38 posts tagged “democratic party”

I’ve been having a think about the hatchet-job that Gov. Palin is getting, surprisingly, from the Murdoch Press, specifically its Fox News Channel arm. Considering that she was championed by this network after her selection by the party (over Sen. McCain’s own choice of Sen. Joe Lieberman, who even my Democratic friends felt would have been a better choice to win moderate voters), the about-face shows a level of deceit either now, or before, by the media company.
   While there may have been some gentlemen’s agreement over concealing this information till after the election, I don’t think I have seen the Murdoch Press go after a political figure in quite this fashion since Hard Copy did its exposés on Sen. Ted Kennedy in the 1980s.
   To be fair, even Newsweek, on the left, has kept mum about matters till now, and I imagine other media outlets have done the same in order to maintain their access to the candidates.
   We are hearing some things about the Democrats and we now know that Sen. Obama isn’t above swearing, but overall the post-mortem, even in the conservative press, has been relatively muted about the winning side.
   But not against Gov. Sarah Palin.
   It also shows a disloyalty within the Republican Party that is not becoming of it, if it wishes to be seen as a party that was unjustly cheated out of the election this week.
   In 2000, Democrats could point to the recount process in Florida and the alliance between the state’s Attorney-General Katherine Harris and the Republican Party as having taken the presidency from Al Gore.
   This time, the divide that has occurred might leave Republicans thinking that the disunity in the party cost them the election, and they were beaten by Democrats who hid their divisions better. They may fairly and rightly point to the media as being complicit in giving Sen. Obama a free ride, just as Conservatives in Britain could in 1997, but the reality may be that there was something rotten within the GOP.
   I can’t believe campaign aides and workers coming out and breaching a level of trust by revealing such details as Gov. Palin coming to greet them in a towel, and having this make the news pages.
   Even the supposed hatred by Sen. Clinton’s campaigners for Sen. Obama stayed relatively under the radar, either by a cooperative liberal media or by a sense of loyalty to the Democratic Party.
   We’re hearing news of the Governor’s tantrums and that the $150,000 shopping spree may have been more expensive than first thought.
   This is a personal attack on her that shows party workers who can’t maintain any sense of dignity and trust.
   Importantly, you do not see someone of the standing and decency of Sen. John McCain rubbish his running-mate.
   If this division has been inspired by higher-ups in the Republican Party, then Americans might be fortunate that this version of the GOP did not get into power on November 4.
   One may argue that it is our right to know, and maybe it is. But the pace of this so-called knowledge being disseminated points to a party that is acting out sour grapes and playing the blame game a little too soon, and I find it troubling.
   Every party says it will regroup after a loss. It is fair to note that the loss that the Republicans suffered was in fact very small, given how they were outspent by the Democrats to such a degree. At this stage, I do not think there will be much re-evaluation of where it will lead, because I am not sure if the Party itself realizes where it wishes to head. It may need to rebrand much later, but for now, it hasn’t been able to protect its own from this onslaught—and may well have caused it.

Sen. Joe Biden and the Obama campaign have cancelled all interviews with this Florida TV station after getting fired a few tough questions that Sen. Barack Obama would have dealt with very easily. He dealt with them sufficiently but cancelling further interviews with the channel?
   I never understood, and still do not understand, why this man is Sen. Obama’s running-mate. I have always had my doubts about Sen. Biden, long before his nomination, and the pettiness of the Obama campaign staffers that I have written about has shown itself once again.
   Come on, even Gov. Sarah Palin isn’t above returning to unfriendly networks and channels for the McCain campaign.

