Search Results for ‘rhetoric’
Angela Davis is our commencement speaker this year at Grinnell College, and nobody I know here is 100% pleased. The presidential candidates we invited all turned up their noses at us (perhaps expectations at commencement are too high, and some folks are bound to leave at least a little underwhelmed), and I guess Angela Davis was somewhere on the list.
Recently, Ken Black at the Marshalltown Times-Republican took us to task for being a little too communist for him (emphasis added):
Of course, I know that Grinnell College is one of the most liberal in the United States. That goes without saying.
The pricey and very exclusive college has long been a bastion for those with communistic tendencies, but rarely have they been so bold about it as they are now.
Recently, I received a press release from the college, seeking publicity over its commencement keynote speaker. Of course, this is probably not the kind of press coverage they wanted, but any coverage is good coverage, right?
Angela Davis will be speaking. The name may not mean much to you. It didn’t mean much to me until I continued to read the first paragraph of the press release.
“She was associated with the Black Panther Party in the 1960s and 1970s, as well as the Communist Party of the United States of America,” the press release stated. “Still an activist, she now works for … prison abolition.”
Let’s take these one by one, shall we?
And then he takes them “one by one.” He hates the Black Panthers for being anti-capitalism and anti-authority. He hates the Communist Party because its goal was supposedly to devastate our country, Soviet style. And he hates the prison abolition movement because he doesn’t quite understand it.
But believing in academic freedom isn’t just for communists. Pretty much all of our Founding Fathers believed in it. Sure, it takes a certain level of self-awareness and maturity to know how to listen to what others say, consider it carefully, and decide not to agree with it, but doing that on a regular basis is a worthwhile endeavor. It’s how we learn in college, and hosting an important thinker like Angela Davis makes sense in that context.
To quote a famous Grinnellian who was also probably too much of a Communist for Ken Black, “Have you no sense of decency, sir?”
April 9th, 2007
As the Des Moines Register notes, Leonard Boswell has now come out against the proposed troop increase in Iraq. Although it’s not exactly a news headline that a Democrat has come out against the war, Boswell is part of the broader coalition of moderate to conservative Democrats who Republicans have needed to accomplish anything even moderately bipartisan in recent years. Considering a lot of the rhetoric that Boswell used on the campaign trail, this isn’t exactly a surprise but it just further reflects what little support that there now is for the Iraq War on Capital Hill and throughout the country. Even only last year, it would be surprising if someone who was one of the three most targeted incumbent Democrats in the past election took this dovish a stance. While, outside of the White House and John McCain’s house, it’s hard to find someone who supports the war. It’s a sign of how much times have changed and of how bad things in Iraq have become.
January 19th, 2007
There has been a lot of talk over the past few weeks about who is going to win Iowa in 2008. I’ve been resisting the temptation to join, because it’s pretty unlikely that the picture we see now will look anything like the picture we see a year from now.
Think of how much has changed from four months ago: Warner, who has since dropped out and now might be un-dropping out, was attracting a lot of Iowa support. Obama, whose candidacy I have been predicting for a year, was written off as too green and inexperienced to run in 2008. Bayh looked like he had too much money not to play in at least the first four primary states. John Kerry was not a favorite, but he was in as good a position as any of the candidates. And John Edwards was probably getting the most buzz around here. (Incidentally, Hillary’s position as the elephant in the room everyone either loves or loves to hate has remained relatively consistent this whole time.)
Since then, Warner and Bayh dropped out, and a lot of people started talking about what that might mean, often concluding that it was because the caucuses were close to being decided — already. (Kyle’s post here is actually what provoked me to write this.) Here are five reasons why it’s still wide open:
- The caucuses are an expectations game above all else. Given two candidates with equal money, talent, charisma, etc., the candidate who is favored more heavily is actually in a weaker position right now than the candidate nobody is talking about. To “win” the caucuses, you have to beat expectations, not just the other candidates, and the job gets harder and harder as expectations get higher and higher.
