterson of Law and Order fame (Jack McCoy), paid visits to both Harvard and Yale (he went to Harvard first, mind you), and proposed the idea of a temporary third party that would strive to bring moderates together in an effort to remind the polarizing Republican and Democratic parties that the center is where the nation is, and the political center is where these parties should put their efforts into.

Sounded like a great idea. I found myself to be skeptical, but admitted that if it could somehow work, it would be for the best. Making it work would be the hard part, I told people after the Waterson event at Harvard’s Institute of Politics.

Here we are in May 2008, the general election approaching, and Unity 08 discontinuing its efforts due to their inability to raise funds and more importantly, their inability to garner significant support, be that from government officials, or mass numbers of ordinary folk. So, what went wrong? Simply put, the country right now is polarized, and the political center is finding itself to be in the minority.

Despite the fact that both Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama claim to be unifying figures, it seems as though the only people they’ll really be able to unify are those who already are polarized towards one of the two major parties. Obama with the most liberal record in the Senate, and McCain who is supportive of a very unpopular war find themselves fiercely fighting for the moderate vote, those Regan Democrats, with only moderate success. Hillary Clinton’s mass support from this group may be indicative of a huge problem, especially for Obama in his being able to get these crucial votes.

To put it more plainly, both McCain and Obama have what analysts would call “high floors” and “low ceilings” - both of their constituencies are quite clear and open, and most are happy to be labeled as “Republican” or “Democrat”; very few would object to one of the labels. The dynamics of the race and the Bush Presidency have allowed for this race to become one of the most polarized in our history, with people mostly already haven chosen their side, leaving a shrinking center to be fought over, and the swing voters across the country.

If so important, why wasn’t Unity 08 able to rally them together? It’s from the simple fact that these voters represent different aspects of each of the two major parties and can be swayed either way due to a number of issues. One would be hard-pressed to find a single issue in which all centrists agree on. Plus, people like being wooed, and in this general election match-up, there will be plenty of wooing from both the Obama and McCain camps, rendering any real effort to take the center and place it into the heart of the political discuss quite meaningless, as it’s already going to be done.

The polarizing nature of politics today has allowed for the center to take center-stage. Unity 08 was not needed to bring about this shift.

New Hillary Commercial Gets to the Core of Why Hispanics Keep Voting for Her

Because Hispanics are racist against black people! It’s the only possible way any Latino voter could ever think Hillary has done anything for them. (Apologies for the non-Spanish speakers)

Yet Another Liberal as Cornell’s Convocation Speaker

Maya Angelou has been chosen to be this year’s convocation speaker at Cornell. Angelou has also been active in the Democratic primaries and has recently been joined and praised by Jeremiah Wright at her 80th birthday event.

Of course, it gets even worse when you put things in context. Last year, the speaker was Soledad O’Brien. Who? Exactly. The year before was Martin Luther King III, in a much politicized (left-wing) and mediocre speech. Before that, in order, was Wesley Clark (Dem), Bill Clinton (worse Dem), James Carville (aahhh), Danny Glover (supporter of Hugo Chavez), Janet Reno (nuff said), Senator Chuck Schumer, etc etc…

I assume the other Ivies have suffered at least as much?

Media Has Too Much Time on its Hands This Primary Season. Solution: Have a Shorter Primary Cycle.

The primaries are stupid.

 

Don’t get me wrong – as an avid student of politics, I love the debates, the back and forth battles, and the daily polls that are often associated with the primary season. Like a sports fan would follow the progress and events surrounding his favorite team, I follow the success, failures, and goof-ups of my favorite (and least favorite) candidates.

 

However, the presidential primary system is broken. First off, it places too much emphasis on a few early states, and very little on the majority. This results in many states pushing themselves to the front of the primary calendar, resulting in a much earlier start to the primary season than ever before, and thus a very, very, very long primary. With so much time to cover events, and in an effort to bring the most (controversial) primary coverage to their readers, many media outlets have resorted to being nothing more than political tabloids. From the breaking news about John Edward’s $400 haircut, to the very newsworthy article from the Washington Post highlighting Hillary Clinton’s suit dipping “into new neckline territory”, the media’s obsession with the unimportant has deviated interest from the issues in this campaign, and perhaps more importantly, from other pressing domestic themes.