I have become interested in the story behind Sen. Obama’s birth certificate, now that a suit has been filed against him, forcing him to produce the “long form” version from Hawai’i rather than the reprint, or certification, used to support his birth on US soil in 1961.
   These are my arguments on the issue, as I partly relayed on Twana’s blog last week.
   1. The US Constitution does not give a full definition of ‘natural born citizen’ in Art. II, s. 1. Since we know the Founding Fathers to be smart folks, we also know that if they wanted that term to be defined by 1787 standards, they would have put it in.
   2. Under Art. I, s. 8, the Constitution gives Congress the power to determine laws about naturalization. In other words, matters pertaining to naturalization are not stuck in 1787, but are to be considered in a contemporary sense.
   3. Under these laws, a birthright citizenship exists and it’s also in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
   4. Under US law back in the 1960s, a child doesn’t lose his American nationality just because a parent does. Specifically:

A person having American nationality, who is a minor and is residing in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who loses American nationality under section 404 of this Act, shall at the same time lose his American nationality if such minor has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, That, in such case, American nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of American nationality by the parent unless and until the child attains the age of twenty-three years without having acquired permanent residence in the United States.

   5. Dual nationals are recognized under US law (the Immigration and Nationality Act, and by the Supreme Court).
   6. Because of (3), if Barack Obama was born in Hawai’i, then he qualifies as a natural born citizen. I know there are stories on the web relating to the recollections of his grandmother, Sarah Obama, who recalls:

Obama’s mother, late in her term carrying Obama she went to Kenya with her husband. She was resented by her in-laws and didn't like the way Muslim men treated women so she tried to return to Hawaii. Apparently the airlines refuse to allow her to fly due to her being very late term pregnant. So Obama, Jr. was born in Kenya. His father’s family all verify this version and in Mombassa, Kenya there is registered the birth of one Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. on a date approximating when our Obama was born.

I am not sure how reliable this evidence is, and it is the first I have heard about a Barack Hussein Obama Jr being registered in Mombasa. And where is the copy of that registration? Since we do not have that, then we have to assume that the Hawai’i reprint is genuine (stories about the colour mismatch are ridiculous: since when could two scanners reproduce the same colour?) and that it was registered correctly, because the onus of proof lies on the plaintiff in such a case.
   7. Even if he did travel to Indonesia there is no evidence, to me, that he lost his American nationality. Philip Berg, the gentleman who has filed suit, alleges that Barack Obama would have had to give up his American nationality to attend school in Indonesia. Anyone who has been to Indonesia knows there are problems with graft and corruption and I would more readily believe that his school never checked. Maybe he acquired dual nationality during this time and even if that meant giving up his US nationality under Indonesian law, he might not have been considered to have given it up under US law.
   8. Therefore, when Barack Obama re-entered the US, there was no need for him to become re-naturalized—and the Fourteenth Amendment still held.
   I would love to see the 1961 certificate, as this would end the whole argument once and for all. Most of Mr Berg’s arguments do not find much favour with my analysis, and it’s largely his demand for the 1961 certificate that has my interest piqued.
   The only controversy that I can see, if all is well with the original “long form” certificate, might be that while dual nationality does not preclude Sen. Obama from seeking the office of President, the mere existence of it (which remains a possibility—that he is a dual US–Indonesian national) might discourage the more xenophobic of voters to go with another candidate. This is worth some scrutiny, out of fairness. I personally have no problems with dual nationality, simply because I hold two myself.
   One conspiracy theorist says that the Democrats are waiting to be elected and if things go belly-up for a future President Obama on this subject, his vice-president will ascend to the top job and pardon his predecessor. I have never put anything past Sen. Joe Biden, whom I have always regarded as far more dangerous than the top man on the Dems’ ticket, and have wondered about his relative silence on many of the attacks on Sen. Obama.
   Nevertheless, this is an interesting matter and no less important than the earlier analysis of Sen. McCain’s own birth (which I also answered in the blogosphere a bit earlier).