- Nobody knows what to expect from Tom Vilsack. Before he announced, I didn’t know very many people who took his candidacy seriously. But his campaign has assembled an excellent staff, and he keeps on impressing me. He isn’t expected to do all that well nationally (his strategy is clearly to paint himself as the underdog of the race), but nobody really knows how well he’ll end up doing in Iowa. (Drew has some thoughts on how well he has to do to stay in, but even he’ll admit that it’s guesswork at this point.) Again, though, I think it’s clear a fair number of candidates have to play in Iowa (particularly Edwards and probably Obama), and, if Vilsack can even hold his own against them, he isn’t out of the picture.
- The majority of the field hasn’t even declared yet. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and John Kerry are all staying above the fray by not making themselves candidates yet. As soon as they do, expect a lot of rhetoric to change. Even if attacking Obama will hurt the attacker more than it will hurt Obama, somebody will start doing it as soon as he declares in hopes of shaking the tree a little bit. Expect a wave of attack dog pundits and surrogates as soon as Obama and Clinton declare. We don’t know how that will turn out.
- Nobody is talking about John Edwards right now. Even though Edwards is a fundraising force with name recognition, a strong biography, charisma that rivals Obama’s, and a reputable staff, he has avoided high expectations. Polling in Iowa has consistently put him on top, and it looks like he’s going to declare pretty soon, so it isn’t clear how he will end up.
- In the end, staff quality and political strategy make a much bigger difference in the caucuses than buzz and media coverage. John Kerry was not a frontrunner in November of 2003; he was closer to a longshot. But his staff put together a better field program than Dean’s staff, and he ended up winning. (And because Dean was the frontrunner before losing, it pretty much knocked him out.) Field work is huge in Iowa, and we probably won’t know who has the best field program until the caucuses are over.
Of course, keep checking here for more news and analysis as the field of candidates continues to narrow.
December 20th, 2006
Tonight Chet Culver and Jim Nussle sparred in the first gubernatorial debate of the election season, and I’m going to call it a Culver win. (That’s actually me trying to be objective.) Nussle was certainly more polished than Chet, but I think Chet’s ideas clearly trumped Nussle’s question-dodging answers. Besides, the grooming and smooth talking may not be a plus in Nussle’s column, since professional Washington politician doesn’t generally play well in Iowa. I’ve also heard Nussle’s tie described as a “crime against humanity.”
On attack ads and negative campaigning. Nussle went first and gave an opening statement, completely ignoring the question. Chet pointed out that Nussle aired negative ads first. The moderator then allotted another 30 seconds to both candidates, pointing out that Nussle didn’t respond. Nothing worthwhile comes out of it.
On choice. In Clintonian fashion, Culver says that “Zero is the best number of abortions,” but that he respects a woman’s right to choose. Nussle cites his 100% pro-life voting record in Congress and says that he would further restrict abortions.
On tax policy. Nussle kept bringing up taxes all evening, saying that seniors are fleeing Iowa for “greener tax pastures.” I’m pretty sure seniors are leaving because Iowa is cold cold cold, and I think young people are more concerned that there are too many pastures and not enough, you know, city. Chet spoke about Vilsack’s successes, and pointed out that a higher cigarette tax could potentially save 13,000 lives.
On alternative fuels. It’s Iowa, everyone loves alternative fuels.
On affordable healthcare. Nussle completely skipped the question and talked about how “every mile is a minute” and rural citizens in emergencies are suffering. True perhaps, but who cares if they can’t afford the healthcare when they get to a hospital? (And wouldn’t it be nice if they could have preventative medicine and not have to almost die rushing to a hospital?) Chet explained his plan to expand Hawk-I and allow all Iowans to enjoy the same healthcare coverage as elected officials.
On education. We know, we know, Chet would be the only governor who had been in the classroom in the past 20 years. As Chet pointed out, Nussle voted 100 times against education while in Congress. Chet put it well, saying “It’s the record, not the rhetoric.” (He also looked very pleased with himself after this.)
On stem cell research. Nussle said adult stem cells are where the “exciting” research is happening. That’s probably because he voted to ban embryonic stem cell research, so no research is happening there. Culver pointed out that Nancy Reagan and Bill Frist both support overturning the stem cell ban, and that it could potentially save millions of lives.
