We had asked our cab driver for his cell phone number in case we could not find him near the Pepsi sign across the street from the right field entrance after the games were over. But now it was nine hours later as we approached the designated meet-up location and we saw nothing of him or his cab. However, parked near a shrubbery was another cab that appeared to be serviceable but, perhaps, not as nice as the one in which we had arrived at the stadium.
Seeing no driver, we looked around to see if we could spy an empty cab in the traffic. Instead, we saw a young man heading for the car with half a dozen or so empty plastic Polar beer mugs (complete with handles). As Johan opened the trunk to store his treasure, we asked if this was his cab and if he was available. Yes and Yes. ¿tomes la cerveza? Un poco, si.
In many instances, it would seem prudent to have passed on this one and to continue looking for another cab. But, well, the tickets let you in for both games and the first game had started eight hours ago, we were ready to head back to our lodgings. Although the first game started at about three in the afternoon, Estadio Nueva Esparta had been half empty until a little before eight, when the Venezuelan champions, the Leones de Caracas faced the winners of the Mexican Pacific League, the Naranjeros de Hermisillo in the second game of the day. During the early innings, the brass band in a section full of Mexican fans could be heard. At least two Venezuelan drum bands played nearly constantly. And that was on the first base side. 16,000 baseball fans from Venezuela, Mexico, Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic having a party while their champions played what looked to be about AA level ball out on the field. Plus the four of us from Iowa and Minnesota, who just wanted to soak it all up and see an interesting contest. The party atmosphere in the stadium faded somewhat as the predominantly Venezuelan crowd became disappointed with the play of the Leones. In the end, the Mexican squad had prevailed in a game that was really not that close. One Venezuelan fan was heard to complain that the Mexicans had brought their Major Leaguers, including Hermisillo's forty-two year old player/manager and former former National League All-Star third baseman Vinicio (Vinny) Castilla as well as former New York Yankees outfielder Karim Garcia. Some may remember that a brawl started in a 2003 game between the Yankees and Red Sox when Pedro Martinez threw a pitch at Garcia's head.
At least half the crowd had already left before the final out was made. It must be said that although they may have been disappointed in the result, there was no disappointment in the $1 (equivalent) beers and/or Something Special Scotch also sold by numerous vendors throughout the stands. Vendors who had threatened to outnumber the spectators during the afternoon game. Nor were the fans disappointed with the Cantinflas impersonator who made his way through the stands during the game to the delight of many.
And so, our driver, who had been drinking "un poco" let us know that since it was past 11 PM, the fare to our destination in Playa el Agua would be seventy bolivares fuertes ($16.28 at the official exchange rate). We had paid sixty for the ride down, so this did not seem unreasonable.
Having been identified as the one in our group with the best Spanish, I rode shotgun in order to give directions. It should be noted that "the Best Spanish" merely means that I could give directions to the driver well enough to get us to our destination.
Our driver took a shortcut to avoid traffic. But soon, we emerged onto a road that looked vaguely familiar and all was well as we headed back to Playa el Agua.
There are a couple of ways it can go with a driver who has had "un poco" de cerveza. Some proceed with reckless speed and daring. Others may let the mind wander and fail to pay enough attention to the task of driving, perhaps nodding off and leaving the car to take its own path. Fortunately, our driver appeared to be inclined towards this second tendency while being too talkative to be at risk of falling asleep. So the task of the front seat passenger (me) became engaging Johan in conversation not only to head off any nap-taking (which seemed unlikely as long as he kept talking), as well as directing his attention to the roadway (as best I could) in order that we might arrive safely and at our destination. At least he wasn't driving too fast, so if we did have a mishap, we could likely have escaped with set belt bruises.
It turns out that Johan very much liked the US. Through a rambling conversation which might have been only moderately difficult to follow had we both been fluent in the same language, we learned that although Johan knew it was very expensive to live there, he hoped to go to the US someday. A friend of his lives in Florida and another lives somewhere else in the US but I could not pin down a location, so he knows people in the US and he is very friendly with the US and likes Americans. We learned that Johan would like to learn English, but he only knows a few words. Because English is hard. Spanish is easy but English is hard, so he would like to go somewhere in the US where many people speak Spanish. But English can be easier sometimes. For instance, there are so many ways to say "I love you" in Spanish. But only one way in English. There is "te amo" and "te quiero" and a couple of others. [But romantics use other sappy expressions, too.] And there are not many English speaking tourists or visitors to Porlamar. So even if he studied English, he would not be able to practice it.
And so on throughout the rest of our somewhat relaxed ride in the slowest car on the road. We reached the Casa near midnight. I hope he made it home alright.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Ice Hockey at the Iowa Games
For over twenty years, there was this coworker on the railroad who told fantastic stories. Generally, he featured himself as the central character. The stories were "fantastic" in that they all were fantasies. Sometimes they would be just plausible enough that someone unfamiliar with him might believe, but often they exceeded the bounds of plausibility. He always told them as though they were quite literally true.
There were a few basic forms. One form involved an informal and familiar relationship with a rich or famous person. These were never the "A-list", but rather, involved someone with whom the listener would be expected to have heard of, but would not know much about. For instance, he was a good friend of the singer Ann Murray and he dropped in to visit "every time" he was "up there in Canada."
Another group of his stories would involve fantasies of his past, such as experiences in three branches of the armed forces, stock car racing, night club owner, eyeglass lens maker, horse trainer, etc.
A third major group of stories involved "how I saved the day." This would generally follow the form: (1) I was in a crowd at some event; (2) someone did not show up to do his job; (3) the person in charge had no way to accomplish whatever was to be done; (4) so the crowd was asked if anyone could step in; (5) "and I were the only one...." who could do whatever was needed. This included driving a water truck fighting forest fires, playing trombone in a jazz band, etc.
This fellow was an excellent though unintentional teacher of skepticism.
I write that preface to explain my general aversion to "how I saved the day" stories, even when they are true. Nonetheless, I have one from yesterday, so I will share it:
After spending a full day in the Chicago office, I got home from after midnight, and got to sleep sometime after 2. And so I was still drifting in and out of sleep when the phone rang at 9:20. It was Jeff Dralle from the Cedar Rapids Ice Arena - some referee scheduled for the Iowa Games was not going to make it so could I come in and do the 11:00 game? Having noted the 563 area code in my phone number, he wondered if it were even possible for me to make it in time. (Cedar Rapids is in the 319.)
But, yes, it takes 50-55 minutes to get there from here. Add a few minutes to pack, try to get a little food and caffeine in there somewhere, get dressed once at the arena - it would be close. And the car needed gas. At $25/game, it was not something to be done just for the money. In fact, I was not keen on hurrying in to do just one game. So he gave me a second game that he had planned to assign an arena employe.
Fortunately, the Anamosa BP station still had some warm (but stale) breakfast pizza and a good supply of Mountain Dew in the cooler
Gas - check; breakfast - check; caffeine! - check.
Fortunately the the 11AM game was the third of the day on that sheet of ice, and they were running more than 15 minutes late already by the time I got there, so I had plenty of time. Unfortunately, neither I nor my partner (who had also been called on short notice) had read the tournament rules, but we correctly guessed they were using the USA Hockey adult no-check rules (available through this link).
So it was about two hours from sleep to ice. The 2 PM game (which started at around 2:30) was a little easier after having already warmed up and woken up. For the record, there were no fights, but we assessed penalties for roughing, body checking, checking from behind, holding, hooking, slashing and tripping. And that was just the women's game. The men's game had all those but checking from behind, plus coincidental minors for unsportsmanlike conduct (two guys trying to pick a fight with each other).
