"This Week" Highlights Dem. Debate in S.C.

I heard the debate on the radio. Here are my impressions.

IMHO it was very easy to separate the serious candidates from those on the fringes.

By serious candidates I mean Lieberman, Edwards, Graham, Kerry and Gephard. Three moderates and two traditional liberals.

I was surprised to hear these candidates present themselves as strongly supporting the war. I heard assurances that weapons of mass destruction would be found, and even the proposition that the US should not stop now but go after Hesbollah and other terrorist groups who threaten Israel. (One of the candidates said he voted against the war because he believed the resolution didn't go far enough. Those things I didn't expect. The democrats seemed to want to present themselves as tougher than Bush, and while they tried to criticize him on details, in broad terms they seem to be in the same page as the president on foreign policy and the war against terror.

The major differences came on economic issues. This is where they strongly differenciated themselves from Bush, and also from each other. Two issues in particular, health care and taxes, are the early favorites to become the great debates that will decide the democratic ticket, and perhaps even the next election.

I should say something about the minority, led by Dean and Sharpton. They appeared to have a very different view
about issues than the other democrats. They seem to be farther away from mainstream democrats than mainstream democrats are from republicans.

If there are a substancial number of democrats who agree with the fringe candidates, then it could become a problem for the party, because we could see a repeat of what Nader did in the last election. On the other hand, if some mainstream democrats feared that the party would lose ground by moving to the left, they can relax for now. The first impression appears to be a move back to the center.

 

I bet if Sharpton's Poppy was in Skull and Bones, Al would have gone to Yale.

Just my guess.

 

David, I plan to watch the debate tonight. What about Dean's performance in the debate has prompted the above thoughts?

I like what I've seen of Dean. I've never seen him debate, and I'm not too familiar with him. But I saw him give one speech on CSPAN, and I was pretty impressed. He argues; he doesn't just assert. He seems bright and qualified. Most importantly, I like what he says on most of the issues I've seen him address. But maybe I lack some of the properties you mean by "mainstream democrat." What do you mean by "mainstream democrat?"

 

Could a Dem please lay out the following for me?

Can you create a scale, based on how far left the canidates run? I heard Kerry is pretty far out there.
I'm curious to see

Also, can you name the probable Dem nominee for 2004?

 

Ok thanks. If a Dem is going to win this thing, i hope it's an intellectual one, and not a political reactionary like Dean. I'm surpised you have Kerry as more of a conservative Dem, seeing as how is he one of the few that was very anti war;remember, 68% of Dems supported the war. And that is pretty widespread. Interesting indeed

 

If you like Dean and his points of view, you will be impressed with him. He was clear, coherent and didn't do anything dumb. My thoughts are based on the attitude of the other candidates towards him. They differenciated themselves from him and even appeared to be condescending towards him as they ridiculed some of his views. This is what leads me to believe that he is out of step with the mainstream democratic party.

Of course, I just heard it on the radio. We might get more insight from the visual clues.

 

Manolo, I took the liberty of using some of your first impressions for a sort of voting guide that I am preparing for my latin American friends, some of whom will be voting for the first time.

 

It will be interesting to see if Dean aims his campaign at winning the nomination or at the general election. With so many candidates seemingly running on "electability" (and I'm basing this on the account in this morning's NYT), I think Dean has a fair chance at winning the nomination, using some variation of the "a choice, not an echo" campaign strategy aimed at being a strong liberal counter-point to Bush's far right agenda. He doesn't have to run all the way left, he just has to have more appeal to liberal voters than Gephardt, who I think is his main challenger for the reasonably liberal voters.

This would open him up in the general election to the predictable Republican attacks and he'd have a very hard time winning, despite Dean's relatively centrist economic views. But it would stand a good chance of winning the nomination against guys campaigning on "you may not agree with me, but I'll bet you like me more than Bush."

 

So, Dean is a non-intellectual political reactionary???

He's a friggin' physician...how much more intellectual do you want him to be?? As for being a political reactionary, I'm not sure what you mean. But, if you mean that Dean is changing his political stances based upon the "issue du jour", you are wrong.

Dean has always favored national healthcare for children and non-covered poor. As Gov of VT, he implemented programs so every child under 18 and anyone uninsured and making less than $40,000 receives healthcare coverage.

He's always been a fiscal conservative. He never raised taxes and when revenues climbed during the 90's, he put the money into a "rainy day fund" rather than expand state programs. Thanks to that "rainy day fund", VT is not in as bad of shape fiscally as many other states.