In summary, Chet stuck to his talking points and elucidated his plans for Iowa, while Nussle, ok I’ll say it, hustled.
October 2nd, 2006
I’ve been told a lot recently that I’m the future of America; I’m the reason it is important to fund education, fix the health care system, and reign in the escalating deficit; I’m the future of the Democratic Party. Sure this is from some hand-squeezing, baby-kissing politicians seeking to win in November, and I know that it is good campaign rhetoric. But I also think it is true. In fact, not only are we the future of the Democratic Party, we are the present. My colleagues and I register the voters, we knock the doors, and we make the calls; we organize visits from candidates, we interview them, and we blog about them. We are not the only ones, but our contribution is significant. We do this not just on our campus — although that in itself is a substantial task — but in the county as well, and there are many others like us across the state and the country. We work by and large for free. Given these candidates’ propensity to pay lip service to our services, I would’ve thought they would be willing, if not eager, to include us at party-building events. Such events help prepare us for that ‘future’ that we are supposed to figure so prominently into, and also inspire and motivate us to keep doing our work in the present.
I would’ve thought, for instance, that they would want us to be able to attend the Jefferson Jackson Dinner on October 14. This is an important annual event in Iowa politics, one that in the past students have been able to attend. Last year several candidates for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination were there, providing many of us students a first introduction to Chet Culver. We also met recent college grads working on campaigns or for the IDP. Sure, we sat in the nosebleeds, but the point is that for $20 we got to go listen to prominent Iowa politicians and feel like we were actually part of the Democratic Party.
This year I was excited to see that Bill Clinton is going to be the keynote speaker. When I learned that the cheapest seats would cost $100 a person, I was disappointed, to say the least. As much as I would like to go to the JJ Dinner and hear the Big Dog, as a student (and someone who spends hours every week in unpaid get-out-the-vote efforts) I can’t afford to shell out $100 for one meal. I know I’m not the only student in this position.
What accounts for the exorbitant increase in ticket prices? Well, given that in the past year food prices haven’t skyrocketed and the Hy-Vee Hall Events Center hasn’t suddenly become immensely popular, it seems that it might have something to do with the former president’s fee for the engagement. Rumored to be over a quarter million dollars, it looks like maybe the IDP is passing that expense onto us. It is a move that makes financial sense, but it also sends the message that low-income or financially burdened Democrats (like students) aren’t important members of the party.
This message is incongruous with what many politicians I’ve spoken to recently are telling me. Everyone from U.S. Congressmen to gubernatorial candidates keeps repeating that we students are the future of the party. At a Grinnell College Democrats event yesterday, Pat Murphy and Eric Palmer commended us for having such a large and active group, saying that we would have a major impact on the elections. The thing is we know it. While it is nice to hear, the words are empty in the face of such an inconsiderate exclusion from a major party event. Regardless of from where this oversight arose, it would be hypocritical and ungrateful of the party not to make some allowances for those of us that may be unable to make generous financial contributions, but who have given our equally valuable time.
September 21st, 2006
Well the Nussle hustle rhetoric is kind of silly, but apparently the powers at be have seen signs that it is sticking (or will stick), because they keep repeating it. In a somewhat surprising move, they have released an ad specifically for the web (not uncommon in other states, but …) on Nussle’s abortion hussle. Perhaps they made it thinking they might run it on TV and then decided against it? I don’t know.
You can view the ad here.
Incidentally, Nussle’s ads are all up on YouTube, but I haven’t found any of Culver’s. It’d be cool if they started uploading them, because then more people would probably watch them (and bloggers could embed them in posts).
Update: The Culver camp informs me that there are, in fact, three Culver ads on YouTube. My bad for missing those.
September 20th, 2006
Those who went to the Harkin Steak Fry may have noticed that we had a crack team of bloggers there. In the following post, Ben and Alec reflect over the highs and lows of the event, which has made the news across the country.
