September 26, 2003
Reflections: Democratic Debate
Looking for a presidential candidate? A number of them showed up yesterday at the 10 candidate Democratic debate. All of the candidates held their own and offered a diversity of views and many common themes.
I found myself asking why Al Sharpton is not considered a real contender for President. Sharpton demonstrated an astute knowledge of the issues, a very quick wit, and the ability to connect with audiences. I could only conclude that his skin color prevents pundits from declaring him a serious challenge. Sharpton is opposed to passing the President’s 87 billion dollar request for continued action in Iraq calling it bad policy. He said he opposed the prescription drug plan and called for a national single payer health plan. He proposed a 5 year $250 billion dollar federal investment into rebuilding America’s infrastructure. On trade policy he pointed out that blacks are here in America because of historical bad trade policy implying that trade has to be about workers, not just corporate interests.
The same might be said of Carol Mosley Braun and her status as a black woman, except that she did not appear to connect with the audience as often. While she demonstrated a high degree of intelligence, her responses often seemed lacking in nuts and bolts type policy responses on some issues. She did however; astutely point out that the deficits today will shift to working persons tomorrow in the form of higher taxes and lowered benefits. She made a good case for preserving Social Security but did not provide how it could be done.
Dennis Kucinich does not have a very presidential appearance if white male, chiseled featured face and tall countenance are the standard. But, he nonetheless, distinguished himself from the other candidates on a couple of issues. I saw last night why the Green Party is backing Dennis Kucinich. He was the only candidate to state that our job is done in Iraq, we need to turn Iraq over to the U.N. and bring our troops home out of harm’s way. He strongly made the case that our continued presence in Iraq will increase our deficits and harm our economy. He calls for wealth redistribution in the U.S. since, he argues, much of the tax cuts have gone to the wealthy and deficits and debt will be born by the working class. He stood squarely against NAFTA and WTO calling for the abolition of both as well as favored trading status with China. He cited the $435 billion dollar trade deficit as a priority issue. Kucinich is for reimporting of prescription drugs from Canada to keep costs lower and a single payer national health care plan. He was the only candidate to call for an end to the death penalty in the U.S.
Bob Graham called for the elimination of Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy and would not rule out targeted tax increases if he became President, since he is opposed to passing the current debt and deficits on to future generations. He called for a national investment in infrastructure such as roads, ports, and electric grids and proposed a kind of FDR program to put millions back to work on this infrastructure development. I thought he dropped the ball when he said we should use Iraqi oil revenues to rebuild Iraq and not spend any more tax dollars on Iraqi reconstruction. He did not make the case that Iraqi oil revenues would be sufficient.
John Edwards said nothing remarkable nor did he distinguish himself well from the other candidates. He called for providing the portion of Bush’s $87 billion that would be needed to support and supply our troops. He stated President Bush is transferring the tax burden from the wealthy to the working middle class and this must be reversed. He called for withholding tax credits from any American company that moves operations over seas and granting tax breaks to those who stay here. He called for raising capital gains on those making over $300,000 per year. He supports farm subsidies except to millionaire farmers and called for strengthening union protections and banning striker replacement hiring.
Joe Lieberman too got lost in the crowd and failed to distinguish his position clearly from the others. He said jobs are the first priority but, only offered increased research and development spending partnered with companies and workforce retraining as methods to grow jobs. He did say trade policy should reflect the need for U.S. jobs. He agreed with Bob Graham that some tax increases should not be ruled out.
Richard Gephardt had no definitive reply on Bush’s $87 billion Iraq funding request. He called for repealing all of Bush’s tax cuts including those to the middle class. He linked the solvency of the Social Security system to the health of the economy and stressed job creation, level playing field trade policies and removing corporate greed as measures to improve the economy.
Wesley Clark admitted he has not had the time yet to fully develop a strategy for all our problems but assured watchers those plans will be finished soon. He spoke broadly on many issues declaring that he is pro-choice, for affirmative action, and strong military defense. He opposed any of Bush’s $87 billion Iraq request that would add to the deficit implying it must be paid for now. He is for repealing Bush’s tax cuts except those to the middle class. He called for putting all federal spending on the table for possible reduction in order to balance the budget. His health care stance was to enhance already in place programs. He stressed preventive health care focus. He called for enforcing current trade agreements and for independent corporate boards of directors.
John Kerry was cool, steady and measured throughout the debate. In voice, manner, and stature, he appeared to me to be very ‘presidential’ and comfortable in the role of candidate. Like Sharpton, he appeared self confident but without the showmanship. Like Kucinich, he appeared passionate in his beliefs but without the shrill tone. Kerry called for repeal of tax cuts for the wealthy, and was the only candidate to point out that a level playing field on trade will result in no trade, because the rest of the world cannot afford the environmental protections, worker benefits and pay scales that our wealthiest nation status affords. This appeared to be one of the most intelligent statements of the evening. He called for enforcing current trade laws but not closing the door on international trade.