Just after I commented on another blog that Republicans were generally more civilized when arguing for their candidate, I hear that some have chanted death threats against Sen. Obama. Way to go. (I am being sarcastic.)
   And now, there’s news from The Times—from the same owner as Fox News—that indicates a philosophical split inside the campaign.
   Paikea, who is a Vox friend of mine here and who is a Democratic supporter, blogged a reference to an article that painted Gov. Palin as narcissistic. And that, I have to concur, summarizes some of the more disturbing elements about her that I could not identify.
   It appears, according to The Times, that John McCain is merely an inconvenience in the presidential run of Sarah Palin.
   Rallies now have gone from something resembling a tiny senatorial race for Sen. McCain to mass crowds after Gov. Palin’s arrival. And she knows that that’s her contribution, using it to her advantage. She knows that there were many holding back from supporting Sen. McCain because of his RINO image.
   Even when there are divisions among the Democrats, as there is today between Sens. Obama and the Clinton family, they aren’t stupid enough to air their dirty laundry in front of the world.
   I have expressed my doubts about Sen. Joe Biden, believing that he is a typical Beltway type who is not going to listen to a black senator. Sen. Obama might be labelled a visionary by his allies—so does that mean that Sen. Biden is going to be the details man, in which case it’s going to be more of the same politicking? His record indicates yes, and I think there’s going to be a power-play if the Democrats get in.
   But the Democrats successfully hid their rifts in 2004, with their whole party behind Sen. John Kerry, never mind what was there behind the scenes.
   I know the Governor’s words excite a group of Republicans, but for all the criticisms of militant Democrats, the parties are looking more and more similar in the behaviours these candidates are eliciting among their audiences.
   I am not sure if this could be called inspirational.
   While there is nothing technically wrong with a vice-presidential nominee overshadowing a presidential one, the presidency, if the Republicans took the White House, is John McCain’s, not Sarah Palin’s—and as a former navy captain I am sure he would not desire insubordination.
   In the Republicans’ defence, one could argue that Gov. Palin had to get tough in opposing the Democrats for the easy ride Sen. Obama has been getting in the media.
   While another Democratic friend of mine says the ACORN furore is a horrid smear campaign, I cannot imagine a Republican candidate getting off fairly scot free on issues like that of the Tony Retzko connection or Sen. Obama’s nationality whilst in Indonesia. (The media were, as I have once said, quick to endorse the Killian memoranda against President George W. Bush, even if it was remarkably easy for a professional like me to pinpoint the cut of the Times typeface and what laser printer they came off.)
   I don’t believe that Sen. Obama is not American, that his middle name is Mohammed, or that possible dual nationality prevents his run under Art. II, s. 1 of the US Constitution. However, the secrecy surrounding a possible Indonesian nationality (still not answered, from what I can tell) and his 1961 birth certificate (versus a certification) should concern the fourth estate as well as US voters.
   Since Sen. McCain was unwilling to conduct a dishonourable campaign, or so he claims (does he truly ‘approve this message’?), he might be unwilling to throw accusations that are not fully checked. Gov. Palin may well have taken the initiative with attacks, using less evidence than the Senator would find comfortable.
   And since the Republicans themselves have had their share of attacks without much of a defence in the media, the Governor may well think she needs to get headlines if she’s going to get the GOP POV in the news.
   Conclusion: both sides are split, one more openly than the other.
   As a foreign observer, the campaign has arrived at a new low, not because of any one side, but because no matter who Americans vote I am not certain there will be much real change. (I feel the same, incidentally, about Labour–National in New Zealand, hence my third-party run.)
   Attitudes on both sides do not set a presidential example for Americans internally, or inspire confidence in allies and observers externally.
   It’s hardly up to McCain and Obama. I think their number twos are calling the shots in a very unwarranted way—one after the election if the Democrats get in; the other before the election, acting as though it were her campaign and John McCain is her vice-presidential running-mate. Neither is ideal, and both are worrisome.