And I got this nice T-Shirt.
You can check it out. Well, the schedule and placings, anyway.
There were a few basic forms. One form involved an informal and familiar relationship with a rich or famous person. These were never the "A-list", but rather, involved someone with whom the listener would be expected to have heard of, but would not know much about. For instance, he was a good friend of the singer Ann Murray and he dropped in to visit "every time" he was "up there in Canada."
Another group of his stories would involve fantasies of his past, such as experiences in three branches of the armed forces, stock car racing, night club owner, eyeglass lens maker, horse trainer, etc.
A third major group of stories involved "how I saved the day." This would generally follow the form: (1) I was in a crowd at some event; (2) someone did not show up to do his job; (3) the person in charge had no way to accomplish whatever was to be done; (4) so the crowd was asked if anyone could step in; (5) "and I were the only one...." who could do whatever was needed. This included driving a water truck fighting forest fires, playing trombone in a jazz band, etc.
This fellow was an excellent though unintentional teacher of skepticism.
I write that preface to explain my general aversion to "how I saved the day" stories, even when they are true. Nonetheless, I have one from yesterday, so I will share it:
After spending a full day in the Chicago office, I got home from after midnight, and got to sleep sometime after 2. And so I was still drifting in and out of sleep when the phone rang at 9:20. It was Jeff Dralle from the Cedar Rapids Ice Arena - some referee scheduled for the Iowa Games was not going to make it so could I come in and do the 11:00 game? Having noted the 563 area code in my phone number, he wondered if it were even possible for me to make it in time. (Cedar Rapids is in the 319.)
But, yes, it takes 50-55 minutes to get there from here. Add a few minutes to pack, try to get a little food and caffeine in there somewhere, get dressed once at the arena - it would be close. And the car needed gas. At $25/game, it was not something to be done just for the money. In fact, I was not keen on hurrying in to do just one game. So he gave me a second game that he had planned to assign an arena employe.
Fortunately, the Anamosa BP station still had some warm (but stale) breakfast pizza and a good supply of Mountain Dew in the cooler
Gas - check; breakfast - check; caffeine! - check.
Fortunately the the 11AM game was the third of the day on that sheet of ice, and they were running more than 15 minutes late already by the time I got there, so I had plenty of time. Unfortunately, neither I nor my partner (who had also been called on short notice) had read the tournament rules, but we correctly guessed they were using the USA Hockey adult no-check rules (available through this link).
So it was about two hours from sleep to ice. The 2 PM game (which started at around 2:30) was a little easier after having already warmed up and woken up. For the record, there were no fights, but we assessed penalties for roughing, body checking, checking from behind, holding, hooking, slashing and tripping. And that was just the women's game. The men's game had all those but checking from behind, plus coincidental minors for unsportsmanlike conduct (two guys trying to pick a fight with each other).
And I got this nice T-Shirt.
You can check it out. Well, the schedule and placings, anyway.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
How My Iowa Precinct Caucus Works
With all the talk about Presidential Campaigns, debates, etc. these days, I thought the world could stand yet another story about how the caucus process works in Iowa.
Other folks can fill you in on how the larger precincts work. What I am going to write about here is how my little precinct works - in a town too small to have a retail business (unless you count the post office).
I usually arrive about 15 minutes before registration is to start. I can turn on the lights, get the posters hung on the walls, get my lists and literature together, etc.
One thing to remember is that the precinct caucuses are held in all even numbered years and the caucus rules are the same regardless of whether it is a presidential year or not. We have yet to see the official agenda and rules, but they haven't changed for many years, and a change risks alienating the presidential campaigns, who would naturally charge that any changes were an attempt to influence the outcome.
At the advertised time, folks start trickling in and we sign them up. Generally, we have 6 to 8 in attendance. In 1988, I think we had 12 and that was the biggest I have attended in Center Junction. Now back when I lived in Ames, that was another story. We had some big crowds there, sometimes over a hundred.
After registration, we convene. The temporary chair (me), asks if anyone wants to be caucus chair. Usually no one wants it, so I end upbeing drafted volunteering. We draft someone else to be secretary.
After the election of the permanent chair and secretary, the next order of business is to decide whether to split into preference groups. You see, our caucus will elect 3 delegates to the county convention, and we can elect them at large, or we can decide to divide into preference groups, do the arcane math and rounding, realignment if necessary, and then have each preference group elect delegates and alternates.
The funny thing about preference groups is this: in the non-presidential years, hardly anyone ever wants to divide. We just elect our delegates at large. But in Presidential years, most folks want to divide. Just remember that the rules are the same whether or not there is a presidential nominating contest going on that year.
You might ask, what preference groups would you form in non-presidential years? Well, in 2006, some precincts formed gubernatorial preference groups because one of the candidates for governor was pursuing a strategy of trying to stack the state convention in case the nomination in the three way race went to the convention. It didn't, and he did not have enough delegates at the convention anyway. But that is one type of preference group that could be formed.
Also keep in mind that no rule limits the formation of a group based on any particular preference. The groups do not have to divide based on presidential preference, or in opposition to each other. In 1976, even though it is commonly said that Jimmy Carter won the Caucuses, in actuality, "Uncommitted" preference groups elected more delegates than Carter preference groups. If 15% of a precinct caucus wanted to form a "nuke the whales" preference group, or a "we like rhubarb pie" preference group, that is allowed under the rules. If enough members of an extended family wanted to be sure some of their family were delegates, they could form a family preference group. The caveat is, they could not keep others from joining their group and voting on which caucus attendees would be delegates to the county convention. This would also apply, say, if someone wanted to organize the caucuses to elect delegates in favor of ending Dubya's ill fated occupation in Iraq. They would just need to form the preference groups and elect their delegates.
But in my little precinct, I imagine we will form presidential preference groups as we have every Presidential year except 1996.
So after we vote to break into preference groups, we will take a count, do the preliminary math, and start the clock on the realignment period. During that time, we move on to considering any platform resolutions anyone wants to bring up. Usually there are two or three the Farm Bureau is trying to get passed and maybe a couple of others. An envelope will be circulated to collect donations to help pay for all the party's expenses putting on these caucuses. Letters from candidates and elected officials will be available (we never read them out loud, though I hear that some precincts do that). There will be nomination petitions to sign, too.
We usually have time to elect our two precinct committee people to serve on the Jones County Democratic Central Committee, draft our members of the County Convention committees, and generally talk about the weather, too.
Then the clock runs out on the realignment period.
By this time, the math has been figured out and nothing has changed. Once in awhile, we have a non-viable group who all go to another group to help out on their totals. Sometimes the non-viable group just doesn't realign, and that throws the math way off. (Actually, there are processes in the rules to deal with that.)
Then we will argue over who will be elected to be delegates to the convention because none of their group wants to go to the county convention and listen to a bunch of speeches all day when they could be home doing something on a Saturday. Alternates are even harder to find.
The groups' delegate(s) selected, we reconvene as a caucus and ratify the slate, ratify the business of the caucus, and adjourn.
It’s not a bad way to spend a winter evening, and sometimes you get to meet some of the new neighbors.
Hmmm...
"Ending Dubya's ill-fated occupation in Iraq" preference group has a nice ring to it, but I hate to be a single-issue caucus chair.
Other folks can fill you in on how the larger precincts work. What I am going to write about here is how my little precinct works - in a town too small to have a retail business (unless you count the post office).