He called for investments in science and capital investment in innovation to keep the U.S. competitive in trade. Kerry was also shrewdly adept at pointing out that the U.S. could drill till the cows came home and still not be more than 1 to 2 percent less dependent on imported oil than it is today. He called for investing in new energy technologies and energy independence from oil as a fuel. He stands directly behind saving Social Security, restructuring and democratizing boards of directors by placing shareholders on the boards. He called for rebuilding international relations in order to gain international cooperation.
None of the candidates blundered. All appeared to be prepared for the debate and none of them lost their composure, including Howard Dean. Of the 10, it was my impression that the 4 candidates to watch are Gen. Clark, Representative Gephardt, Senator John Kerry, and former Governor Howard Dean. If I had tuned into the debates without knowing anything else about the candidates, I would probably have said Kerry and Dean were the winners of the debate with Sharpton close on their heels.
Posted by David R. Remer at September 26, 2003 06:34 AMDavid, what were your impressions of Dean? I didn’t see a recap of his performance in your post. I didn’t get a chance to watch the debate and would like to know what he discussed, especially since you mentioned in the final paragraph that you viewed him as one of the debate’s winners.
Posted by: blipsman at September 26, 2003 10:50 AMThe reason nobody takes Al Sharpton seriously is because the minute he becomes a ‘serious candidate’ he will be shot down instantaneously.
He’s been found guilty of honest to god SLANDER against the NYPD over the Tawana Brawley rape case (a case in which he still insists he was right)
Theres the video of him trying to by cocaine from an FBI agent.
There the LONG LONG history of him, in New York, as a gadfly, a muckraker, and quite simply, a racist. The man has blamed Jews for economic hard times in areas like Harlem explicitly, and I doubt he would hesitate to do so again.
The fact of the matter is, that if the Democrats nominated Sharpton, they would lose the state of New York. Instantly.
White people may not be the majority in New York City anymore, but the asian population, and ESPECIALLY, the very large suburban white populations on Long Island and Westchester, hate Sharpton, and honestly, are afaird of him.
Rev. Al is not Jesse Jackson or Martin Luther King.
On top of that, he has NO record of Public Service. Not like Wesley Clark in no elected record.
No, like he’s a lifelong minister and activist.
Not to mention the various accusations of shady fundraising.
It’s not the color of Al’s skin that keeps him from being a real candidate.
Thats just what he and the republicans want you to believe.
Posted by: Keith at September 26, 2003 01:04 PMAs with all the debates to this date I think there has been unfair and excessive bickering and attacks on Howard Dean but that is to be expected given how far ahead he is and how much of an upset that is with the old school democrats. I think that Dean responded to Dick Gephardt and John Kerry’s attacks quite well and he tried to tap into a party unity that they were both in the same party with the same goal. As a Dean supporter I was waiting for Howard to hit back against Kerry and Gephardt . I kicked in another twenty five bucks into the latest Dean fund drive raising the amount that I have donated up to a hundred bucks. He has not let me down so far and I consider that money well spent.
Posted by: Jake of 8bitjoystick.com at September 26, 2003 01:39 PMblipsman, Oooopppps! My sincere apology for overlooking Howard Dean. I had two pages of hand scripted notes and lost track of his notes in the writing.
Howard Dean held his own adeptly. I was impressed with Deans reference to the right trying to take ownership of Patriotism and Democracy. Dean wants to revise trade agreements toward equal standards and in so doing elevate the working standards and environment for all the world’s workers. This he indicated would also create jobs in the USA. He stated the International and American worker standards are skewed toward multinational corporations and this has to end to level the trade agreements playing field. He stated he supported NAFTA and the WTO.
Dean proposed repealing all of Bush’s tax cuts and emphasized that balancing the budget has to be emphasized. He indicated Congress should provide the $87 billion Bush has requested for Iraq implying that the job must now be finished and our troops should have everything they need. When attacked by Gephardt on his previous Medicare criticisms, Dean successfully countered by stating his criticism was toward how Medicare was managed, and not leveled at the program itself. Dean stated he is opposed to raising the Social Security retirement age.
My impression of him was that he projects self confidence, is a down to business kind of guy, and has the experience of working within government to get things done.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 26, 2003 03:37 PMKeith, thank you for responding to my inquiry on Al Sharpton. I vaguely recalled that he had a checkered past, but, could not remember any of the details. Thanks for responding with this information.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 26, 2003 03:39 PMI could only conclude that [Al Sharpton’s] skin color prevents pundits from declaring him a serious challenge.
Truly bizarre.
Posted by: Richard Bennett at September 26, 2003 08:19 PMI can’t believe that anyone would actually consider Al Sharpton a prudent candidate to be in charge of this country.
