I was lucky to hear about an Elizabeth Edwards house meeting at the last minute. It was pouring with rain, but that did not stop me or any of the other 60-70 people who turned up on a Saturday afternoon to hear her speak.
She spoke very briefly and opened the floor for questions. One first question was how would Edwards handle Iran. She gave a beautiful answer which went into a great amount of detail and into great depth on the issue. Of course she talked about diplomacy, but she went into details on what the issue was and how it should be addressed. She pointed out that Iran spends around $3b on conventional weapons, whereas the US was arming the countries surrounding Iran with conventional weapons to a tune of $20b. "If you were Iran what would you do?", she asked. "Rachet up your nuclear program to defend yourself!". Agreed that as my friend says even ordinary sentences sound great after right-wing "we are the good guys, they are bad" rhetoric, but still the point "put yourself in their shoes" really resonated with me.
There was a question on existing college loans which she truthfully acknowedged as difficult. Then she went on to make an interesting point. She pointed out that so many consumer goods have approval levels that they have to pass before they can be sold to a consumer. A lamp for instance has to be tested by an inspector that it is safe for use in a home. Cars have to be tested for safety. But financial documents that go with loans that very rapidly become burdensome (loans for college from unscrupulous loan outfits that essentially fool a student and lay the burden of a bad loan on the student) are not tested in any form. Why not have inspection for these like inspection for other consumer goods? Shouldn't a financial document that a student will sign be approved under some guideline that ensures "safety"and fairness? She also alluded to the inherent problems with leaving things like college loans to the market, and said the government should play a role so that the college students are not exploited.
Usually the candidate's spouse is used in a campaign to show a candidate's "softer" side. But she campaigns as an equal and knows a great amount about the various issues. The baby in the house was making gurgling noises when she was speaking, and when the parents tried to quiet the baby she said she loves that noise and didn't mind that at all as background. This could be just a scripted thing, but somehow it did not feel like it, and she also talked very fondly of her own children. She portrays a personality that is both the "softer" side _and_ has a mind that is as knowledgeable as any man's. She brings out the feeling that one can be a woman (with all the connotations that brings) and be completely intellectually compatible with men. That one need not be like a man in everything to succeed in a man's world.
All the women in the room (and it was 90% women) really seemed to like her. Much to my suprise I ran into my music teacher there, who has not been visiting other candidates yet, but came to see her. Fighting cancer and campaigning so vigorously for her husband she comes across as a very strong woman. When she finished she asked for people to volunteer for the campaign, and asked potential volunteers to sign cards. The cards have options, "I will volunteer", or "I will host a house party", and she said "you don't have to say I will spend the first of my life making John Edwards president", but "you can check one of the other boxes". She knows that her time is going to be defined by cancer and is devoting that time to making her husband president.
She is a terrific woman.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Bill Richardson
A message on my answering machine invited me to come to a house party for Bill Richardson, at a home less than a mile from my home. I was eager to go, as the Nashua Peace Group had liked him very much. He had, I believe, a very aggressive schedule for bringing the troops home.
The party was at the beautiful home of two physicians, who had been in a residency program many years ago with Bill Richardson's sister. They were standing on the driveway welcoming everyone in, and both the living room and the dining area became full, with 100+ people. He was on time, and stood in the doorway between the two rooms to address everyone.
He talked about the various issues - the war, health insurance, global warming, education. As he spoke I could not help feeling that all democratic candidates were beginning to sound rather similar. It is almost as though all the campaigns have figured out what the voters care about, and the messages have been honed to address those issues, to say what voters want to hear. Earlier they did not all sound that similar, but now the messages on the various issues seem to have coalesced around similar stances. They all want to stop the war, with various timelines on how they will do it. They all want univeral healthcare, with minor differences on how it will be done. They all talk about the environment. I suppose this is democracy, in that the voters' concerns are getting reflected in the campaigns. And it makes me as a voter look at their track record, at them as a person, instead of just listening to what they say on issues that have become important in the presidential campaign.
One thing was interesting in what Bill Richardson said - he said under his leadership as governer New Mexico chose to follow the Kyoto protocol. But overall, I was not fired up, and my support for Edwards did not come close to wavering.