I usually arrive about 15 minutes before registration is to start. I can turn on the lights, get the posters hung on the walls, get my lists and literature together, etc.
One thing to remember is that the precinct caucuses are held in all even numbered years and the caucus rules are the same regardless of whether it is a presidential year or not. We have yet to see the official agenda and rules, but they haven't changed for many years, and a change risks alienating the presidential campaigns, who would naturally charge that any changes were an attempt to influence the outcome.
At the advertised time, folks start trickling in and we sign them up. Generally, we have 6 to 8 in attendance. In 1988, I think we had 12 and that was the biggest I have attended in Center Junction. Now back when I lived in Ames, that was another story. We had some big crowds there, sometimes over a hundred.
After registration, we convene. The temporary chair (me), asks if anyone wants to be caucus chair. Usually no one wants it, so I end up
After the election of the permanent chair and secretary, the next order of business is to decide whether to split into preference groups. You see, our caucus will elect 3 delegates to the county convention, and we can elect them at large, or we can decide to divide into preference groups, do the arcane math and rounding, realignment if necessary, and then have each preference group elect delegates and alternates.
The funny thing about preference groups is this: in the non-presidential years, hardly anyone ever wants to divide. We just elect our delegates at large. But in Presidential years, most folks want to divide. Just remember that the rules are the same whether or not there is a presidential nominating contest going on that year.
You might ask, what preference groups would you form in non-presidential years? Well, in 2006, some precincts formed gubernatorial preference groups because one of the candidates for governor was pursuing a strategy of trying to stack the state convention in case the nomination in the three way race went to the convention. It didn't, and he did not have enough delegates at the convention anyway. But that is one type of preference group that could be formed.
Also keep in mind that no rule limits the formation of a group based on any particular preference. The groups do not have to divide based on presidential preference, or in opposition to each other. In 1976, even though it is commonly said that Jimmy Carter won the Caucuses, in actuality, "Uncommitted" preference groups elected more delegates than Carter preference groups. If 15% of a precinct caucus wanted to form a "nuke the whales" preference group, or a "we like rhubarb pie" preference group, that is allowed under the rules. If enough members of an extended family wanted to be sure some of their family were delegates, they could form a family preference group. The caveat is, they could not keep others from joining their group and voting on which caucus attendees would be delegates to the county convention. This would also apply, say, if someone wanted to organize the caucuses to elect delegates in favor of ending Dubya's ill fated occupation in Iraq. They would just need to form the preference groups and elect their delegates.
But in my little precinct, I imagine we will form presidential preference groups as we have every Presidential year except 1996.
So after we vote to break into preference groups, we will take a count, do the preliminary math, and start the clock on the realignment period. During that time, we move on to considering any platform resolutions anyone wants to bring up. Usually there are two or three the Farm Bureau is trying to get passed and maybe a couple of others. An envelope will be circulated to collect donations to help pay for all the party's expenses putting on these caucuses. Letters from candidates and elected officials will be available (we never read them out loud, though I hear that some precincts do that). There will be nomination petitions to sign, too.
We usually have time to elect our two precinct committee people to serve on the Jones County Democratic Central Committee, draft our members of the County Convention committees, and generally talk about the weather, too.
Then the clock runs out on the realignment period.
By this time, the math has been figured out and nothing has changed. Once in awhile, we have a non-viable group who all go to another group to help out on their totals. Sometimes the non-viable group just doesn't realign, and that throws the math way off. (Actually, there are processes in the rules to deal with that.)
Then we will argue over who will be elected to be delegates to the convention because none of their group wants to go to the county convention and listen to a bunch of speeches all day when they could be home doing something on a Saturday. Alternates are even harder to find.
The groups' delegate(s) selected, we reconvene as a caucus and ratify the slate, ratify the business of the caucus, and adjourn.
It’s not a bad way to spend a winter evening, and sometimes you get to meet some of the new neighbors.
Hmmm...
"Ending Dubya's ill-fated occupation in Iraq" preference group has a nice ring to it, but I hate to be a single-issue caucus chair.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
How is that going to help?
As more states move their primary dates up, presumably to attract more attention from the candidates and to have more of a say in the nomination, the effect of such leapfrogging on individual candidacies is unknown. There is a lot of discussion about the jockeying going on among the states for calendar position and no apparent consensus about what the result might be for any particular candidate for the presidential nomination.
But a discussion we seem not to be having is just what result we want to achieve by any change in the calendar or the process. That is, while the objections to the calendar seem to be defined, any changes ought to be evaluated in terms of achieving the goals of the Democratic Party at the national level.
Of course there is always a discussion of the relative power of the individual states in the nominating process, and whether Iowa should retain its traditional first in the nation status (if you mean by "tradition" since 1972 when the Democratic Party adopted the McGovern-Fraser Commission’s recommendations for the delegate selection process), whether Iowa and New Hampshire are representative enough of the nation, etc. Then there is the discussion surrounding the influence of money and the problem of nominating a candidate who is beholden to this or that (or many) corporate interests.
In order to achieve goals, the goals must be set. That seems self-evident. So let’s see what the goals of the Democratic Party, and the party’s nominating process are. I would propose that the goals are stated within the following: "To nominate a presidential ticket that will win the general election, serve the following four-year term, and govern in a manner that reflects as nearly as possible the views and in accordance with the values held by the party."
There are a bunch of caveats that could be thrown in, and, of course, a laundry list of special statements about empowerment, civil rights, etc. But what I am looking for here is consideration of the process itself.
Let’s look at the history of the process as it has been, more or less, since 1972.
1972 – McGovern ran as the anti-war candidate. Nixon won a landlside for various reasons including the "southern strategy" and by painting McGovern as just this side of a communist.
I’m not so sure there was a candidate who could have beat Nixon, but that is open to discussion. Edmund Muskie won the Iowa Caucuses while McGovern came in second. It was also a trial run for the new process. Perhaps Muskie could have run a better campaign, had he held his campaign for the nomination together
1976 – Carter ran as a fiscally conservative southern Christian who was at least tolerant of liberal social views. He used the Iowa Caucuses (where he finished second to ("uncommitted") to get the momentum for a national run. He won the presidency, but he was not an extremely strong candidate and the vote was very close. but the Watergate scandal had lowered public respect for government and politicians. The Republicans right took advantage of that to gain strength for the next election.
1980 – Carter (after a challenge from the left, led by Ted Kennedy) was tagged with the "malaise" speech and was attacked as ineffectual. The Iranian hostage crisis did nothing to help him, either, especially when the military botched a rescue mission.
Would Kennedy have been a better nominee? If so, how would the process have had to change to deny the nomination to the incumbent President?
1984 – Mondale led another electoral disaster against an incumbent Republican. Who could have beat Reagan? I don’t think any one could.
1988 – Dukakis blows a chance at the open seat. George H. W. Bush was not that popular with the right wing, but he held their interest in the face of Dukakis, who was framed as an effete east-coast liberal.
Dukakis was a horrible candidate. Standing up for Iowa, he came in third in the caucuses behind Gephardt and Simon. 1988 was Gephardt’s chance win, but the rest of the country decided to nominate Dukakis. Whatever change in the process would prevent that sort of thing from happening again deserves a look. But Iowa certainly did not dictate thae nomination – and that was a bad thing in that instance.