 

Just as they say, “if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it,” we must realize that when something is broken, it must be fixed. A broken primary system needs to be fixed. Let me propose two ways that we can make this happen.

 

A very popular idea exists in the national primary system, in which every state holds a primary on the same day, and the winner of that day’s popular vote is declared each party’s nominee. Under this system, everyone gets an equal vote. In addition, a national primary would ultimately cost the taxpayers less money, as candidates will no longer have to buy as much airtime and pay as many travel expenses in every primary state. The prospect of not watching forty-some different debates on CNN and MSNBC will give me back the time needed to study for that Ec Midterm or write that Gov paper. Even though a national primary looks good on paper, in effect it may not be any better than the status quo. For example, like on Super Tuesday, the candidates will tend to flock to the big states, possibly ignoring many of the states that have gained prominence from their earlier primary date. Fundraising for a one day primary will prove especially difficult for lesser-known candidates, making it virtually impossible to get the recognition they need to win their party’s nomination, as compared to the current system in which momentum the demographics of a primary state play such crucial roles. There also lies the possibility of a much earlier starting date in order to reach every state in the Union, thus taking us nowhere in regards to my earlier complaints concerning the media’s idle time. And even if there isn’t an earlier starting date, the voters take a chance of not making a very informed decision, for the winner in a national primary will most likely be the man or woman carrying the momentum that week, for better or worse.  

 

I personally like the idea of having four “Super Tuesdays” in a given primary cycle. The idea has been thrown around before of having “regional primaries” in a three to four month period. For example, there would be a primary in the South, a primary on the East Coast, and so on. However, this doesn’t solve the problem of unfairly giving some states greater importance than others and could possibly end up deadlocking candidates. Imagine if the “southern primary” were held first – Obama and Huckabee would most likely emerge victorious. From there, they would either run with huge momentum or get stopped in the next series of primaries in which another candidate would be more favored to win. What I would propose is having, say four Tuesdays, separated by three weeks of campaigning in which a mix of states, of varying ideological and geographical backgrounds vote. One such blocking could consist of states like Alaska, New Hampshire, Idaho, Texas, South Carolina, Colorado, Washington, Michigan, Nebraska, Illinois, and New Mexico. These four blocks of states would rotate as to the order in which they vote. This proposed block above may vote second in 2008, but would vote first in 2012. The fact that there isn’t just one day for voting will guarantee that the person nominated for their party isn’t nominated based off a whim. It will also give political junkies everywhere the chance to see multiple debates, and multiple days of election coverage, while allowing the rest of us the consolation of knowing that the media doesn’t have too much time on its hands, thus keeping the election coverage at least more relevant, and knowing that soon the focus will shift back to other, for some, more important news. I like to think that this system is most fair, keeping elements of the old primary system that are considered favorable, while moving towards a shorter primary season. This system still allows every state to have a say, while highlighting states that wouldn’t usually be considered important, in a rotating basis, so that every state has a chance to be crucial at one point or other. Take for example, Iowa. Right now it’s considered to unfairly be first in the nation – the argument exists that other states should enjoy this boon. Under the “Four Super Tuesdays Plan”, Iowa would be among the first in the nation every four elections, allowing for other states to take the lead in other years. California and New York will never really lose their importance. Even at the end of the calendar, their influence will be significant, allowing for an election that, while shorter, lasts to the very end. By giving every small state a chance to shine first, and always having a big state towards the end of the season, the primaries are guaranteed to be more balanced and more involved to the very end.

 

Regardless of their being re-worked or not, I will always pay close attention to the presidential primaries, but for those of us who don’t want to hear about Clinton, McCain and Obama 24/7, and would like to get through the news frenzy of a long primary cycle in a faster, more fair manner, change is needed.

