« June 2007 |
Main
| August 2007 »
July 2007 archives
Once again, the presidential candidates got together but, for a refreshing change, “debate fatigue” was not the headline.
Debate fatigue had set in among the American chattering class over the last few months because of the sterility of the environment in which these so-called "debates" are held. Moderated by media professionals who did not wish to appear biased for or against any candidates, the debates' lines of questioning had grown tired, reflecting an inside-the-beltway view of what was important to America.
This time, when the Democratic presidential candidates took questions from the American people - thanks to the power of YouTube - we learned that the public can come up with some engaging and challenging questions. They were the kind of questions reporters and TV anchors are often, well, afraid to ask.
You can expect a return to timid questioning in a few weeks when the Democrats candidates will meet for another debate, hosted by gay rights advocates at the Human Rights Campaign and Viacom’s Logo television network. Although the event is being billed as “historic,” chances are there won’t be too much news made at the forum. Why? Well no one will be too anxious to rock the, er, boat.
The Gay political establishment - of which HRC is the keystone - would like its followers to believe that there is a simple dichotomy when it comes to Republicans and Democrats. One party represents good and the other, evil. But as with most politics, there are many shades of gray. If there weren’t then there would be no need to have a Democratic debate over gay rights to begin with.
If the Logo/HRC debate were a truly historic event, there are at least four questions the candidates should be asked. You’ll probably won't hear them asked in Democratic party circles so I'll ask them here.
1. If gays and lesbians deserve full rights and protections under the law, then why should you be debating gay rights at all?
From the time someone comes out and receives their “gay card,” they’re told that Democrats support gay rights and deserve the community’s vote. If that were true then there would be no need for Democrats to be debating gay rights. Of course, it’s not and there is.
Not one leading candidate will step forward and say, “I agree, there should be no debate that all Americans should be treated equally under the law.” Unless HRC thought they’d get that answer from John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, they won’t ask the question.
Edwards, for example, says that he supports equality for gays and lesbians, but when asked about marriage rights, he says that it is a personal journey for him to reconcile his religious opposition with his policy positions. Hillary Clinton tortures herself over whether to oppose her husband's own policies of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act. If Democrats truly believed that gays and lesbians were Americans deserving the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship--as they'd like the gay community to believe--there should be no such gray area.
2. Will you continue the Drug Enforcement Agency’s crackdown on dispensaries in states where the legal distribution of medical marijuana conflicts with federal law?
Here in California, the Bush Administration has been widely criticized for enforcing federal law and shutting down medical marijuana dispensaries. Will the Democratic candidates, if elected, enforce Federal law or give precedence to states’ rights? Somehow, I doubt that the local gay community wants to know the answer to that question.
The question of State's rights is at the heart of the AIDS treatment debate, as well as that over marriage equality. The first President Clinton wiped away States rights on the marriage issue with the Defense of Marriage Act, which he signed in 1996. While States like Massachussetts and perhaps soon California may recognize equal marriage rights, when it comes to filing taxes, collecting social security or immigration issues, no such rights exist--federal law takes precedence.
3. Why did no one in the Democratically-controlled U.S. Senate try to get recognition for gay and lesbian couples during the immigration reform debate earlier this summer?
One of the leading items for gay activists in recent years - including the Human Rights Campaign - was to give gay and lesbian couples equal treatment under the law when it came to immigration. Bi-national heterosexual couples can marry and get a green card but those who are born gay do not get that option. Surprisingly, not one senator tried amending the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill to make gay couples equal under immigration law.
4. Will you, as president, allow the discriminatory estate tax to return in 2011 even though it will harm gays and lesbians?
Few gays can admit that George Bush has done anything for the community. However, when Bush eliminated the estate tax, he also took away one of the federal benefits of marriage. With no estate tax gay and lesbian couples do not face the discrimination in the tax code they did before Bush was elected President.
All of the major Democratic candidates talk about repealing George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy but in doing so, they’d be reinstating taxes on gay and lesbian couples. How can that be fair?
Don’t expect the Human Rights Campaign to ask these questions of the Democratic candidates. They don’t want to know the answers. Merely asking them and challenging the candidates to respond contradicts the story they’re trying to tell to their members, contributors and legislative supporters: that the Democratic party is the only friend gay Americans have in politics.
In the end, the Democratic Candidates really are not on the same page as groups like HRC, who want to portray them in a positive light, especially when compared with Republicans. Organizations like HRC fear that if they asked the tough questions, the “gay debate” would be “historic” because it would be the last.
They have to play nice, or they can’t play ball.