Alec filed the following post:
The Harkin Steak fry gave me so much to sink my teeth into that I don’t know where to begin.
First, the basics—it didn’t rain and the steak was good. I hear the beans were a little cold. The lack of coleslaw was an enormous oversight. Someone said they liked the chicken but that it could have used a little salt. I didn’t try, nor hear anything about the bread. All things considered, it was a good day on the food front.
Oh, and there were speeches and stuff.
Ben, Freeda and I first stumbled by some of Evan Bayh’s people from the All America PAC. We asked one of them how long he had been with Bayh’s campaign, and he corrected us (with tongue firmly in cheek) that it was a political action committee. We were assured that Bayh would be around Iowa next year. Surprise surprise.
Soon after, we got a hold of Vilsack standing by the ice cream machine and taking pictures. Ben asked him whether the speech he gave for Grinnell commencement in the spring could be the basis of a possible stump speech (read: the 08′ question creatively reworded). The Governor said he had a lot on his mind and that he would continue to go around the country and tell people about the issues he thought were important. It was a snoozer for an answer, but I guess we couldn’t have expected the man to announce his candidacy to three college kids with press passes. Ah well. Then, Ben asked how congressional candidates should talk about Iraq before November. Vilsack said that, as he saw it, the mission in Iraq had changed from three years ago—with an elected government and a “standing army” the mission needed to shift to “building civil society.” He didn’t say it upfront, but he strongly hinted that he supported some sort of phased withdrawal. Could Vilsack be changing the position he offered in June to the DLC?
I caught a glimpse of the back of Obama’s head in the middle of a giggling crowd. I knew it was no use to try to get a word with him at that point. Mark that as the first failed chance to nab Obama.
Next, we found Mary and Chet Culver hanging out by the press. After shaking his hand and introducing ourselves (I’ve met Chet before, but I forgive him), we asked him what issues he planned to highlight before November in order to secure a majority of the undecided voters (the people who, if the latest DM poll is right, are going to decide this thing). He said that he would keep detailing his plan to “move Iowa forward” and said it was important for people to know that he was a coach and a teacher. In what seems to be a recurrent theme, he talked about these credentials as a private citizen far more than his time as Sec of State. Indeed, all day, the only person to dwell on Culver’s job as Secretary of State was Harkin, who said Chet had done more than anyone else in the country to make voting accessible to all. If Harkin can praise Culver’s time in elected office that profusely, why is it that Culver seems to stress the teacher/coach angle far more often?
I’d guess the emphasis on having been a teacher/coach is meant to contrast Chet’s private life with Nussle’s lack of non-government work (besides being a lawyer, which is a dirty word in the Republican party), but I’d like to see Chet talk more about his time as Sec of State.
In what goes down as the best moment of the day, Mary Culver told us she reads our blog and even recognized Hannah as a contributor. That is, of course, the quickest way to a blogger’s heart. Swoon. She said she was surprised Nussle had gone negative so early and speculated that low internal polling numbers motivated his turn to mudslinging.
As we made our way toward the stage we briefly got to speak with Jerome Armstrong and also shook hands with Mark Warner. Sadly, we didn’t get a chance to pose a question—the man seemed pretty intent on working the crowd. But something tells me we’ll be seeing a great deal more of him next year.
And then from Ben:
Shortly after, we watched Leonard Boswell take the stage. I know this isn’t news for many of you, but it was the first time I had seen the Boz since his successful surgery, and I just have to mention how good he looks. Slimmed down and full of energy, he looks at least 15 years younger. And he sounded confident.
He’s going to win this election and it won’t even be close.
After his speech, which I largely missed, Secretary of Ag. candidate Denise O’Brien spoke about the need for a “safe and healthy Iowa” to fairly large applause. Sec. of State candidate Mike Mauro spoke next and got the crowd riled up with an attack on Katherine Harris and the 2000 Florida Recount (The Dems are never going to forget that). Patty Judge, hopefully our next Lt. Governor, spoke afterwards. She’s not that polished but she gave the crowd some good lines. Biggest applause lines: education, abortion rights (”Choice matters in Iowa”), and perhaps surprisingly stem cell research. I’m not sure how potent that issue will actually be here in Iowa, but Claire McCaskill does seem to be using it with success in her Missouri senate race this year.
