411 Politics Fact or Fiction: Week 47
Posted by Ryan Latimer on 06.11.2007
Debating the debaters.
Good June11th folks, and welcome to another edition of Politics Fact or Fiction. I'm your host Ryan Latimer, and I'm the guy who recommended Paris Hilton should be released from prison and put under house arrest last week. Sorry about that one.
The 2008 presidential debates have wrapped for both parties, resulting in the expected thoughts, notions and opinions from everyone from talking heads and internet bloggers to the people who actually watched any of them on TV. However, ‘round these parts only the 411 staff members get the spotlight (well, readers too, but none of you eggheads ever want in), so Brandon Crow and myself are here to joust on the matter.
Yes, I know I'm the host and as a result I should usually leave the jousting to our other fine staff members, but, you know, shit happens, and this column can be quite difficult to moderate and manage sometimes. The hiatus it took a few months ago is a testament to that. But because I'm such a great guy (i.e., I'm the only one who was stupid enough to volunteer), here is it! You can make it up to me by reading anything and everything I post on 411.
I always did want to debate with Brandon, so let's see if we can't get something good going…
1) Congressman Ron Paul is currently the only "true conservative" running for the GOP nomination for president in 2008.
Brandon Crow: FICTION - First, I'm not sure if there's a "true conservative" (or true liberal/progressive etc...). Even in recent history, what it means to be a conservative has been defined and redefined. Goldwater did it; Reagan did it; and about 27% of the US population would even argue W has defined what a "true conservative" is. This aside, if we just took the terms on a general basis, and their definitions for granted, I would still say fiction. Ron Paul is not a conservative, true or not. His stances and beliefs seem more in line with being Libertarian.
Ryan Latimer: FACT - Indeed I believe that what constitutes "true" conservatism and liberalism can be bent, changed and redefined after time (as all language can, really), I'd say this current labeling of Mr. Paul as what currently represents what a "conservative" is can be considered accurate when being contrasted with the other GOP candidates. This could always change if indeed Fred Thompson and/or Newt Gingrinch enter the race (with both of them being subject to debate on whether or not they are indeed "true conservatives" just the same). True that is all is up for individual opinion, but that's mine.
Going again on what Crow mentioned about Dubya redefining what conservative may mean, I most sincerely hope that isn't the case. If Bush has done so, conservative will come to mean: a) don't tax but spend, b) when in doubt, start a war, c) ignore critical issues such as border security and responsible immigration policy…
0 for 1
2) Following the Democrat debates, Hillary Clinton's stock as the top party candidate rose while Barack Obama's fell.
Brandon Crow: FICTION - It's always difficult to get one response to two possible options. For this to be fact, both premises (A and B) must be true. And I don't think they both are. The second debate was more interesting than the first, but I don't believe Hillary's performance was better, and definitely not so shining that it propelled her to the top of the party ticket. Hillary is starting to steal a page from the Bush/Cheney/Rove/Giuliani handbook by weaving herself into the fabric on 9/11, and I'm not sure that's sitting well with Democratic constituents. Also, a few other writers for this zone have already said this, and I absolutely agree-- so long as Hillary does not apologize for her Iraq vote, there will be many on the left who will not vote for her.
Ryan Latimer: FICTION - I first must confess that I did not watch all the Democrat debates, and the ones that I did I failed to complete. Chalk it up to perhaps my current distain for anyone even remotely related with the term "politician."
Crow is right that is it hard to say Fact when there are essentially two questions in one, but this isn't the reason I say Fiction. Going on what I did see and what I researched in terms of various polls after the fact, the results were too varied to be considered a win for Obama and a loss for Clinton. Obama has been the darling of the Democratic voter practically ever since he announced his candidacy with Clinton right by his side as the second frontrunner, but in regards to the debates I've heard everything from "he did great and I'll be glad to cast my vote for him even more" to being considered on the side of the "losers" by Jason Easley's wrap-up and being criticized by voter study groups as sounding "too much like a politician" (I believe this one was on CNN).
Indeed, both Clinton and Obama have their proverbial black cloud hanging over their heads (Clinton seems to be all over the place and disingenuous while Obama just doesn't seem ready for the Big Time) that may serve as their eventual downfall. I still believe both are butting heads for the top spot and these debates didn't significantly sway either of them one way or the other.
1 for 2
3) Senator John Edwards has recently been criticized for moving to the far-left and damaging his chances at being a strong contender for 2008 (associating with actor Danny Glover, employing questionable campaign employees, supposed "Two Americas" hypocrisy, etc). Edwards is done as a serious contender.