Do you not read the news and see the things he supports?
http://www.issues2002.org/Al_Sharpton.htm
Egad, how can you support reparations, affirmative action AND racial equality at the same time??? (note previous link)
I was just finishing OCS in the U.S. Navy and while waiting in the billeting lobby, a Yeoman walked out and asked if there were any black people who wanted to be pilots? Tell me you think that’s fair?
I won’t get into the complete farce that is affirmative action, but my god, I for the most part despise liberal policies, though I am sure the candidates themselves are decent people. Al Sharpton is about the LEAST attractive individual you or anyone could suggest for President of this country.
Please don’t play the BS race card either. I personally think there are few that could out-debate Alan Keyes, and I would vote for him in a heartbeat if he ever got the nomination.
Keep Mr. Not-so-Sharpton to yourself. He’s much better suited to defending NAMBLA members than running this country.
Posted by: Yukon Jake at September 26, 2003 09:39 PMDavid R.,
Most (intelligent) Black Americans do not take either Al Sharpton or Ms. Braun seriously because Sharpton is a buffoon two sentences shy of being a moron, and Ms. Braun lacks the intelligence and integrity needed to fulfill the job of President.
Both my wife and I remember with Al Sharpton the early years before he became the Black man to see in New York. He was an embarrassment to the Black community then, and little has change, from then to now. A leopard does not change his spots and I do not trust Al Sharpton, nor do I respect him enough to consider him a serious contender for the Presidency.
Ms Braun the late not-so-great Senator from my state of Illinois managed to seriously bungle her job through lies, and underhanded dirty dealing, which included an illicit relation ship with the late leader of Nigera. She was summarily dismissed by the citizenry of the state…I neither respect nor support her.
So far I like the ex-General…
No the fact that Rev. Al Sharpton has never held an important public office makes him unelectable. Clark is an exception given the international political nature of running NATO. If Rev. Sharpton was a Senator, Governor, Mayor or Congressman he would be more viable. Race is not the only reason. I wish Rev. Sharpton was running for the Senate because God knows we need 2 more Democrat Senators.
Posted by: Jake of 8bitjoystick.com at September 27, 2003 02:15 AMGAWD that is a really pathetic statement.
“I wish Rev. Sharpton was running for the Senate because God knows we need 2 more Democrat Senators.”
So there are now NO standards. OK, I knew that already.
Not to mention, If al ran for senate, he’d be running against a dem.
Don’t forget that NY has 2 dem senators, and the State Republican party has decided to give Schumer a pass in 2K4.
The next opening will be 2006, if Hillary doesn’t decide to rurn again, and… well… she’s hillary. So, anythings possible.
But please, please, let it not be Sharpton. No non-black person in new york would ever vote for the man, and no black person who has some sense would either. (white people without an ounce of sense tend to at least realize that he’s speaking against them.) Sharptons past, and his present are polarizing, and the man does not DESERVE any elected office greater than that of city council at this time, IF THAT.
Personally, I think both he and Mosley Braun are in this race looking to pull what Jesse Jackson did with Bill Clinton in ‘92, as a way to shore up their consituencies for a white centrist.
Posted by: Keith at September 27, 2003 09:00 AMDr. Robert: I sent my comments directly to your e mail address about the Al Sharpton race comment, only to realize that others had already addressed the point. I wasn’t going for wholesale indictment of the man and wasn’t aware that he had tangled with the law and had such a checkered past- mostly seemed to remember guest slots on Howard Stern. The vibe is distinctly Johnny Cochran, though. When in doubt, dust off the old race card. For other readers, I’ll revisit the one excerpt fronm the other e mail: the one about Debra Wilson on Mad TV. Debra (a black woman) plays a fairly unconscious moviegoer who manages to spill drinks on other patrons, editorialize throughout the flick and make phone calls on her cell much to the distress of the other meembers of audience. When people begin to object to this atrocious behavior, debra’s character responds,”whats the matter with you people? whats your problem? Is it because I’m black?” My comment at the time, would have been, NO, I JUST THOUGHT YOU WERE A JERK WITH A SUNTAN.” Now, please dont misconstrue my comment. suntan optional here. a jerk is a jerk etc. Its the behavior, not the ethnicity that is the problem and as long as people want to hammer away at the differences rather than the commonalities, we stay stuck
gssmith
Posted by: Greg at September 28, 2003 12:35 AMLook at me I’m Howard Dean, I’m angry eerrrrr!!! This guy can only make it so far on the anger of radical leftists. I hope he does win, then Rove will have another chance to dust the Dems.
The fact that Sharpton is even allowed into a debate speaks volumes about the Democrats, and don’t yell about inclusivness, big tent etc he is a perfect example of what is wrong with selling out to interest groups, which is all blacks have become with their 90% Dem voting. Reap what you sow my friends. It’s morning in America, and come Nov 2004 you can go back to bed like good liberal hippy anti-American Dems do in the morning. Just don’t forget to cash your welfare checks! Wooohhaaaaa
Posted by: Alger Hiss at September 30, 2003 08:37 PM