1992 – Clinton is nominated as a "centrist" with help from Harkin (whose candidacy made Iowa irrelevant), and the "Super Tuesday" primaries across the old south. Clinton, with help in the general election from H. Ross Perot as a spoiler, won the presidency. It would seem, then that the process worked to nominate another southern governor to go on to win the general election. The argument could be made that it worked because of Harkin and in spite of Iowa’s position on the nominating calendar.
1996 – Clinton was renominated without opposition. Again the process worked.
2000 – Vice President Gore staves off a challenge from Bill Bradley to gain the nomination. Gore won the popular vote and there is little doubt that had the votes been counted honestly in each state, he would have won in the Electoral College as well. Instead, five right-wingers on the Supreme Court effectively nullified the election and appointed George W. Bush. But, again, the process seems to have worked in nominating a popular candidate who actually won the election.
2004 – Kerry gains the nomination after perhaps surprisingly coming in first in Iowa. Kerry could have run a better campaign against W. But, in all honesty, who would have been a better candidate in 2004? Gephardt was past his prime and the media set about to destroy Howard Dean. Perhaps Edwards would have connected more with those average voters had he been on the top of the ticket. If so, how could the process have been different to achieve the result that we may see as having been preferable?
Of course, in all instances, I can see that there could be other candidates who did not even attempt to negotiate the nomination process. And perhaps that other candidate could have been nominated and could have turned out to be the best president ever. Fill me in in the comments section if you think that might be the case.
If a different calendar or process would not have given us a better ticket, then there would not seem to be a reason to change.
Now, all of this is getting a bit long, but the nut of it is this: any change in the process and the calendar should be made for the purpose of ensuring the selection of a presidential ticket that will win the general election, serve the following four-year term, and govern in a manner that reflects as nearly as possible the views and in accordance with the values held by the party.
So as for me, when I see proposals to leapfrog primaries and caucuses, front-load the nomination process, increase or decrease the influence of certain states in that process, etc., I will be asking myself this:
How is that going to help?
But a discussion we seem not to be having is just what result we want to achieve by any change in the calendar or the process. That is, while the objections to the calendar seem to be defined, any changes ought to be evaluated in terms of achieving the goals of the Democratic Party at the national level.
Of course there is always a discussion of the relative power of the individual states in the nominating process, and whether Iowa should retain its traditional first in the nation status (if you mean by "tradition" since 1972 when the Democratic Party adopted the McGovern-Fraser Commission’s recommendations for the delegate selection process), whether Iowa and New Hampshire are representative enough of the nation, etc. Then there is the discussion surrounding the influence of money and the problem of nominating a candidate who is beholden to this or that (or many) corporate interests.
In order to achieve goals, the goals must be set. That seems self-evident. So let’s see what the goals of the Democratic Party, and the party’s nominating process are. I would propose that the goals are stated within the following: "To nominate a presidential ticket that will win the general election, serve the following four-year term, and govern in a manner that reflects as nearly as possible the views and in accordance with the values held by the party."
There are a bunch of caveats that could be thrown in, and, of course, a laundry list of special statements about empowerment, civil rights, etc. But what I am looking for here is consideration of the process itself.
Let’s look at the history of the process as it has been, more or less, since 1972.
1972 – McGovern ran as the anti-war candidate. Nixon won a landlside for various reasons including the "southern strategy" and by painting McGovern as just this side of a communist.
I’m not so sure there was a candidate who could have beat Nixon, but that is open to discussion. Edmund Muskie won the Iowa Caucuses while McGovern came in second. It was also a trial run for the new process. Perhaps Muskie could have run a better campaign, had he held his campaign for the nomination together
1976 – Carter ran as a fiscally conservative southern Christian who was at least tolerant of liberal social views. He used the Iowa Caucuses (where he finished second to ("uncommitted") to get the momentum for a national run. He won the presidency, but he was not an extremely strong candidate and the vote was very close. but the Watergate scandal had lowered public respect for government and politicians. The Republicans right took advantage of that to gain strength for the next election.
1980 – Carter (after a challenge from the left, led by Ted Kennedy) was tagged with the "malaise" speech and was attacked as ineffectual. The Iranian hostage crisis did nothing to help him, either, especially when the military botched a rescue mission.
Would Kennedy have been a better nominee? If so, how would the process have had to change to deny the nomination to the incumbent President?
1984 – Mondale led another electoral disaster against an incumbent Republican. Who could have beat Reagan? I don’t think any one could.
1988 – Dukakis blows a chance at the open seat. George H. W. Bush was not that popular with the right wing, but he held their interest in the face of Dukakis, who was framed as an effete east-coast liberal.
Dukakis was a horrible candidate. Standing up for Iowa, he came in third in the caucuses behind Gephardt and Simon. 1988 was Gephardt’s chance win, but the rest of the country decided to nominate Dukakis. Whatever change in the process would prevent that sort of thing from happening again deserves a look. But Iowa certainly did not dictate thae nomination – and that was a bad thing in that instance.
1992 – Clinton is nominated as a "centrist" with help from Harkin (whose candidacy made Iowa irrelevant), and the "Super Tuesday" primaries across the old south. Clinton, with help in the general election from H. Ross Perot as a spoiler, won the presidency. It would seem, then that the process worked to nominate another southern governor to go on to win the general election. The argument could be made that it worked because of Harkin and in spite of Iowa’s position on the nominating calendar.
1996 – Clinton was renominated without opposition. Again the process worked.
2000 – Vice President Gore staves off a challenge from Bill Bradley to gain the nomination. Gore won the popular vote and there is little doubt that had the votes been counted honestly in each state, he would have won in the Electoral College as well. Instead, five right-wingers on the Supreme Court effectively nullified the election and appointed George W. Bush. But, again, the process seems to have worked in nominating a popular candidate who actually won the election.
2004 – Kerry gains the nomination after perhaps surprisingly coming in first in Iowa. Kerry could have run a better campaign against W. But, in all honesty, who would have been a better candidate in 2004? Gephardt was past his prime and the media set about to destroy Howard Dean. Perhaps Edwards would have connected more with those average voters had he been on the top of the ticket. If so, how could the process have been different to achieve the result that we may see as having been preferable?
Of course, in all instances, I can see that there could be other candidates who did not even attempt to negotiate the nomination process. And perhaps that other candidate could have been nominated and could have turned out to be the best president ever. Fill me in in the comments section if you think that might be the case.
If a different calendar or process would not have given us a better ticket, then there would not seem to be a reason to change.
Now, all of this is getting a bit long, but the nut of it is this: any change in the process and the calendar should be made for the purpose of ensuring the selection of a presidential ticket that will win the general election, serve the following four-year term, and govern in a manner that reflects as nearly as possible the views and in accordance with the values held by the party.
So as for me, when I see proposals to leapfrog primaries and caucuses, front-load the nomination process, increase or decrease the influence of certain states in that process, etc., I will be asking myself this:
How is that going to help?
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Editor asks: Where Are the Democrats?
In the editor's personal column in the weekly Anamosa Journal Eureka, she lamented that although two of the Republican also rans had put in appearances in Jones County (Iowa), none of the Democrats had yet showed up. Moreover, as noted in a diary from May 3rd, Rudy Giuliani first scheduled a visit, then cancelled when it was found that the hosts were not rich enough to help him campaign against the inheritance tax. That decision is regrettable not because of the potential loss of support for Giuliani, but because the visits the candidates make to Iowa help them to grow and learn as well about a broader segment of the country. In addition, listening to a candidate in person, allowing issues to be discussed without the constraints of the radio and TV sound bites, and outside of the slickly produced advertising, gives people a chance to evaluate that candidate in good faith, both on issues of substance and of style.