---

On Harvard Time Interviews Great American Hero

We here at RedIvy can’t lie- we have a bit of a soft spot for Harvard’s comedy news TV show On Harvard Time (both myself and new editor-in-chief Luis Martinez are affiliated with the show enough to have embarrassing pictures of ourselves on their website. It has many things that comedy news shows elsewhere (yes, Daily Show, I’m looking at you) lack, like funny anchors and an absence of true political bias or agendas. Proof of this is all over their new interview with Karl Rove (that, in the interest of full exposure, I was fortunate enough to be at- and was instantly smitten), where host Derek Flanzraich does a great job of simply not being a douche (Jon Stewart, please take notes).

I guess this is the part where I opine on Jon Stewart.

Jon Stewart is nothing but a party hack for the Dems, an infiltrated agent that is not funny and should not be relevant. He is the sole cause of the cancellation of the only good show to ever air on CNN and not feature Anderson Cooper- Crossfire- and the culprit behind the demise of Tucker Carlson’s career. For those of you who live under a rock, Tucker Carlson is the straightest thinking, most lucid and correct American pundit on the airwaves. He’s a self-respecting moderate libertarian that believes in all those things Jon Stewart spends his days hating on, like first amendment rights and small government. Thanks to Jon Stewart, we now have thoroughly insipid “objective” news analysts like Wolf Blitzer (zzzzzz…) and Dan Abrams- who is so desperate to make himself appear to have a personality that he adds little comic book cartoon graphics to his TV regularly. Thanks Jon Stewart, for singlehandedly destroying American Media.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Former Deputy Chief of Staff and sometime Fox News correspondent Karl Rove, the amazing political mastermind behind the past two Bush victories and best rapper to ever inhabit the White House, somehow ended up in a totes legit interview involving leis and Rorschach tests and condemnations to Gitmo. It is wonderful to see people like Rove, who so many on the left blindly label “evil” and stigmatize for being horrible in a typically leftist but still offensive manner, prove that they are not only nice people, but have great senses of humor, too.

RedIvy Reaches 20,000 Visits in the Month of March!

I didn’t bother announcing this yesterday, for fear that some would interpret it as an April Fools joke, so I decided to wait an extra day to share this exciting news.

 RedIvy is attracting more and more people lately - to those that have visited us lately, and to those that follow the writings on the blog, thank you for reading. Your support, comments, and suggestions make RedIvy better every day!

I look forward to the coming months to see what new heights the blog reaches!

Media Double-Standards: MSNBC has them too!

Oh MSNBC, it must be so easy to righteously criticize Fox News and CNN from your viewpoint, with hours of exclusive Fox-bashing coverage that ranges from splicing video to make it look like Neil Cavuto said “doo-doo” on TV (nice one, Dan Abrams) to the shameless personal rag-fest Keith Olbermann likes to call his “Worst Person in the World” segment. It must be so easy to blind people into thinking you’re objective while Chris Matthew rails about the tingle that runs up his leg when he hears Obama speak when your ratings are that pathetic.

Yet, for some time, I did believe the hype. I bit the hook- MSNBC seemed balanced pundit-wise (Scarborough and Carlson vs Matthews and Olbermann), and the latter just seemed like a little dog desperate for attention and yapping at his master’s feet while his Doberman friend Bill O’Reilly got all the love.

Then MSNBC did some serious schedule reorganizing. Joe Scarborough was disappeared into the morning show (where he may or may not still be- I didn’t care to check) and Tucker Carlson was disappeared into unemployment. In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that Tucker Carlson is my all-time favorite pundit, the man I boycott the Daily Show for, because I, too, like freedom and babies and want illegal immigrants to go away forever. Tucker was the only libertarian voice on cable news- the perfect balance between Sean Hannity and Anderson Cooper (a closeted liberal as well as allegedly some other things). Tucker was fearless in attacking those who attacked freedom and enough of a lover of free speech that he pushed the envelope on his program “The Situation” (later just “Tucker” after CNN’s Wolf Blitzer plagiarized it) every day.