Richardson had come across as a very liberal democrat from what I had heard, but I have read a part of his book "Between Worlds' and there he comes across as a centrist democrat, and calls himself that as well. Maybe as I finish the book I will see him become more liberal.
The party was at the beautiful home of two physicians, who had been in a residency program many years ago with Bill Richardson's sister. They were standing on the driveway welcoming everyone in, and both the living room and the dining area became full, with 100+ people. He was on time, and stood in the doorway between the two rooms to address everyone.
He talked about the various issues - the war, health insurance, global warming, education. As he spoke I could not help feeling that all democratic candidates were beginning to sound rather similar. It is almost as though all the campaigns have figured out what the voters care about, and the messages have been honed to address those issues, to say what voters want to hear. Earlier they did not all sound that similar, but now the messages on the various issues seem to have coalesced around similar stances. They all want to stop the war, with various timelines on how they will do it. They all want univeral healthcare, with minor differences on how it will be done. They all talk about the environment. I suppose this is democracy, in that the voters' concerns are getting reflected in the campaigns. And it makes me as a voter look at their track record, at them as a person, instead of just listening to what they say on issues that have become important in the presidential campaign.
One thing was interesting in what Bill Richardson said - he said under his leadership as governer New Mexico chose to follow the Kyoto protocol. But overall, I was not fired up, and my support for Edwards did not come close to wavering.
Richardson had come across as a very liberal democrat from what I had heard, but I have read a part of his book "Between Worlds' and there he comes across as a centrist democrat, and calls himself that as well. Maybe as I finish the book I will see him become more liberal.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Religious America
My European friends have often said that America is a religious country. It always sounded like an odd statement to me, and not quite accurate. For one thing, I associated a religious country with some amount of religious intolerance, and the America I experienced in my early years in this country appeared anything but intolerant. Other religions were highly respected, and there seemed a true separation of Church and State as enshrined in the constitution. Secondly, there were hardly any signs of overt expressions of religious fervor, at least compared to India.
This election season, I think I am beginning to understand what my friends mean. Following the Republican primary I am taken aback by how important Jesus Christ is. It appears as though a candidate can only win if he/she declares that he/she believes in God and believes in Jesus Christ (I doubt now that a candidate who is an atheist can win even the democratic primary). The Republican candidates are all falling over themselves to appear to be the most sincere follower of the Christian faith. Fred Thompson says people get their rights from God, not from the government. (One only needs to think for a few moments to realize how dangerous that statement is - a government can be changed, argued with, discussed. What God says cannot be changed - so if God says someone is inferior then it must be so!) And Mitt Romey says in New Hampshire, "The values of my faith are much like, or are identical to, the values of other faiths that have a Judeo-Christian philosophical background. They are American values if you will". American values ??!! I thought American values were equality, freedom, democracy and had nothing do with religion.
People's stances on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. seem to be because the Bible says so. It is not as though many of them had a real discussion and arrived at their opinions - they are just following their religious text. India, for all its external trappings of religion, is so much more flexible - people's thoughts are influenced by so much more than religion. Even if we assumed that these thoughts are limited to Republican primary voters, that is a significant part of the population - Republican voters in New Hampshire are 30+%.
Yes, indeed, the US is a religious country!
This election season, I think I am beginning to understand what my friends mean. Following the Republican primary I am taken aback by how important Jesus Christ is. It appears as though a candidate can only win if he/she declares that he/she believes in God and believes in Jesus Christ (I doubt now that a candidate who is an atheist can win even the democratic primary). The Republican candidates are all falling over themselves to appear to be the most sincere follower of the Christian faith. Fred Thompson says people get their rights from God, not from the government. (One only needs to think for a few moments to realize how dangerous that statement is - a government can be changed, argued with, discussed. What God says cannot be changed - so if God says someone is inferior then it must be so!) And Mitt Romey says in New Hampshire, "The values of my faith are much like, or are identical to, the values of other faiths that have a Judeo-Christian philosophical background. They are American values if you will". American values ??!! I thought American values were equality, freedom, democracy and had nothing do with religion.
