You gotta love Mike Gravel. Asked by Tim Russert how he could run for President and be trusted with the nation's fiscal responsibility, when he ran up a big unpaid debt, Gravel proudly shot back - hey, look who got stuck with that debt, I stuck the credit card companies with a $90,000 debt, and they deserved it!
Second best point from an underdog - or maybe it was the best - came from Kucinich, who said he not only favored lowered the drinking age to 18, but the voting age to 16. I seriously support such a lowering of the voting age - I've been saying for years that it should be lowered to 14 - an age at which, according cognitive psychologist Jean Piaget, people have completely adult reasoning processes, and have had them for at least two years.
Among the top tier Democrats, I thought John Edwards did splendidly tonight. He comes across as the most human - the least political - and made some points against Hillary and Obama on stopping the business as usual in Washington. I especially liked Edwards' solution to the social security crisis: rather than raising the cap (it's currently $97,000+), create a window, in which income earners won't pay social security tax above the current cap, until they reach a much higher level of income.(I actually most favor Ron Paul's solution of letting people below a certain age opt of social security - but Edwards' is at least an innovative solution, which doesn't punish people in the upper middle class).
Hillary was good tonight, Barack was not. He was often indistinguishable from Hillary, and he lacked Edwards' passion. Edwards could be set to become the main Democratic alternative to Hillary Clinton.
8 comments:
Lowering the voting age ? Are you serious Paul ? Given the increasing lengthening of adolescence into the mid and late twenties if anything the voting age should be increased. Voting is a serious business and children and teenagers are too susceptible to the siren call of vacuous nonsense to be trusted with a vote.
But then again half of America votes Democrat so it isn't just teenagers :P
jason: my impression is that so-called "adults" are no less prone to that siren call ... it's just a different kind of nonsense....
so, yeah, I'm 100% serious about lowering the voting age ... and precisely because voting is so important..
Hey, if they're going to tax working 16 and 17 year olds (which they do) than those kids should have a say in what happens with their money.
eric: exactly!
Maybe this "long adolescence" bit wouldn't be a problem if we didn't save everyone from their own mistakes!
I agree with the point about lowering the voting age. Although most of it stayed in my private notebooks, I've been writing about politics since I was 11.
I don't mind lowering the voting age in principle. The problem is with the practice. I don't think it is a good idea to give the vote to those who are not mature enough to handle it.
Heck, even though it would disenfranchise me, I would restrict the vote to those who have done military service and restrict those from office who haven't served in war time.
But then again I thought the political outlook in Starship Troopers had something going for it.
Maybe you'd like to come on the sci phi show again Paul and we could discuss that ?
I agree with your comment about Obama being indistinguishable from Clinton at this point. She did lose some points with me this week. They brought up a VERY good point about leftover political ill will towards the Clintons that would make it more difficult for her to get things done, good or not. I still really like Biden's candor and Edwards gained a lot for me in this debate. The one thing that Obama does say, that I think they should just pound out of the Republicans, is the capitalization of fear and insighting such fears in the people to get their way. Guiliani's only position is fear. 9/11, 9/11, bomb bomb terrorists are going to get you. Vote for me. Come on. Time to move on and get away from fear and war. I was just about to get really fired up there.
In my opinion, the main issue with these "debates" is not who comes across better than the other, or what policy issues are expressed most clearly. I don't believe any policy issues are afforded any real discussion, and who comes across is mainly left up to your own built in bias anyway, for the most part.
I think the "forums" as I'll call them, in contrast to debate, are simply World Wrestling Entertainment packaged in the form of Ivy League politicos. The networks set them up that way, and the candidates are proud to fill the air time in that capacity. It saves them from actually having to debate anything, or present any real ideas.
It was only a few years ago that the major candidates couldn't agree on the number or format of the "debates". You almost had to drag them out in front of the cameras. The sheer number of televised events today is very telling. Were these actual debates, or were they an opportunity for hard questions to be asked, you'd see one per major party. Because they are, in fact, publicity events made for entertainment purposes, you get everyone from Hillary to my Uncle Jim trying to get on.
To illustrate my point, I'll point you to the question asked of John Edwards with respect to health care. "...Governor Richardson, for example, says that you can fund health care meaningfully without raising taxes. Senator Clinton has said that she's not prepared to say that she'll raise taxes to reform health care, your plan does raise some taxes to fun your universal health care program so I'm wondering, from your perspective, are they being honest about the true cost of universal health care in America?"
What does that really ask? Does it ask about John Edwards health care program? Does it ask about comparing and contrasting the leading candidates health care initiatives with respect to funding? No. It asks none of these things. What it DOES ask is whether John Edwards thinks that the other candidates are honest.
If you don't believe me, consider an alternative question. "Mr. Edwards, you have said that you will raise taxes to pay for your health care program while several of your opponents have indicated that they will not. Would you describe for us why you believe it is necessary to raise taxes in contrast to Senator Clinton, Governor Richardson and others on the stage tonight?"
The question which was actually asked makes sparks fly. Questioning honesty among candidates is something which promotes verbal jabs and counter punches. It's the favored form of political discourse on television today. It sets up an opportunity, disguised in serious political exchange about an issue, for one famous face to subtly bash another. The only possible outcome of this situation is a return of fire, and a cycle of mildly annoyed rhetoric. It accomplishes nothing for the public, save entertainment, and boosts ratings for the news coverage of these artificial news events.
Post a Comment