The Presidential debate - Which way will the kids be chasing the ball?

This post from Legal Fiction describes a analogy Jon Stewart used describing the media. Basically, Stewart compared the media to a 6-and-under soccer game. The ball goes one way, and every single kid goes chasing after it, forming a little meaningless heard. In fact, this is such a good analogy, I think the Washington press corps should have to recreate it once a year on the Mall, with everything, Gatorade, Orange slices and the sweatsuits underneathe the uniforms. Jack Germond should be brought out of retirement just to see what he looks like. David Broder looks like that slightly dorky full back we all knew.

That fun aside. I think what's critical about these debates is which way the ball goes afterwards, and if the media yet again goes 6-year-old on us. I remember the 2000 debates, I watched them alone in my apartment during law school at Chapel Hill(in what would become a series of incredible diversions from studying during my One-L year). I thought Gore killed Bush, who no more than he does now failed to make much of any sense. But later, talking to classmates, and not the hard-core Republicans mind you, I realized that many people had a different take, wildly varying takes in fact. The same thing has happened after political speeches I've watched. It's rare that I hear the same response from a person twice about some political event they've watched, even among my fellow traveler progressives.

The media however, are a different story. In 2000, they decided Bush won, and hammered away at that belief, ultimately adopting a few choice clips to demonstrate their point. The same has happened this year, perhaps worse than any other.

The gross example was the post-convention bounce story for Bush. Despite conflicting poll numbers, and a wildly different methodology in the Gallup poll showing Bush ahead by double digits, the press flew with the story that Kerry was in deep, deep trouble. This despite the fact, that historically, it didn't appear that Bush's bounce was any greater than normal. It's true Bush is ahead, by a couple a points or two, and with such narrow leads in a host of battleground states as to make this election look alot like 2000. However, the media decided to create a story based on the most "interesting" data, the outlier polls, and make that the ONLY story they have covered. (A more appropriate story, which was picked up by the Washington Post following the convention, was the $3 trillion in spending and tax cuts Bush proposed in his convention speech, which in fact he has no intention on spending, at least according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget's FY 2006 numbers.)

So the question is, will the media behave like sentient adults, or less-cute, less-excusable addled children?

Read more!

The Senate debate, and an early call for Primary Challengers to Erskine Bowles, come 2010

This is a tad bit premature. But despite Richard Burr's lackluster performance in Tuesday's Senatorial debate, and my clear support of Erskine Bowles in the upcoming election, I'm calling on a real Democrat to consider challenging Erskine should he consider a second term.

As for this year, Burr needed to hurt Bowles on Tuesday, and Bowles did more hurting. Now, Burr is dependent on Bush coattails, in a year where NC is as close to being a swing state as it has been since 1980. Burr, whom Winston-Salem Democrats generally acknowledge as usually articulate, seemed to be doing a Dubya impression (which James Fallows argues is artificial even when done by Dubya himself). He used "re-education" as a way of describing the need for displaced manufacturing and textile workers to learn new skills - which I'm sure sent chills down the GOPs more ardent anti-communist members. And, he paused and cleared his throat so many times that, let's just say, I never imagined my hearing Richard Burr's heavy breathing quite that much. Other than claiming that Bowles was lying about his lying, Burr didn't seem to draw any blood. I would say that Bowles will win, probably in a very close race, but he'll win. It's setting up to be another solid year for Democrats on the state ballot.

The debate was an odd thing. First off, there is a fertile field of examples of hypocrisy to plow when you get an NC Democrat and a NC Republican talking about free trade and it's effects. NC's tradition of pro-business politicians on both sides of the aisle has always clashed with the precarious situation of its low-skill, moderate-wage workforce. Bowles and Burr, both of whom supported NAFTA, and since have jumped on to pro-worker, protectionist bandwagons played gotcha, and fully revealed that there is no firm principle to which to cling on the issue of jobs lost due to globalization. The President, I'm sure will be dismayed, but somehow that seems about right.

Second, Burr showed just how bogus of an issue medical malpractice reform is. He mentioned it twice, both times quickly moving on. I think it's clear that this hit-and-run tactic was an effort to signal to medical community his support, while not having to explain it to anyone else. The truth is, the GOP doesn't want to have a debate on this issue, they just want the votes of Doctor's who otherwise might vote Democratic. The fact that Burr seems to think this is the only needed reform for health care costs other than an expensive, useless Medicare bill, is an indication of how little the GOP really has to say on the most important issue this side of terrorism. And if there was a debate on malpractice reform, the secret might slip out that the Democrats have a plan too, albeit not as draconian as the GOP's.

But finally, the most discouraging point in the debate came in the latter third. Within five minutes, Bowles expressed profound anti-gay marriage and anti-immigrant sentiments. I do not have the precise language, but he stopped just sort of supporting a constitutional amendment prohibiting state adoption of gay marriage, for now. Then, left open the door if necessary. This was a perfect example of the cowardice of soft bigotry. I understand the need to placate conservative Democrats, but wouldn't being an adult suffice? The amendment's ridiculous, the constitution isn't a child's play toy, and an issue on which the public is still rather evenly split is not one to play with. And, oh by the way, it's not Bowles and Burr's generation that will have to deal with the consequences, but mine, and we are opposed to an amendment. Are there not enough messes the baby boomers have left for us to clean up, without our gay friends being permanently barred from survivor's benefits?