In the editor's personal column in the weekly Anamosa Journal Eureka, she lamented that although two of the Republican also rans had put in appearances in Jones County (Iowa), none of the Democrats had yet showed up. Moreover, as noted in my diary at DailyKos from May 3rd, Rudy Giuliani first scheduled a visit, then canceled when it was found that the hosts were not rich enough to help him campaign against the inheritance tax. That decision is regrettable not because of the potential loss of support for Giuliani, but because the visits the candidates make to Iowa help them to grow and learn as well about a broader segment of the country. In addition, listening to a candidate in person, allowing issues to be discussed without the constraints of the radio and TV sound bites, and outside of the slickly produced advertising, gives people a chance to evaluate that candidate in good faith, both on issues of substance and of style.
But the question remains, why we were able to attract early visits by Howard Dean, John Edwards and Richard Gephardt by this time in 2003,(as well as a visit in August from John Kerry to the National Motorcycle Museum) but no visits yet during this round from any of the large field.
One of the major differences in this election cycle as far as attracting candidates is that the nomination process has become even more front-loaded than before.
Here in Iowa, our perception of the process in the past has been that in Iowa and New Hampshire, candidates had the opportunity to demonstrate their ability to put together an effective campaign organization and attract sufficient support to be an effective candidate. The hope was that such a process would weed out those candidates who could not organize well and give the better campaigns a chance to grow and take their message to a wider audience. Then the later primaries and caucuses would choose from the viable candidates that survived Iowa, New Hampshire and a couple of other early states. In a tight race with two or three viable candidates left, a late primary state could play a huge role in deciding who the nominee would be.
Over the nine presidential election cycles since the current nominating system has been in effect, a candidate did not need to come in first in the Iowa caucuses to win the nomination - or the presidency. But it has been crucial for a candidate to place in the top three. In fact, since the current system was put in place in 1972 for the Democratic Party, no candidate that failed to finish in the top three in Iowa has gone on to win the nomination.
While we in Iowa like to think this part of the process helps the other states by allowing them to choose from field of viable candidates who have been tested in the early contests, many people in other states have grown to perceive Iowa and New Hampshire as having more of a say in the nominations than they do. Consequently, over the years, more states have moved up their primary or caucus dates to overcome that perceived inequity. This front-loading has forced the candidates to build a national campaign earlier in the process and, as a result, hurts everyone's chances of meeting a leading candidate in a coffee shop or other small venue looking for that last vote. No, with a front-loaded and compressed schedule such as we face in this cycle, the candidates must maximize their exposure with larger events.
Despite the clamoring in certain other states to be first, the Iowa caucuses are still the first contest that leads to the selection of delegates in the whole arcane nominating process. It will be interesting to see how large the turnout is as they have been forced back to another earlier date.
No matter how the process is compressed, the true test will be if that process can give us a nominee we can all work for in the General Election.
In the editor's personal column in the weekly Anamosa Journal Eureka, she lamented that although two of the Republican also rans had put in appearances in Jones County (Iowa), none of the Democrats had yet showed up. Moreover, as noted in my diary at DailyKos from May 3rd, Rudy Giuliani first scheduled a visit, then canceled when it was found that the hosts were not rich enough to help him campaign against the inheritance tax. That decision is regrettable not because of the potential loss of support for Giuliani, but because the visits the candidates make to Iowa help them to grow and learn as well about a broader segment of the country. In addition, listening to a candidate in person, allowing issues to be discussed without the constraints of the radio and TV sound bites, and outside of the slickly produced advertising, gives people a chance to evaluate that candidate in good faith, both on issues of substance and of style.
But the question remains, why we were able to attract early visits by Howard Dean, John Edwards and Richard Gephardt by this time in 2003,(as well as a visit in August from John Kerry to the National Motorcycle Museum) but no visits yet during this round from any of the large field.
One of the major differences in this election cycle as far as attracting candidates is that the nomination process has become even more front-loaded than before.
Here in Iowa, our perception of the process in the past has been that in Iowa and New Hampshire, candidates had the opportunity to demonstrate their ability to put together an effective campaign organization and attract sufficient support to be an effective candidate. The hope was that such a process would weed out those candidates who could not organize well and give the better campaigns a chance to grow and take their message to a wider audience. Then the later primaries and caucuses would choose from the viable candidates that survived Iowa, New Hampshire and a couple of other early states. In a tight race with two or three viable candidates left, a late primary state could play a huge role in deciding who the nominee would be.
Over the nine presidential election cycles since the current nominating system has been in effect, a candidate did not need to come in first in the Iowa caucuses to win the nomination - or the presidency. But it has been crucial for a candidate to place in the top three. In fact, since the current system was put in place in 1972 for the Democratic Party, no candidate that failed to finish in the top three in Iowa has gone on to win the nomination.
While we in Iowa like to think this part of the process helps the other states by allowing them to choose from field of viable candidates who have been tested in the early contests, many people in other states have grown to perceive Iowa and New Hampshire as having more of a say in the nominations than they do. Consequently, over the years, more states have moved up their primary or caucus dates to overcome that perceived inequity. This front-loading has forced the candidates to build a national campaign earlier in the process and, as a result, hurts everyone's chances of meeting a leading candidate in a coffee shop or other small venue looking for that last vote. No, with a front-loaded and compressed schedule such as we face in this cycle, the candidates must maximize their exposure with larger events.
Despite the clamoring in certain other states to be first, the Iowa caucuses are still the first contest that leads to the selection of delegates in the whole arcane nominating process. It will be interesting to see how large the turnout is as they have been forced back to another earlier date.
No matter how the process is compressed, the true test will be if that process can give us a nominee we can all work for in the General Election.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
John Edwards' Health Care Event in Dubuque
Yesterday, Sunday Feb.18, Senator Edwards appeared in Dubuque, Iowa to hold a "town hall" type event on health care issues. I have put this together from my notes. Direct quotes are in quotation marks. I have done my best to paraphrase the remainder while retaining their intended meaning. My comments and asides are set off in square brackets []. If some other remarks appear to be my own, they probably are.
I arrived about ten minutes before the scheduled starting time for the event at the Grand River Center (no link provided because they have a picture of W on their web page). Of course, the campaigns schedule these events knowing that folks will be trickling in past the scheduled time, and we know that it won't start on time, either. By the time the Senator entered the room, we had had a chance to sign in, find a seat, and to introduce ourselves to the people on each side of us. I sat between a woman who was knitting something from yarn she had spun from the fiber produced by her own llamas and sheep. On my left was a woman who was studying for a master's in divinity. We were interrupted only by a brief welcome from the Mayor of Dubuque. My very crude guess would be that there were 200-300 in attendance.
The announcement over the sound system and the Senator's entrance to some music seemed a bit over-produced and forced, like it was a live tv show rather than a live event. The feel was a bit off-putting. I didn't recognize the music, but some of you might. It had a refrain of "It's time like these..."
____________
Senator Edwards outlined the agenda for the meeting. He would make his remarks about health care, then the floor would be open to questions on all subjects. Then he started off with some small talk about his and Elizabeth's books, his appearance on the Daily Show, etc.
Now, onto the message: Health care. 40 million Americans have no health insurance.