The trouble with the Obama surname from a humour point-of-view is that the senator from Illinois and his wife are the two most famous people bearing it. There are no others who are comparable.
   For example, antipodeans can keep using ‘Ah, McCain, you’ve done it again!’ to tie in with a food company in Australia.
   With Sarah Palin, there are countless Monty Python references through Michael Palin, e.g. Michael Palin in Pole to Pole, Sarah Palin in Poll to Poll.
   On the other side, Joe Biden is way tougher name-wise to get gags going. There are already 43,000-plus Google references to the most obvious, ‘Biden time’.
   I heard, ‘Once Biden, twice shy,’ but you have to change a word to fit.
   Similarly, I know we have Obamanomics and words like that but they are not that punny.
   Even last time the Democrats gave us Teresa Heinz Kerry, the wife of the Massachusetts senator, so we could say Beantown meanz Heinz. Not very funny but tolerable.
   And ask David Letterman for any jokes relating to Clinton.
   The Dems have taken out so much of the potential humour in the names in ’08. (Republican headline: ‘Democrats rob US of humor: national laugh index would drop under Obama’.)

Hey, the Governor is right: the Washington Memorial looks nothing like him!
   I am not sure who the actor is, but he does a good impersonation of Gov. Schwarzenegger. The lines are excellent.

[Cross-posted] I now think Biden, McCain, Obama and Palin have had me direct a joke at them. I am an equal opportunity critic.

With any election campaign, and now being involved as a political candidate myself for the New Zealand Parliament, my observations stem from the point of view of ‘Would I do this?’
   For example, I wouldn’t have tried making fun of Sen. Barack Obama for wearing traditional African costume, as Sen. Clinton’s campaign did, using it as a tactic of painting him as an outsider. (And I said so at the time.)
   I did, meanwhile, have a field day over Sen. Clinton’s sniper-fire gag, or the time she called the still-governing Helen Clark as the ‘former prime minister of New Zealand’. I believe she opened herself up for those.
   At the end of the day, I want to see an even playing field, and I’ll do the little things that I know something about.
   And I thought today about Gov. Sarah Palin’s ‘bridge to nowhere’ remark.
   She said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ to the construction of a bridge to a community of 50 in Alaska.
   Critics say that she was for the bridge before she was against it—something pointed out by Charlie Gibson in the ABC News interview.
   As far as I can gather, Gov. Palin and her Alaskan Congress would try to apply to Washington for a share of infrastructure projects, which, from what I can gather in western politics, is normal.
   I read about something similar in John Major’s autobiography, recalling his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer, with each government department trying to get a cut of the budget.
   So securing a share of the cake is business as usual in most democracies.
   When Congress (Washington, not Juneau) requested that Alaska itself pay for the bridge, Gov. Palin said, ‘No way.’
   Maybe I am being totally stupid but I can’t see what she has done wrong.
   Folks, I don’t support a lot of Sarah Palin’s ideas, not least her environmental stance, and as I have pointed out, her English seems to be below par for a woman holding a journalism degree and with broadcasting experience.
   I am for the Second Amendment, personally speaking. I like how she reduced her mayoral pay in Wassila and how she sold the gubernatorial jet which her predecessor had bought, against the will of his congress.
   She could be a populist. So is Sen. Obama.
   But on this “bridge to nowhere” issue, I thought about it this way.
   I get free samples of various products here that I give out to our team members. They are happy to take them. But if I were to ask them to pay for them, they’ll say, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ on most. They defend their own patch, as Gov. Palin defended hers.
   Critics say that Gov. Palin maybe should have said, ‘I said, “Thanks,” then “No thanks,” on that bridge to nowhere.’ But I think it was a waste of time for Gibson to even go there.
   There’s plenty of other stuff to attack the Governor on, just as there’s plenty of other stuff to attack Sen. Joseph Biden on. Americans tire of the politicking in the news not because they are disinterested in who gets to the White House, but because the media are so happy to sway the issue to things everyday people could not care less about.