By far the best thing about Tucker, though, is the fact that he is smart enough to not take himself too seriously. He says he learned this from Larry King, who once advised him to “care, but not too much; give a shit, but not really.” He would routinely make light of absurd situations that Bill O’Reilly would be livid with rage about. In the nascent stages of his show, he had current HBO boxing analyst Max Kellerman on for a segment where he would debate politics with Kellerman to prove that anyone who pays any bit of attention can play the role of pundit, even if your specialty is pugilism. On the last episode of Tucker, supposedly canceled because of “ratings,” Tucker sealed his reputation, and his opinion of the media circus that is American politics:

Given how much leftist media agents like Jon Stewart control mainstream public opinion for reasons unknown to me, it wasn’t too hard to believe that this were true. However, it took this loyal fan some time to accept that the most moderate and sensible voice on cable news could be so unpopular. Are the people that tune into MSNBC so incredibly closed-minded and radical as to refuse to watch his show?

I then came across a clip that explained it all. In a related search, I looked for MSNBC clips that were critical of democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. Wading through a sea of Chris Matthews Obama pick-up lines and Olbermann’s declarations of undying love for the candidate wasn’t easy, but I finally found it- the one anti-Obama segment ever broadcast on MSNBC. Here it is, folks:

Oh, what’s this? Tucker Carlson deviated from the channel’s talking points, only to later to fired? Sounds like he was removed from his position and humbled with a guest correspondent stint for the same reason Alan Colmes is forced to take “vacations” at peak moments in the election, and, for that matter, the same reason Tucker Carlson was fired from CNN. Before you criticize Fox for sticking to strict talking points, MSNBC, take a look in the mirror: you’re playing a pot and kettle game.

Falling Star #2 - Why “Hope” and “Change” = Corruption

For those of you who missed it on CNN’s list of top stories the other day:

 http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=999980124052&template=theme&theme=kilpatrick012008

Yes, that’s right. Another former “rising star” in the Democratic Party, another sex scandal. This time, it’s Detroit’s mayor (and Vice President of the National Conference of Democratic Mayors, as well as a speaker at the 2004 Democratic Convention), Kwame Kilpatrick, and his illicit relationship with his former Chief of Staff, Christine Beatty. Kwame, like Bill Clinton before him, is learning the hard way that, while an extramarital affair might be a “personal matter,” lying about it under oath in courtroom testimony is not. Kudos to Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy for having the guts to stand up to Kwame and his lackeys - on Monday, she leveled a total of 15 felony charges against Kwame and Beatty (8 for him, 7 for her, with some obviously joint). That makes him the first mayor of Detroit to be charged with a crime while in office - in other words, Kwame’s a scumbag, even for Detroit standards. I think Kwame and Eliot Spitzer have a lot to tell us about why it’s so vital to put a Republican in the White House in 2008.

But first, some background info. Kwame was elected in 2001 as the youngest person ever to hold the mayoral office in Detroit. Like some modern-day politicians we know, he ran on a platform of “change” and “hope,” and his deft political skills and speaking talent even made him the inspiration for Chris Rock’s movie “Head of State.” However, almost instantly, it was clear that ”change” was for the worse: between more than $200,000 of charges on his city credit card, $25,000 of taxpayer money for a Lincoln Navigator lease for his wife, and allegations of nepotism, the only “hope” going on in the Manoogian Mansion was Kwame crossing his fingers that the press wouldn’t dig too deeply into his expense reports.

 

Unsurprisingly, the candidate of “hope and change” brought little of either to a depressed city in his first term. In fact, so little good got done (despite the numerous problems that continue to face the city) that TIME Magazine named him one of the three worst mayors in America. Nonetheless, thanks to Kwame’s decision to play the giant race card he keeps in his wallet at all times (http://www.detnews.com/2005/metro/0510/28/A01-364390.htm), he defeated challenger Freman Hendrix, despite trailing him in the polls for most of the race. Amid many apologies, there was still a glimmer of hope left that this “hip hop”-mayor would prove to be the “change we’ve been looking for.”