As for his stance against war, his brother was believed to have been executed in Laos in 1974 and is still considered MIA. So, I think it is understandable that he would have anti-war feelings.

You may not agree with Dean's positions but he is not reactionary and he is pretty damn smart.

Murf

 

I have ranked the candidates performances in the debate. I use the following criteria: the positions they took, how well they defended those positions, how able they were to focus on important (rather than trivial) issues, how engaging they were, the extent to which they were able to identify flaws in the positions of other candidates and how much they helped advance the public debate.

1. Al Sharpton was impressive. His positions were sensible. He mentioned mandatory gun registration and civil rights. He opposed the war in Iraq, and he favors repealing all of President Bush's tax cut.

On the tax cut. If there were only two options, namely repealing all of it and keeping it in its entirety, then clearly we should repeal all of it. We have too many pressing needs in education, health care, social security, etc. But I wonder if there is a third option. What about repealing all of the tax cut except those provisions that lower the marginal rates for (1) families of four that earn $ 40,000 per year or less and (2) for individuals that earns $ 20,000 per year or less? Given current circumstances, it would be good if people in those tax bracket didn't have to pay any more in taxes than they do. And the most costly parts of the tax cut are those that lower rates for the highest income-earners.

Sharpton’s tone was measured, and he seemed to defend his views reasonably well. But he failed to mention the most important reason not to invade Iraq, namely the loss of life. He also showed a good sense of humor and an ability to connect with people.

Maybe Sharpton should run for another office. Maybe he could be a member of the House from some district in New York City. He needs to get more political experience.


2. Joe Lieberman was articulate, affable, composed and civil. He showed command of the issues and the ability to disagree with people without getting overly confrontational. He also did a good job on the issue of trade, specifically NAFTA. He mentioned that the United States comprises but a small percent of the world's total population. So, if we were to repeal NAFTA, it would limit the number of people that we can sell goods to. That might hurt employment.

However, he doesn’t provide enough of a contrast with Bush. He voted for the war in Iraq and for Bush's tax cut. He opposes repealing any of Bush’s tax cut. He also doesn't go far enough to ensure that all people living in this country have access to quality health care. Finally, he hasn’t offered significant steps to fund and improve education. The federal government must fund education more than it does. This happens in some other countries whose students do much better than ours in certain skills such as math, science and geography.


3. Howard Dean is able to make distinctions. He highlighted some of the differences between his health care plan and that of Dick Gephardt. His health care plan seems to be the best one that any of the candidates has offered. He basically builds on Medicaid and Medicare, which are successful programs that are already in place. His plan probably would cover a large percentage of people. Would it cover as many people as Gephardt’s would? It would cost less than Gephart's. It also has worked well in the state of Vermont.

Dean’s is right to say that the US should not have invaded Iraq, though like all the other candidates opposed to the war in Iraq, he failed to mention the most important reason not to invade, namely the loss of life.

Dean got drawn into a trivial exchange with John Kerry on comments the two campaigns had made regarding gay rights and the war in Iraq. This exchange was not altogether the fault of Dean and Kerry. George Stephanopoulos, who otherwise did a good job as mediator, focused on the issue at the beginning of the debate. It shouldn’t have even been brought up. But after Stephanopoulos brought up the issue Dean could have done more to move away from this topic. These issues don't affect anyone. And we have a limited amount of time to discuss the important issues.

Dean also needs to be a little clearer. He seems fast on his feet. Many of us struggle to grasp issues and ideas as quickly as he does. He needs to spell things out a little more. For example, at one point, he went boom-boom-boom, point to point, in explaining his health care plan.


4. Dick Gephardt has made a good contribution with his health care plan. It’s important that everyone has access to quality health care, and that is not occurring in the US today. By advancing this issue, perhaps he will help elevate the public debate. Also, he favors repealing the Bush tax cut to finance his health care plan. The Bush tax cut -– or at least the bulk of it -– should be repealed.

However, Gephardt’s plan seems less good than Dean’s. It costs more, and it is more amorphous. Dean’s plan revolves around Medicare and Medicaid, two successful structures that are already in place. Also, it has worked in Vermont. I don’t understand Gephardt’s plan as well. Apparently, tax dollars would be given to the insurance companies so that they could provide coverage for all businesses. Would the insurance companies do a good enough job at this? And what about those people who are unemployed and can’t afford health insurance? What would happen to them? He didn’t explain his plan well enough. In his defense, health care is extremely complicated and the format of the debate gave him little time to fully explain the plan.