People's stances on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. seem to be because the Bible says so. It is not as though many of them had a real discussion and arrived at their opinions - they are just following their religious text. India, for all its external trappings of religion, is so much more flexible - people's thoughts are influenced by so much more than religion. Even if we assumed that these thoughts are limited to Republican primary voters, that is a significant part of the population - Republican voters in New Hampshire are 30+%.
Yes, indeed, the US is a religious country!
Obama supporters vs. Edwards supporters
My father was telling me that the Yale university student group supporting Obama was the most active, and Obama seemed to be the candidate most students liked. I think it is the same thing that I observed in New Hampshire - the well-to-do youngsters get attracted to Obama. Students at an elite university like Yale naturally fall in that category. The message of 'we shall work together' appeals to them. It is a message they find hopeful, and it is very different from Edwards' message point that there are two Americas, with an implication that one is benefitting from the other.
The support for Obama seems similar in some ways to how youngsters from the upper castes in India would like to address the caste system. They find dalits' anger pointless, and feel that that energy should be 'channelized constructively'. They feel there is no point in blaming the upper castes or anyone else, what is past is past, but that we - the upper and the lower castes - should all work together now for a better tomorrow. The anger sometimes bewilders them -they feel they have the best intentions, so why don't the dalits work with them instead of wasting energy being angry?
I think well-to-do youngsters supporting Obama is a something similar phenomenon. His message appears to be conflict-free, a message which says, "we will caste acrimony aside and all work together for a better tomorrow". It appears to be conflict-free, a nice safe way of bringing about change without changing their own lives much. Problem is, real change is not conflict-free. Real change requires the recognition that there are two Americas, and that one is indeed benefitting at the expense of the other. Real change would likely affect the advantages that one America enjoys.
The support for Obama seems similar in some ways to how youngsters from the upper castes in India would like to address the caste system. They find dalits' anger pointless, and feel that that energy should be 'channelized constructively'. They feel there is no point in blaming the upper castes or anyone else, what is past is past, but that we - the upper and the lower castes - should all work together now for a better tomorrow. The anger sometimes bewilders them -they feel they have the best intentions, so why don't the dalits work with them instead of wasting energy being angry?
I think well-to-do youngsters supporting Obama is a something similar phenomenon. His message appears to be conflict-free, a message which says, "we will caste acrimony aside and all work together for a better tomorrow". It appears to be conflict-free, a nice safe way of bringing about change without changing their own lives much. Problem is, real change is not conflict-free. Real change requires the recognition that there are two Americas, and that one is indeed benefitting at the expense of the other. Real change would likely affect the advantages that one America enjoys.
Lawn Signs
The lawn signs are rather interesting. The only ones I see now are for Ron Paul. I have seen a couple of houses that have Mitt Romney signs, and one that has Mike Gravel signs (yay! :)). But Ron Paul signs are the ones that seem to be more in number. Interesting - I would have thought other candidates' signs would be up by now. Maybe my town is more focused on the Mayoral and Alderman elections to be held in November (the presidential primary is expected to be in January). The lawn signs certainly bear that out - there are tons of signs supporting Mayoral candidates and candidates for Alderman positions compared to presidential candidate signs.
It is interesting though, that the Ron Paul supporters are the ones that put their signs up first. Reminds me of the 2004 elections - There were so many Howard Dean signs in my ward compared to John Kerry signs. But John Kerry won the ward 2-1. It had seemed to me then that the number of votes Howard Dean got and the number of houses with Howard Dean lawn signs were the same. Meaning his supporters were really keen - though Kerry won in the end (because of the scream, electability, whatever).
In any case I guess one should not predict anything based on lawn signs :)
It is interesting though, that the Ron Paul supporters are the ones that put their signs up first. Reminds me of the 2004 elections - There were so many Howard Dean signs in my ward compared to John Kerry signs. But John Kerry won the ward 2-1. It had seemed to me then that the number of votes Howard Dean got and the number of houses with Howard Dean lawn signs were the same. Meaning his supporters were really keen - though Kerry won in the end (because of the scream, electability, whatever).