[Is does this number refer to US citizens? legal US residents? all US residents? I won't get a chance to ask, and the point is that having such a large number uninsured people in the country affects how all of us get healthcare and pay for it. ]
He cites percentages of increase in costs. I have to admit I missed the specifics on that one as I was still wondering about the questions relating to the first statement. Nonetheless, most of the people in the room were ready for his solutions, so his set-up of the premises was not as crucial here as it would be in front of a critical audience.
He talked about "job-lock" - how some people are unwilling to change jobs because it could adversely affect their health insurance coverage. He cited it as a problem that can keep people from reaching their potential because of self-limiting of opportunity. ["Health insurance slavery" instead of "wage-slavery," perhaps. Regardless of the size of the problem, it was a way to introduce concerns about pre-existing conditions, long-term care and mental health coverage as problems to which he would offer a solution.]
Senator Edwards then asserted that he is the only candidate to lay out a truly universal health plan. It is based on the concept of shared responsibility - that all of us have to take responsibility for our country and the things that need to be accomplished.. [This part of the presentation did not seem to flow well, it started to introduce the plan, then meandered to some other concepts that were related ] There are things that need to be done in this country that can't wait for the next election, and expect the next president to solve all our problems. "Tomorrow starts today" in this room.
[Now back to the introduction of the plan. I will only summarize because a more detailed outline of his plan is available.
My summary of the plan:
1. All employers cover their employes or pay into a pool for coverage.
2. Everyone has a choice of private plans or a government plan.
3. There will be a minimum acceptable level of coverage, but no maximum. Coverage includes mental health care and preventative care.
4. Everyone is required to be covered.
5. There will be a health insurance subsidy inversely proportional to income until zero subsidy is reached at about $80k/yr.
6. Full portability
7. Cost containment to be achieved by lowering administrative costs, upgrading records technology, streamlining claims process.]
Reasons we need to do this:
Moral responsibility - the wealthiest nation on earth can afford to make sure everyone recieves quality health care and we can do it.
Pragmatically, it not only helps the poor, it helps the vast majority of the middle class because it takes the worry out of maintaining coverage in the event of job changes, getting coverage for pre-existing conditions, long-term care, etc. Even for those who receive no subsidy, it still provides the benefit of lowering overall costs and making sure there are no gaps in coverage.
In addition, it removes health insurance costs out the cost of doing business in the US. That is, the cost savings he envisions would mean that it would cost employers less to provide health insurance than it now costs.
Applause line: "Dramatic changes are needed."
He ended with the personal story of going through cancer treatment with Elizabeth and thinking of how that would have gone had they been among the 40 million Americans with no health insurance.
Now on to the questions.
Q: Is everything covered. What about deductibles and copayments?
A: Yes, there will be deductibles and copayments, based on your ability to pay. And preventative care is covered, including tests, as long as your doctor says the testing is important for your long term preventative care.
Q: [I could not hear the entire question, but it had to do with whether there would be equality of service under the health care plan.]
A: Under this plan, there is a floor, a minimum level of coverage, and it is a high level. The standard is high and the quality is high.
Q: A college student asked about NCLB and about college costs.
A: We tend to think of education too narrowly as K-12, or K-12 plus college, but we should think of education as a lifelong experience. The President needs to lead on this, from early childhood care to headstart, to making sure that we put the best quality teachers in front of every student. He cited the recommendations of a panel of educators and administrators who recommended we should raise teacher pay to $80k/yr. - not just to benefit teachers, but to attract and retain high quality people in teaching. Their opinion was that then if teachers were not doing their jobs, their peers would take care of any lack. [I did not follow the logic on that point, but he did attribute it to some supposed experts and did not claim it for himself.]
On college costs: college costs are a burden to students. Large amounts of debt coming out of college steer graduates into careers focused on making a lot of money to pay off those debts whereas some would likely go into careers in helping professions and community work that typically pay less but for the debt. He referred to a program called "college for everyone" he was involved in as a pilot program in a county in eastern North Carolina. Funds were raised so that they could promise every student that if they (1) graduated from high school; (2) were eligible for college and (3) would work ten hours per week, the program would pay their costs. 60-70% signed up.
A later questioner reminded the Senator to address No Child Left Behind and asserted here opinion that the real agenda of the Bush Administration was to undermine public education.
"Kids don't get educated by being tested to death." There is a tension between giving teachers freedom to teach and the need to know that the system is working. Changes needed include measuring students against themselves in order to measure progress rather than testing against some arbitrary standards. There need to be less extensive but better methods of assessment including subjective evaluations and objective tests to be sure that progress is made at an acceptable level. NCLB is not what we need.
Q: If you were still in the Senate, would you defund the war in Iraq?
A: Let me address the whole Iraq situation from this question. As President, here's what I would do, but we should not wait until after the next election to do it. First recognize that there will be no military solution at this point. The only solution to the situation is political. At it's core, the government of Iraq was a Sunni dominated government when Saddam Hussein was in power. The Shia were out of power then, and had been for a thousand yeas. Now that the Shia are in power, they do not want to give it up. That situation calls for a political solution. What we are doing now is that we are enabling bad behavior. We are telling the Malaki government that they had better find a solution. But they ignore those entreaties and we continue to police their civil war and keep them in power.
The Edwards approach would be to pull 40-50 thousand troops out right now. Pull out the rest over the next year, in consultation with the Shia led government and whatever Sunni leadership we can identify, an in consultation with Iran and Syria (which both have reasons to want Iraq to be stabilized). Redeploy some of the troops to Afghanistan because it's going in the wrong direction now. Keep some troops in Kuwait on the ready.
Shifting to Congress, since obviously the current administration is not going to do what Edwards would do. "This is no longer about politics - it is about men and women dying. It is time to stop debating and time to start acting." Congress should cap troop levels at 100k. It should adopt funding cuts to force a draw down while making sure the troops there have what they need in the field. In 2002, "Congress did not give authority to police a civil war."
Q: Referenced attacks on Edwards the questioner attributed to Senator Biden.
A: You heard me, you make the judgment. What Senator Biden said was wrong and we will assume he was misinformed and made those statements based on bad information. We are running a positive campaign, our job is to make sure every single caucus-goer knows what I will do as president. This is a very serious business - choosing a president. We need to have a deep knowledge of the candidates. We need to trust our President. You have to use your judgment.
[I don't recall hearing what it was Sen. Biden said.]
Q: A person identified himself as a West point graduate and commented that "I suppose you know what that means about my position on Iraq."
Q: Border security and illegal immigration are a threat to our security and our future:
A: We have three choices on illegal immigration.
1. Pretend that there is no problem.
2. Find 11-12 million people who live in the country and deport them.
3. Solve the problems that arise mostly with our southern border.
Of course we know there is a problem. We can address the problem at our southern border by assigning more personnel and equipping them with better technology to police the border.
As for the people who are living here now who came illegally, this is an issue that is used to divide Americans. But what we need to do is to do what is morally right and what is practical to move ahead. The practical thing we can do is to provide a path to citizenship to those who are here illegally but are otherwise law-abiding. First, they will have to come forward and admit that they came here illegally and pay a fine. They will have to learn to speak English. Then they can move through the process for citizenship.
[I noticed two points here. First, these questions focus on illegal immigration through Mexico, whereas there is also illegal immigration from other parts of the world. Many such people from Europe already speak English. Second, it should be implicit that there would be increased funding for English classes as the demand for such classes would presumably jump as people opted for the path to citizenship.]
Q: What would you do to lessen our addiction to oil?
