"In contrast to the vitriolic rants you'll find on some political blogging sites, Palmer gives in-depth analysis and commentary." --Dan Cook, The Free Times

4/30/2007

Stray Pins: 4-30-07

Because of all the major political events happening locally last week, I wasn't able to get around to reading many of the articles that had collected in my newsreader. So I present the next installment of Stray Pins.

Craig Crawford observes that the three Democratic candidates with the most experience pertaining to terrorism and foreign policy happen to be the three second tier candidates. Would the GOP be able to effectively use the terrorism card against these candidates?

Political Derby authoritatively declares Obama to be the frontrunner based on polling data from Rasmussen. Rolling Stone, however, thinks Obama is moving down. This is a major contrast to their opinions about him before the debate because of the way he rolled out his foreign policy proposals.

Political Derby also talks about the real reason why the GOP hates John Edwards. To paraphrase, John Edwards has gotten to where he is by living the Republican narrative. He pulled himself by his own bootstraps. However, even though he has become wealthy, he does not "embrace" the wealthy the way Republicans do. Poverty is a big deal to him, and he's not afraid to talk about it. And that's where the rub comes from.

The Justice Department recently released a study giving credence to DWB (Driving While Black). According to the study, Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be searched or arrested during traffic stops than Whites. However, there were no racial differences with regards to being stopped by the police. Surely Al Sharpton is going to ask what Barack Obama thinks about this. And if his answer is insufficient, it can reignite debate about how well Obama understands the concerns of the Black community. And it brings up another issue as well. Where does one draw the line between talking about legitimate issues of race and pulling the "race card?"

You've probably already read that most Democrats are satisfied with their choice of presidential candidates while Republicans want more choices. In light of the recent Democratic debate in South Carolina, I wonder how many Democrats are now similarly dissatisfied with their options?

Who knew that Rahm Emanuel was such a colorful speaker?

Even though I often support Nancy Pelosi, I think good government is more important than partisan government. That's why this story disappoints me. Stuff like this basically maintains the status quo by ensuring that only the most liberal and the most conservative politicians keep getting reelected, thus removing the necessity for politicians to find common ground.

The Hotline talked about the Virginia Tech massacre and how various presidential candidates have responded to it. I am very curious about how guns will be covered in the Republican presidential candidates' debate this week. Romney is a recent convert to the NRA and Giuliani is a moderate at best. Could McCain own the issue of guns?

Speaking of Giuliani, what does he have in common with Mitt Romney and John McCain? Well, it looks like he may become bogged down by this issue the same way Romney was bogged down by flip flopping on gay rights. It also has the potential to sandbag his campaign the same way it sandbagged John McCain's campaign in 2000. Which issue am I talking about? It's an issue that barely came up in the Democrats' debate last week: the Confederate flag. Looks like Giuliani may have some explaining to do because he has gone from opposing the flag to saying it's a "states rights" issue. And do non-authoritative answers like citing "states rights" demonstrate presidential leadership? Does he support "states rights" if these states decide to do something he personally may disagree with? Look for conservative voters to ask him about this in regards to civil unions legislation that has passed in New Hampshire and Connecticut.

According to The Rothenberg Political Report, Howard Dean still doesn't get it when it comes to religion. And he makes a good point too. How can you talk about Easter without mentioning the name "Jesus?"

Apparently, non-pundit Bob Shrum doesn't get it either. "Scripted spontaneity" just doesn't sound right. Oh, and Rolling Stone also believes Mike Gravel, the loose cannon presidential candidate from Alaska, might become the next darling of the Netroots. I guess Gravel does speak truth to power ("Who the hell are we gonna nuke?"), but his mouth is a bit too radioactive for my tastes.

Tim Dickinson of Rolling Stone is not amused. Dennis Kucinich has introduced articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney. However, nobody else seems to want to touch it. However, Democrats are all calling for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's head. Why? Because his behavior in the lawyer firings controversy involves attacks against fellow Democrats. Torture, habeas corpus, and illegal wiretapping seem to have gotten a free pass.

I speculated earlier that as goes Obama, so goes Edwards. Quotes like this by John Edwards explains why. Fortunately for Edwards, Obama is still receiving the brunt of the "inexperience" questions. But that doesn't mean it's no longer an issue for Edwards. At least former New York Governor Mario Cuomo is impressed with Edwards' "spelling out his positions."

Looks like Iowa is a make or break state for Tommy Thompson and his presidential campaign. There is a straw poll there on August 11 and it seems like that will be the day of reckoning for him.

Are the Democrats going to revive the GOP culture of corruption mantra they relied on in the 2006 campaigns? They have new fodder for doing so, courtesy of Arizona Rep. Rick Renzi.

Former Bush donors are now supporting Clinton and Obama. What happened?

2 comment(s):

Silence Dogood said...

Mr. Palmer, Kudos to you on the Imus issue. I enjoyed your synopsis about how it really had nothing to do with 'free speech' or with racism (obviously those were issues involved), but the real rub was Imus had a platform and a loud voice/audience and the teenage women of the Rutgers basketball team did not. Well the general media is finally catching up to your analysis. I haven't been able to find the article to link it but Leonard Pitts (writer for the Miami Hearald?) wrote and editorial recently about how the real issue was that Imus - in a position of stregth (media wise et cetera) beating up on these women - who were in a weaker position to respond, not having exposure to the media et cetera. Basically the fact that he was bully that really grated against the public. His piece was pretty good, and I am sorry I don't know where to get it at the moment, but I don't think you need to read it since you beat him to the punch on that issue by about...3 weeks? Good one on ya' for the insight and the promptness in relaying it.

Anthony Palmer said...

Silence Dogood:

Thanks a lot for this message. Incidentally, I happened to see Mr. Pitts' column in The State newspaper today. It's interesting that he chose to write that column so long after the original incident occurred.

I wouldn't mind if I could make a lot of money off of syndicating my writings like he does! Oh well. But at least seeing other people make money by saying and writing the very same things I do is quite validating.

Copyright 2007-2010 by Anthony Palmer. This material may not be republished or redistributed in any manner without the expressed written permission of the author, nor may this material be cited elsewhere without proper attribution. All rights reserved. The 7-10 is syndicated by Newstex.