In any case I guess one should not predict anything based on lawn signs :)
Monday, October 8, 2007
Healthcare
Healthcare is a huge issue this election. People ask me what the different candidates say about it. I think it is hard to distinguish between candidates within each party. For instance, the plans of the democrats in the top-tier are essentially the same, the only real difference is how they would pay for it.
The entire country seems to agree on the fact that every one needs access to good healthcare. What they don't agree on is how it should be paid for. The democrats think some kind of a public system should supplement currently available private insurers. (Note that noone other than Kucinich talks about a single payer system - a single payer system would be a system where everyone buys health insurance from one source, everyone will essentially have access to the same kind of healthcare). Edwards will pay for his plan by repealing the tax cuts on those making over $200,000, Clinton will pay for her plan some other way, and I think Obama might not yet have talked about how it will be paid for.
The Republicans on the other hand are very wary of governmental involvement and believe free market is the only thing that works, and are wary of even the addition of a governmental plan to private plans. They say even the addition of a governmental plan is a "step towards socialized medicine", so we cannot even begin to talk about the single-payer system (which of course exists in differnet parts of the world). Free market will bring down insurance costs so that everybody can buy health insurance, they say. As some columnists point out, this logic is not applied to education, so why to healthcare? Public education is considered the duty of the government. But not public healthcare?
In the middle of all this is the issue of whether it should be mandatory for everyone to get health insurance, through private insurers or otherwise (like the state of Massachusetts mandated last year). Most of the country seems to feel that people without insurance burden emergency rooms and contribute to the increase of healthcare costs. That seems to point to mandating that everyone should have insurance. But what about groups like the Christian Scientists? They do not believe in intefering with God's will, and do not believe in going to doctors. Given freedom of religion, should they be forced to get health insurance?
I think it is fairly clear what the people want - healthcare for all, at an affordable price, with choices. Depending on their party the candidate picks a plan to put into action. Problem is I think the issue is not coming up with a plan. I think the issue is actually implementing it. Several people have tried and failed to reform the healthcare system, to address the basic issue of high costs. A complex set of issues seem to affect the system, vested interests being one of them. Can this be fixed? Like with say the goal of "making everyone literate" there are lots of plans. Successfully making them work is an entirely different ballgame.
The entire country seems to agree on the fact that every one needs access to good healthcare. What they don't agree on is how it should be paid for. The democrats think some kind of a public system should supplement currently available private insurers. (Note that noone other than Kucinich talks about a single payer system - a single payer system would be a system where everyone buys health insurance from one source, everyone will essentially have access to the same kind of healthcare). Edwards will pay for his plan by repealing the tax cuts on those making over $200,000, Clinton will pay for her plan some other way, and I think Obama might not yet have talked about how it will be paid for.
The Republicans on the other hand are very wary of governmental involvement and believe free market is the only thing that works, and are wary of even the addition of a governmental plan to private plans. They say even the addition of a governmental plan is a "step towards socialized medicine", so we cannot even begin to talk about the single-payer system (which of course exists in differnet parts of the world). Free market will bring down insurance costs so that everybody can buy health insurance, they say. As some columnists point out, this logic is not applied to education, so why to healthcare? Public education is considered the duty of the government. But not public healthcare?
In the middle of all this is the issue of whether it should be mandatory for everyone to get health insurance, through private insurers or otherwise (like the state of Massachusetts mandated last year). Most of the country seems to feel that people without insurance burden emergency rooms and contribute to the increase of healthcare costs. That seems to point to mandating that everyone should have insurance. But what about groups like the Christian Scientists? They do not believe in intefering with God's will, and do not believe in going to doctors. Given freedom of religion, should they be forced to get health insurance?
I think it is fairly clear what the people want - healthcare for all, at an affordable price, with choices. Depending on their party the candidate picks a plan to put into action. Problem is I think the issue is not coming up with a plan. I think the issue is actually implementing it. Several people have tried and failed to reform the healthcare system, to address the basic issue of high costs. A complex set of issues seem to affect the system, vested interests being one of them. Can this be fixed? Like with say the goal of "making everyone literate" there are lots of plans. Successfully making them work is an entirely different ballgame.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Ask Mitt Anything
Milford is a quintessential New England town. Winding roads going by small streams and lakes, village stores, families celebrating the pumpkin festival with friends and family, hills in the background all come together to form the pretty little town. Fall has begun in earnest, adding to the beauty of the town.