A: Let me expand that question to also address global warming and climate change. America uses 22 million barrels of oil a day. 12 million barrels a day are imported. America has 4 % of the world's population but we emit 25 % of the greenhouse gases. These are issues we need to address right now. If we wait until it becomes an immediate crisis, it will be too late. So what to do. We need to invest in clean energy in a comprehensive way. "We need to be patriotic in things other than war." We need to step up conservation efforts. Americans have to do it. We can't wait for the President, but the support of the President can lead us to do better.
We should institute a hard cap on CO2 emissions in America. Institute a cap and trade system where there is an auction of emission rights. Then ratchet down the cap each year until we cut our emissions to an acceptable level. America cannot solve this problem ourselves but we must be the leaders. China is adding an average of more than one new coal-fired power plant a week. Those plants are not scrubbed, and those emissions will affect the whole world. We need to get our own house in order on this so that we have the moral authority to lead. If we are not leaders at home, how can we expect to exert leadership in the world?
The world wants to see America exhibit a sense of responsibility to humanity, not just projected military might. Here's another area where we need to lead: in Darfur, the genocide is effectively supported by the Sudanese government. We need to be on the right side of that. Because if the world believes we are committed to the greater good of humanity, the world will follow. But when we do not, as the current administration has not, the world will not follow our lead.
Thanks all around, and it is over.
____________________
I thought the presentation was somewhat disjointed and did not flow well. Some of that is nice, certainly answering questions in that manner, rather than delving into an obvious stump speech makes it seem more like a personal interaction. But when the subject of the day was health care, I thought it should have flowed better. Not that I could have gotten an answer, probably, but I would also want to know what the sources were for the numbers that are being used.
In general, Senator Edwards made a good impression. Of course, I have seen him before when he came through four years ago, so there s an element of familiarity with his style of speaking and with his charm. I am still quite uncommitted. We certainly could do worse than to have him as our candidate, especially with a strong VP candidate.
Cross-Posted at Daily Kos.
I arrived about ten minutes before the scheduled starting time for the event at the Grand River Center (no link provided because they have a picture of W on their web page). Of course, the campaigns schedule these events knowing that folks will be trickling in past the scheduled time, and we know that it won't start on time, either. By the time the Senator entered the room, we had had a chance to sign in, find a seat, and to introduce ourselves to the people on each side of us. I sat between a woman who was knitting something from yarn she had spun from the fiber produced by her own llamas and sheep. On my left was a woman who was studying for a master's in divinity. We were interrupted only by a brief welcome from the Mayor of Dubuque. My very crude guess would be that there were 200-300 in attendance.
The announcement over the sound system and the Senator's entrance to some music seemed a bit over-produced and forced, like it was a live tv show rather than a live event. The feel was a bit off-putting. I didn't recognize the music, but some of you might. It had a refrain of "It's time like these..."
____________
Senator Edwards outlined the agenda for the meeting. He would make his remarks about health care, then the floor would be open to questions on all subjects. Then he started off with some small talk about his and Elizabeth's books, his appearance on the Daily Show, etc.
Now, onto the message: Health care. 40 million Americans have no health insurance.
[Is does this number refer to US citizens? legal US residents? all US residents? I won't get a chance to ask, and the point is that having such a large number uninsured people in the country affects how all of us get healthcare and pay for it. ]
He cites percentages of increase in costs. I have to admit I missed the specifics on that one as I was still wondering about the questions relating to the first statement. Nonetheless, most of the people in the room were ready for his solutions, so his set-up of the premises was not as crucial here as it would be in front of a critical audience.
He talked about "job-lock" - how some people are unwilling to change jobs because it could adversely affect their health insurance coverage. He cited it as a problem that can keep people from reaching their potential because of self-limiting of opportunity. ["Health insurance slavery" instead of "wage-slavery," perhaps. Regardless of the size of the problem, it was a way to introduce concerns about pre-existing conditions, long-term care and mental health coverage as problems to which he would offer a solution.]
Senator Edwards then asserted that he is the only candidate to lay out a truly universal health plan. It is based on the concept of shared responsibility - that all of us have to take responsibility for our country and the things that need to be accomplished.. [This part of the presentation did not seem to flow well, it started to introduce the plan, then meandered to some other concepts that were related ] There are things that need to be done in this country that can't wait for the next election, and expect the next president to solve all our problems. "Tomorrow starts today" in this room.
[Now back to the introduction of the plan. I will only summarize because a more detailed outline of his plan is available.
My summary of the plan:
1. All employers cover their employes or pay into a pool for coverage.
2. Everyone has a choice of private plans or a government plan.
3. There will be a minimum acceptable level of coverage, but no maximum. Coverage includes mental health care and preventative care.
4. Everyone is required to be covered.
5. There will be a health insurance subsidy inversely proportional to income until zero subsidy is reached at about $80k/yr.
6. Full portability
7. Cost containment to be achieved by lowering administrative costs, upgrading records technology, streamlining claims process.]
Reasons we need to do this:
Moral responsibility - the wealthiest nation on earth can afford to make sure everyone recieves quality health care and we can do it.
Pragmatically, it not only helps the poor, it helps the vast majority of the middle class because it takes the worry out of maintaining coverage in the event of job changes, getting coverage for pre-existing conditions, long-term care, etc. Even for those who receive no subsidy, it still provides the benefit of lowering overall costs and making sure there are no gaps in coverage.
In addition, it removes health insurance costs out the cost of doing business in the US. That is, the cost savings he envisions would mean that it would cost employers less to provide health insurance than it now costs.
Applause line: "Dramatic changes are needed."
He ended with the personal story of going through cancer treatment with Elizabeth and thinking of how that would have gone had they been among the 40 million Americans with no health insurance.
Now on to the questions.
Q: Is everything covered. What about deductibles and copayments?
A: Yes, there will be deductibles and copayments, based on your ability to pay. And preventative care is covered, including tests, as long as your doctor says the testing is important for your long term preventative care.
Q: [I could not hear the entire question, but it had to do with whether there would be equality of service under the health care plan.]
A: Under this plan, there is a floor, a minimum level of coverage, and it is a high level. The standard is high and the quality is high.
Q: A college student asked about NCLB and about college costs.
A: We tend to think of education too narrowly as K-12, or K-12 plus college, but we should think of education as a lifelong experience. The President needs to lead on this, from early childhood care to headstart, to making sure that we put the best quality teachers in front of every student. He cited the recommendations of a panel of educators and administrators who recommended we should raise teacher pay to $80k/yr. - not just to benefit teachers, but to attract and retain high quality people in teaching. Their opinion was that then if teachers were not doing their jobs, their peers would take care of any lack. [I did not follow the logic on that point, but he did attribute it to some supposed experts and did not claim it for himself.]
On college costs: college costs are a burden to students. Large amounts of debt coming out of college steer graduates into careers focused on making a lot of money to pay off those debts whereas some would likely go into careers in helping professions and community work that typically pay less but for the debt. He referred to a program called "college for everyone" he was involved in as a pilot program in a county in eastern North Carolina. Funds were raised so that they could promise every student that if they (1) graduated from high school; (2) were eligible for college and (3) would work ten hours per week, the program would pay their costs. 60-70% signed up.
A later questioner reminded the Senator to address No Child Left Behind and asserted here opinion that the real agenda of the Bush Administration was to undermine public education.
"Kids don't get educated by being tested to death." There is a tension between giving teachers freedom to teach and the need to know that the system is working. Changes needed include measuring students against themselves in order to measure progress rather than testing against some arbitrary standards. There need to be less extensive but better methods of assessment including subjective evaluations and objective tests to be sure that progress is made at an acceptable level. NCLB is not what we need.