Sitting around with friends at a barbeque Sunday afternoon, I had to bite my tongue as the group discussion meandered into the issue of veterans’ healthcare.
The liberal friends gathered around the circle recited the horror stories of Iraq War veterans who were told they’d receive full healthcare benefits only to return home mentally ill and kill their families and so on. True or not, I wanted to ask these folks a simple question. How could they simultaneously criticize the healthcare our government gives to veterans while supporting the idea of a universal healthcare system run by that same government?
Before the American people today stand two philosophies for providing healthcare to all Americans.
One school of thought, championed by liberals like Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton would apply the VA model for healthcare to everyone with one single-payer, that payer being the government. The other approach, championed by Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger uses a market-based approach like the G.I. Bill, setting minimum standards of coverage and allowing people to choose the healthcare plan which best suits their situation.
I’m not a healthcare expert like others, but I do know that when it comes to government policy, we should not pay heed to the warning we hear in mutual fund ads: Past performance is indicative of future results. Besides, there's an alternative model to use.
Following World War II, the government set about to make sure our veterans got access to higher education and to health care.
Rather than creating a university systems just for vets, the U.S. Congress passed the G.I. Bill, essentially giving veterans what amounted to school vouchers to pursue a university degree. Under the G.I. Bill, millions of veteran - from WWII, Korea and Vietnam - have gotten a higher education. Some went to Harvard, others pursued occupational training but each received education according to their need.
On the other hand, when it came to providing healthcare, the government chose to create a network of hospitals under the Veterans Administration. As my friends' comments indicate, the Veterans Health Administration has not had the success of the GI Bill. The centerpiece of veterans care, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, is in worse shape than your local No-Tell Motel. That scandal has led Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson to resign.
If a veteran wants - you know, actual health care - without having to wait weeks or months for that “elective” surgery to repair his hip, the only option would be to pay out-of-pocket and go to a private hospital.
Some folks just need a physical once a year and urgent care when necessary, while others need a stack of prescriptions. The very nature of the kinds of demands and their variety makes the idea of a one-size fits all plan for health care laughable.
While past performance may not be indicative of future results, when my health is on the line, I’d rather hedge my bets by betting against the goverment-run model we know to be an abject failure.
Clarification: An earlier version of this piece referred to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center as part of the VA, which of course, it is not, being an Army Medical Center. Thanks to Matthew Holt for pointing me through the confusion caused by the Associated Press article on the reasons for Nicholson's resignation.
Editor's Note: Spot-on's health care writer Matthew Holt disagrees with Scott Olin Schmidt and he's put it in writing. You can read that post, which further clarifies Walter Reed's place in the government bureuacracy, here.
Somewhere between the helicopter-filled days when Paris Hilton was released - and returned - to prison and the 10-day Fourth of July weekend, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa learned a lesson that should be imparted to all politicians in the new media environment: love yourself, warts and all.
Rumors have persisted since January that the mayor had been in a more-than-friendly relationship with Telemundo news anchor Mirthala Salinas. But even when Salinas herself used a telling phrase - “the rumors are true,” - as she covered news of Villaraigosa’s June separation from wife Corinna, the back stories remained nothing more than speculative.
Perhaps hoping to avoid releasing any more "bad" news, the mayor's office opted for the slow drip of news rather than full disclosure. But that seems to have triggered a not-so-slow drip of rumors flying through the Internet on L.A. insider sites like Luke Ford and Mayor Sam.
The rumors run from the laughable - Villaraigosa is sleeping with press secretary Janelle Erickson - to wishful thinking for some - linking him to his other, gay male, press secretary. There's been the medically impossible, thanks to a vasectomy: that he has impregnated planning commissioner Sabrina Kay, forcing the later to release a denial. And the plausible; should Salinas, a native of Mexico lose her employment at Telemundo, she may risk deportation if she were on a work visa in the United States and needed to stay employed to remain in this country.
The whole thing follows a kind of odd logic. Because the rumors linking Villaraigosa and Salinas persisted, even though there was plenty of confusion, they turned out to be true and paved the way for an almost anything-goes state of affairs. In this climate, people can say just about anything about Villaraigosa and his personal life and it is presumed to be true until denied.
Villaraigosa’s case should be instructive to other candidates seeking public office. I'm thinking of potential Republican contender Fred Thompson.