The “Ask Mitt Anything” forum was at the Milford middle school. I was late, and the meeting was in full swing when I arrived – I think Romney was on time. (Rare on the presidential campaign trail!). This was the first event where there were a couple of police officers. Inside the room was well-organized, including lights to shine on Romney as he stood in front of the crowd and took questions.
This was the first Republican event I attended which had a serious discussion. Thompson’s event was poorly attended and there was barely any discussion while Tancredo’s event was too much on the fringe. This event had about 200 people, and the discussion was lively. A number of hands shot up every time. The questions gave me some insight into the Republican way of thinking.
One thing that came through was the belief in taking personal responsibility. One person asked, “How could you as governor of Massachusetts sign a bill that forced health insurance on people?”, referring to what was considered a landmark bill in healthcare. Everyone in Massachusetts had to buy insurance or pay a fine. Romney replied, “My goal was to ensure that people would either buy health insurance, or if they chose not to do so, pay for services when they needed health care. I wanted a change in the system that allowed people without health insurance to use emergency room services for free, which is paid for by your taxes. People could choose between paying or health insurance, but should not be allowed to make use of services for free”. The room spontaneously broke into applause. The idea of taking personal responsibility resonated with the crowd here.
Another similar discussion was on the notion of ‘fair tax’. Fair tax is a flat tax on consumption – like a sales tax. The idea is that when people bought things they would pay tax, so their consumption dictated their taxes, and that it is unfair to tax someone’s income, an income they had worked hard for. Again the idea is that people should pay for things they do, rather than pay an income tax even though they might not use much of the government’s services.
Security and illegal immigration, more so the latter, came up repeatedly in questions. Illegal immigrants were seen as people who “broke the law” and used up resources in the US that they were not entitled to because they broke the law. “We believe in the rule of law”, said Romney. (Never mind the laws the US government breaks when it invades other countries.)
Social issues of course came up for discussion. One man asked, “I am honored to be in the same room with you. But two days ago in Boston I heard a rumor that you supported Planned Parenthood. It was perhaps just a rumor, what is your comment?” Romney responded that indeed a few years ago there was a check in his wife’s name for $150 for Planned Parenthood. They had found it recently, and were not sure how it had come about – perhaps they had done something for a friend or something. (!! I guess this check was public knowledge now, and he was ready with an explanation). He went on to say, “Look at my record. Whenever there was legislation related to this issue I have always come on the side of life”, and went on to give some examples. Interesting way to present some prior actions.
He essentially presents himself as a businessman. In response to a question on how much he would allocate in the budget for an issue, he responded that he could not give a clear number until he saw all the figures and could use hard facts to come up with a plan. He projects that a businessman is a better problem-solver than a politician. Hmmm...... that sounds similar to saying a non-profit can be run like a company.
Another popular question was, “How do we stop the Clinton juggernaut?” :-) They seem to be as worried about it in the Republican camp as democrats are in the primaries :-) He responded that he would fight hard in the ‘purple’ states.
All in all, it was an interesting insight into how Republicans look at issues. I may not agree with them, but I can see their point of view when its not rooted in idealogy.
The “Ask Mitt Anything” forum was at the Milford middle school. I was late, and the meeting was in full swing when I arrived – I think Romney was on time. (Rare on the presidential campaign trail!). This was the first event where there were a couple of police officers. Inside the room was well-organized, including lights to shine on Romney as he stood in front of the crowd and took questions.
This was the first Republican event I attended which had a serious discussion. Thompson’s event was poorly attended and there was barely any discussion while Tancredo’s event was too much on the fringe. This event had about 200 people, and the discussion was lively. A number of hands shot up every time. The questions gave me some insight into the Republican way of thinking.
