Print
By now the blogosphere is full of advice for the Iowa Caucuses. Anyone who can punch a keyboard has posted their opinion. That is the true beauty of blogs, enough to make me think maybe Skippy the Bush Kangaroo is right when he calls it Blogtopia. For never before have so many people had a chance to mull over and publish their reactions to a Presidential race.
With the entire country looking for new ideas and new directions, my guess is that somewhere out here in Blogtopia lie some answers. It is rather like a network or writing open code–the more minds on the problem and the more we talk with one another, the more we generate positive energy that can only benefit the country.
Meanwhile there are probably more satellite truck antennas sticking up in Iowa than there are trees. Every newspaper of any size is full of neat charts outlining the candidate’s positions on the issues the media have decided are important to track:health care, Iraq, torture.
I hesitate to add my own voice, to this verbal bloat, but since this blog focuses on equity and justice, two issues that recently have receded from both Blogtopia and the mainstream media I do feel compelled to comment on those issues. Neither of them are included in those neat newspaper charts and I have yet to hear a media commentator or blogger tells us how each of the candidates stands on them.
Yet I believe those who will be attending the Iowa caucuses and voting in New Hampshire want to know how the candidates stand. I also believe that those issues should decide who will be our next president.
Curiously, both of them surfaced in the last Iowa debate. To the credit of the moderator, Des Moines Register editor Carolyn Washburn, the very first question dealt with what I have termed the tilted playing field that is George W. Bush’s gift to the rest of us. Knowing Iowa, it does not surprise me. Much to the dismay of those who keep seeing Iraq as the only issue worth discussing, I have maintained that Iraq will not decide the winner in Iowa.
That Washburn would focus on equity in her first question confirms this. Unfortunately she framed it rather poorly, focusing on balancing the budget rather that the moral accounting this nation needs to make. She said:
WE’RE GOING TO START WITH A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FINANCIAL SITUATION FACING OUR COUNTRY. THE SINGLE BIGGEST ISSUE IOWANS OF BOTH PARTIES SAID THEY WANTED YOU TO TALK MORE ABOUT. WOULD IT BE A PRIORITY OF YOUR ADMINISTRATION TO BALANCE THE FEDERAL BUDGET EVERY YEAR? IF YES, HOW, AND IF NO, WHY NOT? SENATOR OBAMA, I’D LIKE YOU TO START US OFF, YOU’LL HAVE ONE MINUTE.
I would apologize here for the caps in my quotes from the transcript, but that is the way the transcriber chose to record the debate.
The candidates’ answers provide a clear indication as to who will be the best candidate for what I have termed Principles Voters. It is significant she directed the first question to Obama, who looks like he may win Iowa. His answer shows he has righted a ship in danger of keeling over. There are a few moments in his answer that actually recall the words he spoke to the Democratic Convention four years ago. For example:
OVER THE LAST SEVEN YEARS WHAT WE’VE SEEN IS AN ECONOMY THAT’S OUT OF BALANCE BECAUSE OF THE POLICIES OF GEORGE BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS. NOT ONLY DO WE HAVE FISCAL PROBLEMS, BUT WE’VE GOT GROWING INEQUALITY, SO PEOPLE ARE WORKING HARDER FOR LESS AND THEY’RE SEEING COSTS FOR EVERYTHING FROM COLLEGE EDUCATION TO HEALTH CARE TO GAS AT THE PUMP GO UP. WHAT I WANT TO DO IS GET THE LONG-TERM FUNDAMENTALS RIGHT.
I am pleased that in his very first sentence Obama actually dared to use the word “inequality,” which the Democrats seem to have forgotten. Maybe it was that book I put in the front seat of the Mercedes with the Obama signs parked outside the West Side in Grinnell one November morning.
Bill Richardson followed Obama by taking two steps backward. Early on I had thought Richardson might be THE candidate since his online bio referred to Hubert Humphrey, but his answer was lame, starting out with inevitable, as Governor, I balanced five budgets followed by the usual list of cure-alls including one that has been dear to Republican hearts–the line-item veto, which Ronald Reagan advocated.
Joseph Biden took a third perspective:
JUST PUT IN REAL STARK TERMS, IT’S ABOUT PRIORITIES. I APOLOGIZE FOR MY COLD. JUST BY ELIMINATING THE WAR, ELIMINATING THE $200 BILLION IN TAX CUTS THAT AREN’T NEEDED FOR THE TOP 1%. AND BY CUTTING SOMEWHERE ON THE ORDER OF $20 BILLION A YEAR OUT OF THE MILITARY FOR SPECIAL PROGRAMS FROM STAR WARS TO THE F22 TO THE ANYMORE ITS CLASS DESTROYER, YOU COULD SAVE ENOUGH TO ALLOW ME EVERYTHING I WANT TO DO AND STILL BRING DOWN THE DEFICIT BY $150 BILLION.