Gephardt is a genuinely nice person with good values. Even if he doesn’t win, he already has been an excellent public servant.


5. John Kerry also got pulled into the issue of the petty disagreements that have taken place between Dean and he. As I mentioned, that was the weakest part of the debate.

Kerry also claimed that, under Howard Dean, a smaller percentage of Vermonters had medical insurance than did under the previous governor. Kerry should have provided the source for that statistic.

Too frequently Kerry mentions his service in Vietnam. I'm sure that was a huge part of his life. But it comes across as self-promotion. And, frankly, it's not that important. One can be a good President without having served in a war.


6. Dennis Kucinich took good stands on the war in Iraq and on health care. But, without offering alternatives to NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO), Kucinich proposed that the US repeal NAFTA and withdraw from the WTO. I don't know a lot about trade, but, on balance, it seems better to have NAFTA than nothing at all. NAFTA helps Mexican workers. Many of them would really struggle without those jobs. Also, as Lieberman said in the debate, repealing NAFTA might also hurt the US economy.

Withdrawing from the WTO seems even more problematic. As flawed as the WTO may be, our being a member gives us an opportunity to shape trade policy in such a way that protects workers and the environment. Moreover, if we were to withdraw, that might prompt people in other countries into thinking that we are unwilling to be real members of the global community.

Kucinich also said we should increase payroll taxes 7%. Although I don't a lot about payroll taxes, it seems that an across-the-board increase in payroll taxes would not be nearly as a good an idea as raising income taxes for higher income-earners. People who earn, say, 20 thousand dollars per year probably shouldn't pay any more in taxes than they already do.


7. Carol Moseley Braun was quite good, with one caveat. On the good side she is clear and upbeat. And I agreed with her on most of the issues, including Iraq, taxes, education and health care. She favors repealing the Patriot Act. I don’t know much about it, but it does seem like it poses a threat to civil liberties.

On the downside, she needs to come out with more specifics. It's hard to know if her ideas would work if she only offers general principles. We can all agree on the principles; it's the specifics that get more complicated.

She would be fourth or fifth in my ranking but for one questionable claim. She said, “The Patriot Act…ha opened the door to emails being tapped, and phones being tapped and searches and people disappearing in this country for the first time.” I’m not sure what she meant by this. I doubt she meant to imply that, under the Bush administration, there have actually been Pinochet-style disappearances. She probably meant that the Patriot Act opens the door to that. But that is still a very strong claim, as it suggests that it makes the Federal Government susceptible to engaging in criminal and high unethical activity. If she makes a claim like that, she must back it up.


8. John Edwards didn't give us enough specifics on the issues. He offered no proposal that I can remember. He also seems to oppose repealing any of Bush's tax cut, which is a bad idea. On the positive side, he has a good personal story. His father was a mill worker for all his life. Edwards also has a nice manner.


9. Bob Graham is too hawkish and too conservative. He is not different enough from Bush. He did, however, show good understanding of issues involving trade.
-------------------

It would be good if Howard Dean were to win the Democratic nomination. He holds reasonable positions on most of the important issues. His winning also would provide voters with a significant contrast to President Bush. In contrast, Senator Lieberman is too much like President Bush on a number of key issues such as foreign policy, taxes and health care.

Dean would have an opportunity to do well in the debates with President Bush as long as Dean doesn't show frustration. Bush can be vague and a bit evasive. He might say something like “fuzzy math.” If Dean were to get testy, it would hurt his chances of winning.

But any candidate who faces Bush must argue with him and show the weaknesses in his record and ideas. Disagreement is good. It enables the electorate to get a sense of the candidates’ critical-thinking skills and helps advance the public debate.

 

Who do you think will be the first to drop out?

Kucinick even money
Braun 2-1
Sharpton 2-1
dean 5-2
graham 5-2
gephart 4-1
edwards 5-1
lieberman 10-1
keery 10-1

 

Sharpton will stay in until the nomination is decided, he's got low costs and no real reason to drop out. He doesn't have to raise a lot of money because he knows he can't win and can carry on a campaign based on personal appearances

I think they'll all make it to NH and likely SC, with Kucinich the most likely to drop first, because he actually has someplace to be (House). I expect Braun to drop after SC, probably Graham also, whose constituency will vote for either Lieberman or Edwards. Of the leading candidates, I think Lieberman will have trouble finding votes in the early states and might go early.