I don’t think there were any winners in last night’s presidential debate. Sen. McCain went off on his own tangents, and Sen. Obama sweated the small stuff, which I don’t think a potential president needs to be doing. Who was more relaxed depended on the stage of the debate: Obama first, then McCain got into his stride. I could go into more depth, but I know there are blow-by-blow summaries elsewhere on the ’net. Here, where my non-American viewpoint counts for little with the American voter, I can’t say there was a victory on either side.

Triangle finally decided to show the Republican National Convention in St Paul tonight, with a three-hour coverage ex-PBS.
   It plans to have two more nights, which will equal the coverage that it gave to the DNC.
   From a marketing point-of-view, the Dems do have the campaign better coordinated, opting for a smaller space on the first two nights so empty seats were not visible. Typographically and design-wise, and in the use of the background screen, the Democratic Party appeared right.
   However, speech-wise, this first full night for the Republicans showed a lesser inclination to rely on slogans and style, instead playing to their candidate’s strengths—principally his military service and his record in the Senate.
   There is truth to the claims that Sen. McCain bridged gaps, because this same willingness to cross the floor to get a better bipartisan outcome was used by the current president to attack him in 2004.
   But some division was also revealed as the crowd went silent on mentions about immigration and global warming, two topics that seem to be sore points with those attending.
   The First Lady’s speech was expectedly ladylike, and the President, as I have heard him on other occasions, especially outside the US, never fumbled a single word.
   One has to wonder, however, whether the President’s cameo appearance helped promote the Republican Party or whether it reiterated for some viewers the party connection between him and Sen. McCain.
   Reminders of the party’s military support were frequent, asking former POWs and veterans to stand up in the hall, including former president George Bush, who was there with his wife Barbara and daughter Dorothy.
   One early speaker, Tommy Espinoza, emphasized faith to appeal to the Christian crowd, and to Hispanic voters.
   Certainly the follow-ups from the presidential video kept pushing the idea of reform, distancing McCain in the same way the Gore campaign attempted to distance itself from the Clinton years in 2000.
   Criticism was veiled but it was present, and that must be one of the tough things confronting the Republican Party in the conference.
   Strongest speaker of the night was easily former senator Fred Thompson, who is probably a more skilled orator than Sen. McCain; and it was probably from then that the audience began to shift into high gear.
   What a pity for the party that he was the penultimate speaker of the night, then.
   He appealed to the audience when he claimed that Sen. Obama’s promises of tax reform would leave Americans worse off.
   In one of the better quotes that I have heard from both sides so far, Thompson said, ‘Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases.
   ‘They tell you they are not going to tax your family.
   ‘No, they’re just going to tax “businesses”! So unless you buy something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline, or unless you get a pay cheque from a big or a small business, don’t worry: it’s not going to affect you!’
   Smaller but clever bits included his mentioning Alaska as the biggest state in the union which, of course, in area terms, it is, to help Gov. Sarah Palin.
   Unsurprisingly, Sen. Joseph Lieberman spoke in support of Sen. McCain, knowing that he was not that far away from having been made the vice-presidential candidate, if it had not been a potential revolt due to his pro-choice stance.
   I imagine we will hear Mrs McCain speak on the next night, and it will be interesting to compare her speech with what Mrs Obama delivered last week. I thought Mrs Obama did very well (a couple of points off for the use of the fist in the “fighting talk” moments that looked a bit forced) and showed herself to be a dynamic, resourceful woman. I would assume that Cindy McCain, who certainly looked the part clothing-wise tonight, will focus more on the family side of things.
   I’m glad we are getting more balance on our TV screens.
   National Radio, meanwhile, as as balanced with its coverage tonight on its 6 p.m. programme as it was with the Democrats’, though it did devote some extra time to covering Gov. Palin’s pregnant, unmarried daughter and her hiring a lawyer to defend charges against allegations she attempted to influence the firing of her former brother-in-law. Still, it was all good for news junkies like me, and yesterday’s imbalance seems to have been redressed.