This left Chris Dodd, the man who is still in the race because he is being bankrolled by a Connecticut hedge fund tycoon, with the problem of figuring out yet a fourth approach. He found one, although not an unexpected one given his support:
WE NEED TO HAVE AN ECONOMY THAT’S DRIVING GROWTH, CREATING JOBS WHICH IS THE BEST SOCIAL PROGRAM ANYONE EVER CREATED.
John Edwards brought up the rear. With Obama having laid out the equity theme, Edwards had to establish his own identity. He blew it.
FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE TO GET RID OF THE STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCY OF THE ECONOMY. WE HAVE TO STRENGTHEN AND GROW THE MIDDLE CLASS, WHICH IS STRUGGLING MIGHTILY IN THIS COUNTRY TODAY. AND ONE OF THE REASONS WE’VE LOST JOBS, WE’RE HAVING TROUBLE CREATING JOBS, WE’RE HAVING TROUBLE GROWING AND STRENGTHENING THE MIDDLE CLASS IS BECAUSE CORPORATE POWER AND GREED HAVE LITERALLY TAKEN OVER THE GOVERNMENT, AND WE NEED A PRESIDENT WHO’S WILLING TO TAKE THESE POWERS ON.
Anyone who refers to “structural deficiency” in his first dozen words is blowing smoke. When I saw this on television, it sounded good, but reading it my first reaction is, “What the heck does that mean?”
This is followed by the dread words I have taken to task in several articles, “middle class.” In October I asked, “Is the Democratic Party Waging Class Warfare?” and here was Edwards committing that very sin. Edwards has tried to create an identity as a populist, but we are either one America or we aren’t. The people who have suffered the most under George W. Bush and the Republican Counterrevolution are not the middle class, but the poor.
Washburn then followed this with another related question:
WHEN ARE TAX INCREASES NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE, THEN, AND GIVEN THE CURRENT DEFICIT, WHICH OF YOUR PRIORITIES WOULD BE WORTH ASKING AMERICANS TO PAY MORE FOR?
Richardson had the opportunity to give the first answer and this time he did not blow it. Note that so far Hillary Clinton has remained silent. The moderator has not directed a single question in her direction. The supposed front-runner is receiving the Kucinich treatment. She must have been livid at being ignored this long. Richardson answers:
WELL, I THINK THE 2% FOR THE WEALTHIEST AMERICANS, THAT IS UNFAIR, UNEQUAL.
Then he slides back into talking about balancing the budget. Meanwhile Edwards gets his second chance, but he reiterates his anti-corporate, save the middle class theme. At least no one can accuse him of drifting off message. Finally Hillary Clinton gets her chance and what does she do, reminds us of guess who.
I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT WE RECOGNIZE HOW PEOPLE FEEL IN IOWA AND ACROSS AMERICA. THEY’RE ONE PINK SLIP, ONE MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS AWAY FROM FALLING THROUGH. I WANT TO RESTORE THE TAX RATES WE HAD IN THE ’90s.
This answer reads well, but on television it seemed more rehearsed. An answer that has the word “feel” in it should not feel rehearsed.
I quote this exchange at some length because there has been no moment in the debates as clear as this one in defining the essential values of each candidate. Obama sounds like the Obama of 2004, going first to the issue of equity. Richardson sounds like a policy wonk, a retooled and slightly more rotund Bill Clinton. Dodd’s remarks about growing the economy, given his backers, suggest he may well be a fan of top-down growth, something we have had enough of for two decades. Edwards’ former two Americas now has been defined as the middle class and the upper class, leaving out those of us who must live on disability or who are even less fortunate and have nothing. As for Hillary Clinton, she starts out well with her statement about recognizing how people feel, but then blows it with an indirect reference to her husband.
So there you have it. Do we want a candidate who evokes equity or one like Dodd who seems to favor a top-down approach? Do we want to cater to the middle class as Edwards advocates, leaving behind the people at the bottom of the ladder, the people FDR referred to as the “forgotten man?” Edwards seems to have forgotten them. Do we want a technocrat, which is what Bill Richardson sounded like–a green eye shades guy who will balance the budget? Do we want Clinton II like we had Bush II?
It’s up to you, Iowa.
Print Posted by: liberalamerican