Although a number of conservatives see Thompson as the third coming of George W. Bush, there are quiet whisper campaigns alleging that Thompson may be a tad more, um, liberal than thought, both with his personal life and his politics. For instance, when asked whether he had represented the pro-abortion group NARAL, Thompson chose to dodge the issue, claiming that he did not recall working for one of the lobbying groups most offensive to Republican Primary voters, evidence be damned. And as more stories come out about Thompson’s less-than-conservative values, I predict the enthusiasm of the “FredHeads” will diminish as quickly as Villaraigosa’s support among Latina voters.
By contrast, it is well known that New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is a philandering, cross-dressing liberal who likes tax cuts. Rather than deny the charges against him, the former Giuliani has embraced his past and his positions, even when they are to the contrary of the GOP base. Voters not only respect Giuliani’s honesty, in many states like California, they’re embracing him.
Maybe it's because he learned his politics in the nation's most competitive media market - New York City - but whatever the reasons, Giuliani seems to understand the new political reality. Bloggers will chase big stories about politicians, and if they can do so in a way that isn’t libelous, they’ll report what they hear. And politicians can no longer rely on the mainstream media to protect them from their own peccadilloes. The only choice is for politicians to step up, be honest, and love themselves, warts and all. In exchange for such refreshing honesty, voters may just love them back.
The nation celebrates its 231st Birthday this Fourth of July but for many, there seems scant reason to celebrate. In poll after poll, Americans will tell you that they feel the nation is on the “wrong track” - even as the economy continues to expand with inflation in check and low unemployment? What gives?
I’m no historian but I sometimes wonder about how far we’ve come in twenty-three decades and ask what the first George W. would think of life under George Dubya.
Were George Washington, America’s greatest military leader, to wake up on July 4, 2007, I’d bet someone would have to tell him that we’re in a war. Although the war on terrorism was brought to our shores and has expanded to include a foray into Iraq, signs of war on the home-front are noticeably missing. Other than bumper stickers opposing the fight against terrorism, there are no signs of war at home, few sacrifices being made by anyone who isn’t in the military. Washington would no doubt find this general ambivalence troubling.
American ambivalence has allowed for a gradual erosion of the principles our Founding Fathers fought for: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Just weeks ago, voters in California selected a new Member of Congress. Less than ten percent of voters went to the polls. A state of affairs that would likely lead Washington to ask what good are rights if they are not exercized?
Most Americans will remember the Boston Tea Party from their History Books. One of the catalysts to the American Revolution, the Tea Party was, at its core, a tax revolt launched in protest of a tax levied on the colonists’ favorite beverage. Today, not only do we tax tea, but we tax coffee, beer, wine and more. Among industrialized nations, the United States has one of the lowest per capita tax burdens, which would probably please Mister Washington. And under George Bush, we’ve expanded individual financial liberty by rolling back the burden of the personal income and estate taxes. But I wouldn't count on it lasting.
History has shown that the American government can be even more oppressive than the Imperial British when it comes to reaching into our pocketbooks. We only won the “right” to choose the people who will take our economic freedoms away, a right most of us take for granted when we stay at home on election day.
When constructing the new Republic, our Founding Fathers struck a bargain within the states, creating a bicameral legislature where both the states and the public would get representation in the Senate and House respectively. At the time of the first Congress, this was a cozy arrangement. Each of the thirteen States had two Senators, as they do today. In the House, the largest delegation, Virginia’s, consisted of ten members; the smallest, Delaware, had but one.
In today’s Congress, while many states have but one member of Congress, the largest delegation - California - has fifty three and thirteen more states have more than Virginia’s original ten representatives. While the grand compromise between the States may have made sense in 1789, it has made the United States Senate one of the most un-democratic directly-elected bodies in human history. And I’d imagine Washington would not be pleased with the way the Senate conducts itself. The need for so-called "super-majorities" - two-thirds approval - cloture votes and special rules are not written into the Constitution. In today’s hyper-partisan world, they have led to a gridlocked environment where the Senate would be lucky if it could pass a Flag Day resolution.
George Washington was famously anti-partisan; a cautious and shrewd man who lived in an tumultuous time and understood the need for compromise. Today he’d find himself in an America that is as divided as it has been since the presidency of John Quincy Adams but he’d also see hope for our political future. The American people are following his lead and rejecting party affiliation. With nearly twenty percent of Californians now registering as “Decline to State” and the nascent candidacy of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg - who has tried, and rejected, both political parties - Washington might see, as I do, evidence of change in the works.
If George Washington were to wake up on this July Fourth, he may well agree that the country is on the “wrong track” but he might also be encouraged. Although Americans have not chosen to reconstitute our government in 23 decades, we do have a tendency to stir the political pot when things go awry.