One thing that came through was the belief in taking personal responsibility. One person asked, “How could you as governor of Massachusetts sign a bill that forced health insurance on people?”, referring to what was considered a landmark bill in healthcare. Everyone in Massachusetts had to buy insurance or pay a fine. Romney replied, “My goal was to ensure that people would either buy health insurance, or if they chose not to do so, pay for services when they needed health care. I wanted a change in the system that allowed people without health insurance to use emergency room services for free, which is paid for by your taxes. People could choose between paying or health insurance, but should not be allowed to make use of services for free”. The room spontaneously broke into applause. The idea of taking personal responsibility resonated with the crowd here.
Another similar discussion was on the notion of ‘fair tax’. Fair tax is a flat tax on consumption – like a sales tax. The idea is that when people bought things they would pay tax, so their consumption dictated their taxes, and that it is unfair to tax someone’s income, an income they had worked hard for. Again the idea is that people should pay for things they do, rather than pay an income tax even though they might not use much of the government’s services.
Security and illegal immigration, more so the latter, came up repeatedly in questions. Illegal immigrants were seen as people who “broke the law” and used up resources in the US that they were not entitled to because they broke the law. “We believe in the rule of law”, said Romney. (Never mind the laws the US government breaks when it invades other countries.)
Social issues of course came up for discussion. One man asked, “I am honored to be in the same room with you. But two days ago in Boston I heard a rumor that you supported Planned Parenthood. It was perhaps just a rumor, what is your comment?” Romney responded that indeed a few years ago there was a check in his wife’s name for $150 for Planned Parenthood. They had found it recently, and were not sure how it had come about – perhaps they had done something for a friend or something. (!! I guess this check was public knowledge now, and he was ready with an explanation). He went on to say, “Look at my record. Whenever there was legislation related to this issue I have always come on the side of life”, and went on to give some examples. Interesting way to present some prior actions.
He essentially presents himself as a businessman. In response to a question on how much he would allocate in the budget for an issue, he responded that he could not give a clear number until he saw all the figures and could use hard facts to come up with a plan. He projects that a businessman is a better problem-solver than a politician. Hmmm...... that sounds similar to saying a non-profit can be run like a company.
Another popular question was, “How do we stop the Clinton juggernaut?” :-) They seem to be as worried about it in the Republican camp as democrats are in the primaries :-) He responded that he would fight hard in the ‘purple’ states.
All in all, it was an interesting insight into how Republicans look at issues. I may not agree with them, but I can see their point of view when its not rooted in idealogy.
A Politician's Handshake
Sam Brownback has the best handshake and really looks you right in the eye :-) When I met him at my workplace a few months ago that was what struck me most – it really is a very nice handshake accompanied by an open look and I wondered whether all politicians had that honest kind of look. But not really. I think Sam Brownback’s open look and handshake beats most of them :-) I read in the news that a California legislator did not endorse Mitt Romney because “he did not look at him in the eye”, and there was a similar comment about Rudolph Giuliani in New Hampshire – that he does not look people in the eye long enough :-)
He has very republican views that I do not agree with – privatizing social security, leaving health insurance to the market etc. But when he was at my workplace we had an interesting discussion on one topic – on bringing businesses and jobs to rural communities. Just then Google had set up a data center in rural North Carolina, generating a number of jobs. We discussed whether that was a good approach – taking IT companies to rural areas in America, instead of outsourcing them all. He took out a piece of cloth from his pocket, made apparently as an agricultural byproduct. I am not sure how economically viable that is – but his thoughts on that topic are interesting. Rural communities are hurting because of jobs that are leaving.
He has very republican views that I do not agree with – privatizing social security, leaving health insurance to the market etc. But when he was at my workplace we had an interesting discussion on one topic – on bringing businesses and jobs to rural communities. Just then Google had set up a data center in rural North Carolina, generating a number of jobs. We discussed whether that was a good approach – taking IT companies to rural areas in America, instead of outsourcing them all. He took out a piece of cloth from his pocket, made apparently as an agricultural byproduct. I am not sure how economically viable that is – but his thoughts on that topic are interesting. Rural communities are hurting because of jobs that are leaving.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)