Q: If you were still in the Senate, would you defund the war in Iraq?
A: Let me address the whole Iraq situation from this question. As President, here's what I would do, but we should not wait until after the next election to do it. First recognize that there will be no military solution at this point. The only solution to the situation is political. At it's core, the government of Iraq was a Sunni dominated government when Saddam Hussein was in power. The Shia were out of power then, and had been for a thousand yeas. Now that the Shia are in power, they do not want to give it up. That situation calls for a political solution. What we are doing now is that we are enabling bad behavior. We are telling the Malaki government that they had better find a solution. But they ignore those entreaties and we continue to police their civil war and keep them in power.
The Edwards approach would be to pull 40-50 thousand troops out right now. Pull out the rest over the next year, in consultation with the Shia led government and whatever Sunni leadership we can identify, an in consultation with Iran and Syria (which both have reasons to want Iraq to be stabilized). Redeploy some of the troops to Afghanistan because it's going in the wrong direction now. Keep some troops in Kuwait on the ready.
Shifting to Congress, since obviously the current administration is not going to do what Edwards would do. "This is no longer about politics - it is about men and women dying. It is time to stop debating and time to start acting." Congress should cap troop levels at 100k. It should adopt funding cuts to force a draw down while making sure the troops there have what they need in the field. In 2002, "Congress did not give authority to police a civil war."
Q: Referenced attacks on Edwards the questioner attributed to Senator Biden.
A: You heard me, you make the judgment. What Senator Biden said was wrong and we will assume he was misinformed and made those statements based on bad information. We are running a positive campaign, our job is to make sure every single caucus-goer knows what I will do as president. This is a very serious business - choosing a president. We need to have a deep knowledge of the candidates. We need to trust our President. You have to use your judgment.
[I don't recall hearing what it was Sen. Biden said.]
Q: A person identified himself as a West point graduate and commented that "I suppose you know what that means about my position on Iraq."
Q: Border security and illegal immigration are a threat to our security and our future:
A: We have three choices on illegal immigration.
1. Pretend that there is no problem.
2. Find 11-12 million people who live in the country and deport them.
3. Solve the problems that arise mostly with our southern border.
Of course we know there is a problem. We can address the problem at our southern border by assigning more personnel and equipping them with better technology to police the border.
As for the people who are living here now who came illegally, this is an issue that is used to divide Americans. But what we need to do is to do what is morally right and what is practical to move ahead. The practical thing we can do is to provide a path to citizenship to those who are here illegally but are otherwise law-abiding. First, they will have to come forward and admit that they came here illegally and pay a fine. They will have to learn to speak English. Then they can move through the process for citizenship.
[I noticed two points here. First, these questions focus on illegal immigration through Mexico, whereas there is also illegal immigration from other parts of the world. Many such people from Europe already speak English. Second, it should be implicit that there would be increased funding for English classes as the demand for such classes would presumably jump as people opted for the path to citizenship.]
Q: What would you do to lessen our addiction to oil?
A: Let me expand that question to also address global warming and climate change. America uses 22 million barrels of oil a day. 12 million barrels a day are imported. America has 4 % of the world's population but we emit 25 % of the greenhouse gases. These are issues we need to address right now. If we wait until it becomes an immediate crisis, it will be too late. So what to do. We need to invest in clean energy in a comprehensive way. "We need to be patriotic in things other than war." We need to step up conservation efforts. Americans have to do it. We can't wait for the President, but the support of the President can lead us to do better.
We should institute a hard cap on CO2 emissions in America. Institute a cap and trade system where there is an auction of emission rights. Then ratchet down the cap each year until we cut our emissions to an acceptable level. America cannot solve this problem ourselves but we must be the leaders. China is adding an average of more than one new coal-fired power plant a week. Those plants are not scrubbed, and those emissions will affect the whole world. We need to get our own house in order on this so that we have the moral authority to lead. If we are not leaders at home, how can we expect to exert leadership in the world?
The world wants to see America exhibit a sense of responsibility to humanity, not just projected military might. Here's another area where we need to lead: in Darfur, the genocide is effectively supported by the Sudanese government. We need to be on the right side of that. Because if the world believes we are committed to the greater good of humanity, the world will follow. But when we do not, as the current administration has not, the world will not follow our lead.
Thanks all around, and it is over.
____________________
I thought the presentation was somewhat disjointed and did not flow well. Some of that is nice, certainly answering questions in that manner, rather than delving into an obvious stump speech makes it seem more like a personal interaction. But when the subject of the day was health care, I thought it should have flowed better. Not that I could have gotten an answer, probably, but I would also want to know what the sources were for the numbers that are being used.
In general, Senator Edwards made a good impression. Of course, I have seen him before when he came through four years ago, so there s an element of familiarity with his style of speaking and with his charm. I am still quite uncommitted. We certainly could do worse than to have him as our candidate, especially with a strong VP candidate.
Cross-Posted at Daily Kos.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Presidential Campaigns at the County Level
While many will debate about the wisdom of starting the presidential nominating process in Iowa, this diary will bypass that issue to look at the actual process in one medium sized Iowa county. This will be about the nuts and bolts process the campaigns engage in to win caucus support. Caucus support translates into delegate strength through the long process to the Nationl Convention. The website of the Iowa Democratic Party used to have a link to the entire arcane process, but no more. In the run-up to the caucuses, the campaigns usually send a staffer to one or more county central committee meetings in the year before the election. At last night's meeting, our central our county central committee had its first official presentation from a presidential campaign. It must be noted that all nine official campaigns and exploratory committees were contacted. The Vilsack campaign sent a staffer last night, while the others did not. We did not get a hard sell, a stump speech, or any favorite son appeal.
What we did get were some biographical information of the staffer. Interesting personal touches like: she is from Gov. Vilsack's adopted home town of Mt. Pleasant. Christie Vilsack was her 8th grade English teacher. These little human connection stories that have little to do with any reason any of us might or might not want him to be president do seem to have a certain appeal at the emotional level. You know, the she's such a nice young woman, I sure want her candidate to win networking appeal.
As for the early buzz in this small group, I detected no clear favorite. Vilsack, Edwards, Clinton and Obama seemed to be known by most of the people there, while the others will have to work more on name recognition. As a result, the group requested that I put together a list of links to the web sites of the active presidential candidates and email those to our county mailing list. Mission Accomplished.
The invitations will go out for our next meeting and other campaigns may also show up (I expect they will). I expect they will be recruiting supporters to be precinct captains, county points of contact, etc. very soon.
Originally posted at Daily Kos on January 30, 2007
What we did get were some biographical information of the staffer. Interesting personal touches like: she is from Gov. Vilsack's adopted home town of Mt. Pleasant. Christie Vilsack was her 8th grade English teacher. These little human connection stories that have little to do with any reason any of us might or might not want him to be president do seem to have a certain appeal at the emotional level. You know, the she's such a nice young woman, I sure want her candidate to win networking appeal.
As for the early buzz in this small group, I detected no clear favorite. Vilsack, Edwards, Clinton and Obama seemed to be known by most of the people there, while the others will have to work more on name recognition. As a result, the group requested that I put together a list of links to the web sites of the active presidential candidates and email those to our county mailing list. Mission Accomplished.
The invitations will go out for our next meeting and other campaigns may also show up (I expect they will). I expect they will be recruiting supporters to be precinct captains, county points of contact, etc. very soon.
Originally posted at Daily Kos on January 30, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)