As for immigration, Bowles did acknowledge the incredibly important benefit immigrants provide to our economy. However, he raised the specter of their "stealing jobs" from workers. I would acknowledge there is a sliver of truth to this point, but the way Bowles raised it easily appeared to be a play on racial prejudice and anymosity aimed at the largest growing segment of NC's population.

Bowles is a good man, and, there is no doubt that he will be a good Senator. However, he's spent a great deal of his political career in retreat and his stance on immigration and gay rights is an indication that a party which has Bowles at it's head is one that does not have a solid grip on the future. I understand the concern, that conservative Democrats, many of whom will vote for Bush in November will bolt if Bowles seems "liberal" on these issues. But this fear is in part based on an unwillingness to risk realigning the state in part by tapping into its changing demographics. With Mike Easley as our shadow-Governor, and John Edwards potentially tied up in Washington, the Democratic party needs a leader that can change the dynamic in this state away from one of continuing fear of a conservative Democrat backlash to a broad-coalition from low-wage working class families to the PhD bloc.

Moderation on these issues may make political sense, but taking an overly conservative stance limits the future energy of the party. In 10 years, gay marriage will probably be a majority issue in the state and the issue of "illegal" immigration may have also been dealt with, or if not, the exposure to the growing immigrant population will make racial demagoguery untenable. But it is very discouraging to have someone out there who not only isn't willing to stand up for the Democrats on issue where our position is gaining strength, but seems willing to parrot the fools on the other side. I hope Bowles wins this year, but if he chooses to run again, I hope a real Democrat challenges his leadership. For the most part, he has yet to really show any.

Read more!

Honor, and 58 years

For the last several months, I've been trying to put into words my emotions upon learning of another soldier's death in Iraq. But each time, I could not find clarity and elegance enough to meet the challenge of expressing my condolences and sorrow. Unfortunately, now the dying is continuing, and I have had time to reflect and though maybe this is not clear or elegant, I hope it is not too late.

My grandfather, Henry McKellar, won the Silver Star in World War II. One of the highest honors in our military, Henry received it as a medic, killed in the line of fire while trying to save the life of another soldier. And it is an honor to be his grandson, an honor to know how far his commitment to this country would take him.

I was lucky to have a grandmother who could bring him to life for me through her stories and her obvious love for him. As a result, I do feel like I know him, even though he died nearly 30 years before I was born.

Still, war, a decision made from above, whether just or not, takes a life with such immediacy and throws it's living victims into an abandoned new world of uncertainty. The cold, hard reality is that at one moment, Henry was braving fire to save a fallen comrade, and the next he was stricken by death's grip. In that moment, according to the social construct of "war", my grandfather entered the world of "honor" and "courage." But to us, grandaddy just left this world. He never held his wife or daughter again, he never reached down to take the hand of one his grandsons, nor did he set foot on his native soil of South Carolina.

And in his death's wake, were left my grandmother and my mother - then 3 years old. The sum total of the devastation that Henry's death caused my family can be summed up simply...58 years.

That's how many years my grandmother lived without the love of her life, that's how long she had to mourn. How long my mother had to live with a family no longer whole. Not a day went by that either didn't think about him. Both have given me much to love, but the truth is, I never knew the women they might have been, just as I never knew the man my grandfather would have been. "Honor", frankly, is a grossly inadequate substitute for the possibility of life's future. And the lost love that remains after a loved-one dies early, while strong, sears the heart as much as warms it.

My grandmother had the courage to live the life she had, she taught school for 30 years, she raised a very strong mother in her own right, she found ways to make the lives of others brighter by baking cookies, growing flowers, and demonstrating her wealthy appettite for living. But grammommy lived to her last day tragically apart from the life she had hoped to lead with Henry.

There are monuments to the war dead in almost every town in America, such is war's reach. It spreads, certainly not evenly, but thoroughly across the land. These monuments and salutes to the honor and courage of the fallen which are offered up, as they ought to be, as a salve to the bitter sting of short lives and tragic deaths.

However, we should not let our honoring cause us to leave unrecognized the sacrifice left behind. Leaders of every war have sought to bolster support for this carnage, by reminding us to pay homage to the fallen. However, the fallen are only part of war's lost.

The rest are symbolized, not by body counts, nor by monuments. Instead, they are living in a world that has been so completely, utterly and profoundly changed - a new struggling growth from a barren field of possibilities immolated by the stinging heat of loss.

In 58 years of mourning, my grandmother honored her husband, her love, and she did it with pride and grace.

But, make no mistake, it was a sentence. With each death abroad, comes imprisonment at home. Children never know their parents, parents never see their grandchildren, and the spouse faces the cruelest fate of war - making life work now that the person they had intended to make it with has been taken by decisions out of their control.

Read more!