Beyond that, the primary schedule is so compressed, I think most will hold on to Super Tuesday and then evaluate their funding and nomination chances. That said, each candidate has must results.

Edwards has to win SC or he'll lose a lot of money. If Dean finishes worse than third in Iowa and NH (and he really needs to finish at least 2nd), he's done. Gephardt has to win Iowa. Kerry will look bad if he loses NH.

 

Although I like him the best of all the candidates, I have to agree with you on Kucinich...

Of course, that only goes for the Democratic race, not the presidential race as a whole. With Hagelin not running this year I believe Kucinich has already been endorsed by the NLP which has ballot status throughout much of the country.

So, yes, expect Kucinich to drop out of the Democratic race but still expect to see his name on your ballot in November '04.

 

I'm willing to bet all the tea in china that kucinick will not be the next president of the united states

 

Dick Gephardt's Health Plan

I didn't explain well Gephardt's health plan. I understand it better now. Here is a link to a summary of it:
http://www.dickgephardt2004.com/releases/pp_guaranteedcare6.html

The plan revolves around a tax credit for employers who provide their employees with quality health insurance. Specifically, employers will get a tax credit that will cover 60% of insurance premiums.

One of my initial concerns about the plan was: What about people who are unemployed? To try to cover them, Gephardt says he would expand Medicaid, CHIP and COBRA. As for the employees of state and local governments, Gephardt’s plan would offer state and local governments $172 billion in aid over three years to reimburse them for 60% of the cost of health insurance for their employees.

What are people's thoughts on the plan? Let's put aside for a moment whether it actually could become law. People, in general, need to do a better job of evaluating the quality of proposals independently of how politically viable those proposals are. Often one cannot tell for sure whether a particular plan -- or at least some elements of the plan -- are politically viable. Also, assessing proposals -- even those that never become law within the short-term -- often helps us get a sense of which politically viable proposals would be good. Moreover, sometimes proposals that are probably not viable within the next couple years may be viable in, say, 20 years. So we can get a head-start thinking about them. Finally, if an idea is not made public, then that idea will not become law. Analogously, if a winger makes a great cross, the cross may not result in a shot on goal. But if the winger hits a cross that goes over the end-line, the cross definitely won’t result in a shot on goal.

That is not to suggest that political viability is irrelevant. It takes time and energy to promote and defend a large-scale political initiative. If it is highly unlikely that the initiative, or any element of it, could become law within the next ten years, that would be a weakness of the initiative. The time and energy could be spent on other important matters. But let's put that aside for a moment.

It seems to be a good plan. It would most definitely result in a larger percentage of US citizens having access to quaity health care than do so now. And it seems as though we would get a lot of bang for the buck. Sixty percent of insurance premiums is signficant.

As for possible weaknesses of the plan, what about small businesses that aren’t particularly well-organized? Will the owners know how to fill out all the necessary forms and make sure that their employees get the health insurance? Moreover, although having 60% of their premiums covered would help many people a lot, it would still be difficult for many people to have to pay 40% of insurance premiums.

What about costs? Gephardt has proposed to fund the plan by repealing all of Bush’s tax cut. That seems reasonable. More than half of the remainder of Bush’s tax cut goes to those who earn over 1 million per year. Specifically, all other things being equal, they are scheduled to receive about $ 45,000 dollars per year more than they would if Bush’s tax cut were repealed. They don’t need that extra money. And it’s important that everyone has quality health care.

However, during the debate, John Edwards said that repealing the Bush tax cut would adversely affect a family of four that earns about $ 40,000 dollars per year. But according to a fairly recent study conducted by Citizens for Tax Justice, an individual who earns about 36,000 per year will, on average, receive only an about $ 190 dollars per year. That amount is clearly not irrelevant. But it doesn’t seem as though they would struggle to have a good life to a greater extent than they do now. Also, if the Bush tax cut is repealed and the money is used to fund a good health plan, perhaps families in this tax-bracket would more easily be able to afford health insurance. Here is a link to a press release and chart conducted by Citizens for Tax Justice on this issue: http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0402.htm

Would it be better to keep in place the parts of the Bush tax cut that affect some working families? I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, 190 dollars per year is something. On the other hand, it’s really important that everyone has access to quality health care.

 

My evil scheme is twarted again!
Damn ASF, Damn you to hell!