Unsurprisingly, this “hope” bore little fruit. Not even two years into his current term, Kwame began to face questions surrounding his decision to abruptly fire his deputy police chief, Gary Brown. Brown eventually became a whistle-blower in a civil case brought against the City of Detroit, the crux of which focused on an alleged wild party at the mayoral mansion, complete with strippers, hosted by none other than Mayor Kilpatrick himself. Brown told investigators that Kwame fired him after it became clear that Brown was going to investigate numerous complaints surrounding the party, which would have obviously put Kwame in an embarassing situation. Kwame testified himself at the trial, but despite his vaunted rhetorical skills, the City of Detroit lost the case and $9 million.

I wish for the poor people of my state and of Detroit that it would have ended there. What happened next, though, is what Hollywood movies are made of. During his testimony to the court in the Brown case, Kwame denied that he had ever had an extramarital affair with Beatty (she denied it, too), which was not a major part of Brown’s case but, given its subject matter, was all over the news in the days following Kwame’s testimony. The accusations seemed to be fading away as time went on. Then earlier this year, the Detroit Free Press obtained records from Kwame and Beatty’s cell phones that showed that the two exchanged hundreds of sexually explicit text messages over the course of her time as Chief of Staff (commemorative t-shirt here: http://kwamemugshot.com), essentially directly refuting claims that there had been no affair. Wayne County prosecutors opened an investigation of the matter and, after 40,000 documents and uncooperative responses by Kwame, delivered the felony charges (including perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiring to commit obstruction of justice) against the mayor on Monday.

It gets even better, though. The final piece of the puzzle involves one of the strippers who was present at Kwame’s mansion party and then turned up dead shortly afterwards. One of Kwame’s wife’s drivers (remember that luxury Navigator?) now alleges that Mrs. Kilpatrick physically assaulted the stripper upon finding out that she had been present at the party. The stripper’s pastor has also said that she confided to him that she feared for her life shortly after the party. While there’s been no definitive evidence to link the Kilpatricks to the stripper’s death, Kwame’s rather poor track record on the whole honesty thing has a lot of folks here in Michigan assuming the worst. And, unfortunately, it’s Detroit residents who get the bulk of the punishment for Kwame’s misdeeds: just this week, the Council of Black Mayors decided to move their 2008 convention from Detroit to Louisiana to avoid the attention surrounding Kwamegate (http://www.clickondetroit.com/scandal/15715906/detail.html). In the midst of a crippled auto industry and the worst state unemployment level in the Union, this was the last thing Detroit needed.

So why should all of this matter to voters in 2008? Because it’s another example of how “hope” and “change” Democrats are showing a disturbing trend towards corruption in office. Say what you will about the relative merits of Barack Obama and John McCain, but with only two years in national government, Obama has hardly experienced all of the potential ways that Washington corrodes people’s noblest hopes and ambitions, not to mention the fact that his connections to Tony Rezko suggest that he found it hard to stay corruption-free even at the state level. Meanwhile, outside of half-assed, inaccurate NY Times accusations, John McCain is perhaps the least-corrupt politician in Washington - ever since Keating 5, McCain’s realized how much harm can be done when elected representatives don’t do what’s best for their constituents, whether it’s wasting taxpayer money or embarassing voters with their personal conduct. Moreover, he’s staking his entire campaign on that premise, with calls for an end to earmarks. Meanwhile, all we hear is “hope” and “change” from the “outsider” that is Obama. Unfortunately, it shouldn’t surprise anyone if Obama is elected President and then goes the way of Kwame “Hope” Kilpatrick and the dead stripper, Deval “Change” Patrick and the $10,000 curtains, and Eliot “Outsider” Spitzer and the $5,000 call girl - being a fresh, new face is a double-edged sword. 

(Background info with help from http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080224/NEWS05/802240628)

A Look Back: 2008 Presidential Race Top Stories

• New York Times’ sketchy report on John McCain’s affair with a lobbyist
• John Edwards’ $400 haircuts
• Washington Post’s news-breaking article highlighting Hillary Clinton’s suit dipping “into new neckline territory”
• Barack Obama’s controversial pastor
• Clinton “tears up” on the campaign trail

All that is well and good, but how about we start focusing on the issues now?