Brandon Crow: FICTION - Waaaaayyyy fiction. First, let me point out a fallacy in the question. The main premise is that Edwards' move to the left has killed his chances. Associating with Hollywood and Danny Glover, perhaps, follows the logic. But how is employing questionable campaign employees a "far left" or even "left" thing? How is "hypocrisy" a "left" thing? If we want to examine questionable employees and hypocrisy, let's look at Bush's administration. And that's an extremely far right thing...
But, let's get back to addressing the question of whether or not Edwards' move to the left has killed his chances. This is definitely a fiction. Let's look at the numbers for Iowa and New Hampshire: Iowa: Edwards 29, Obama 23, Clinton 21. New Hampshire: Edwards 21, Clinton 27. Doesn't look good for Edwards except that Clinton has slipped from 35 to 27, and Edwards has climbed from 16 to 21 in a matter of a couple of months. And then comes South Carolina, Edwards' home state. I'd be really surprised if he lost that one.
How about California? Edwards may not win CA, but he has a good shot of taking # 2 here. Edwards is a refreshing candidate. He talks openly about issues no one else touches. His frankness about labor issues and poverty appeal to people. His vision on health care for all, especially young and poor children touches hearts. His charm and charisma wins him points on many fronts. He is not one of the three top tier candidates for the Democratic Party for no reason.
Ryan Latimer: FICTION - I'm going to say Fiction only because I don't think he is officially done as a serious contender, but I certainly believe he is blowing it and could very well be done soon if he keeps this sort of thing up.
First, it was my fault that the question was written to suggest that hypocrisy was a "left" thing; my fault for flawed wording. But let's be honest, folks. Edwards already has serious competition in Clinton and Obama for the Dem candidacy in 2008, and while it's true he is doing well in some states, I believe he has recently been making mammoth mistakes in his campaign and personal behavior. Little things DO count, folks, and getting $400 haircuts while speaking of "two Americas," hanging around with people like Danny Glover (like him or hate him, he is not someone who you want to be associated with if you want to win an election), calling the war on terror nothing but a "bumper sticker," employing and initially defending those irresponsible campaign bloggers a few months back…
Regardless of whether or not you feel one of all of these elements are relevant or accurate, this all looks very bad for Edwards, and he's certainly turning me off. He very much does feel like a phony, and it's not because Fox News' Bill O'Reilly currently thinks so and has taken it upon himself to aim his guns at him recently. I say this last part in case anyone thinks I'm just taking to heart talking points from that outlet and being a minion.
John, word of advice: STOP.
2 for 3
4) Former senator Fred Thompson will run for president, and he has a real chance at being the GOP candidate.
Brandon Crow: FACT - Is there anyone out there who believes Thompson will not run? He has not visited Washington some twenty times in the past three months for no reason. He has not been openly seen in public having lunch with prominent party members for no reason. He has not chosen to engage Michael Moore in a pointless back and forth about Cuba for no reason.
Additionally, Republicans just aren't very happy with their current roster of presidential hopefuls. Watch any one of their debates and it becomes clear that none of the candidates are too appealing. None of them inspire or invigorate. They are the same tired, old white men who can't find a single thing wrong with America--other than Mexicans coming over. It's always the rest of the world that's screwy. But that's okay, because God and Jesus Christ will help us fix the rest of the heathenish earth. We just need to pray more.
Thompson is being billed as "the next Ronald Reagan." The minute he enters the race late this summer, he will start rising in the polls. If he plays his cards right, he might just win nomination.
Ryan Latimer: FICTION - He will run, but he doesn't have a real shot at getting the nomination. I fully admit that I could be totally off on this when he does in fact run, and I'll gladly eat my words if he starts rising in the polls as Crow said he would. It does seem like he has a lot of potential as it stands when he's not yet in the race; there are a lot of Republicans who are in fact unhappy with their current choices, but that's where I believe Ron Paul and possibly Newt Gingrinch come in to fill that hole as the "protest" vote. I think Thompson will only feel like a 78th wheel when he does enter. Again, could be totally wrong, and I usually am.
We discussed this a little last week on The Political Universe audio show last week when I was a guest, and I believe it was Jason that had the most words regarding the matter, so head there to complete my shameless pimpage.
2 for 4
Should be interesting to look back on this in a year or so and see how completely off/spot on I/we was/were. Thanks for the battle of words, Crow. I'll be waiting for my eventual email to debunk everything I argued. Remember, go easy. You're debating a dufus that doesn't know anything.
STAY CURRENT