Something to think about…
Up next was Mark Warner, who seemed a bit out of place at this Iowa Dems event considering his presence wasn’t announced in advance, but was still greeted with fairly strong applause and a small standing O. He joked that some people still hadn’t recognized him at the event (maybe that’s why he was there — gotta get that name id up) and said, “It all starts in Iowa,” which I took to be a not-so-subtle reference to the 2008 Iowa caucuses. He ended with fists pumped and a “Let’s win” shout, which played well with the crowd.
Governor Vilsack spoke next, almost wistfully (”I’m ever so proud to be an Iowa Democrat. Ever so proud.”). He gave a sort of retrospective on the last eight years. He’s probably experiencing a bit of uncertainty right now, as he’ll soon be out of a job and though he’s eyeing the 2008 race, polls show him not even coming close to winning his own state’s caucuses… He spoke about the need for community and the positive role government can play in people’s lives. He talked about the fact that Americans were feeling anxious, especially after the Bush failures of Iraq and Katrina. It was actually one of the better speeches I’ve seen him give.
Culver spoke next and did a pretty good job of energizing the crowd.
Lots of Culver-Judge signs were waving. A choice quote: “I want to be the people’s governor. Jim Nussle wants to be the special interests ‘governor.” (Good, me likes the populist rhetoric.) He also said that “We’re ready to implement our plan when we get there.” I’m not sure how effective this “plan” rhetoric actually is. Most voters won’t read his plan, and it seems kind of vague, but maybe I’m wrong. He encouraged the crowd to take part in the three keys to victory: Volunteer (canvass, make calls), Visibility (put up signs, bumperstickers), and Vote (duh). This was good, I thought. Voters and activists want to feel engaged in the campaign. They want to feel part of something and the more they feel connected the more they will do. He promised the “Big Trifecta” would pull through in November.
Tom Harkin, the man of the hour, spoke next. Always gracious, he thanked the woman doing sign-language next to him on the stage. Seriously, this guy is full of heart. He said some nice words about Culver and then started ripping into the Republicans. He said the GOP was in “full fear-mongering mode” and they were trying to do anything to distract voters from “Bush’s war.” “There’s no virtue in staying the course if the course you’re on is headed over the cliff,” he said. “There’s no virtue in being strong and wrong.” He also threw some jabs at Nussle, saying that “Bush and Nussle are attached at the hip.”
Harkin’s smart: Bush is an anchor for every GOP candidate this year — from dog-catcher to senator.
Obamarama spoke next and boy did he get an applause. He complimented Iowa and said, “I’m going to have to come again.” Is he running in ‘08? More hints that he is. He gave a strong speech and the crowd obviously loved it. He recalled an anecdote where he met Marjorie Lewis, a 105-year-old black woman while he was running for the Senate. He then proceeded to tell America’s story through her life. It was an excellent rhetorical device and the speech really tugged at your Democratic and progressive heartstrings. He said that whenever he is cynical about politics he thinks of Marjorie Lewis and what she’s seen. It was a long speech, but his eloquent delivery seemed to keep the crowd captivated. I overheard one grandmotherly lady behind me remark that “Edwards-Obama would be a great ticket.” Interesting…
Needless to say he got a standing O at the end (actually he received several throughout the speech). Harkin thanked everyone for coming and that was it. We stayed around for a bit longer after the speeches, hoping to get a chance to interview Obama, Harkin, etc, which we were promised by the Harkin people but there was such a long line of well-wishers and star-struck fans that we figured it wasn’t worth it to wait around. So we packed up the car and headed home, scheming all the way home over who we’d like to run in 2008.
September 18th, 2006
The rumors are going around, and Vilsack is set to appear with Hillary in DC this week at a Democratic Governors Association press conference. Here’s how the Register reports it:
Some pundits as well as Democratic activists have suggested Vilsack would be a good fit on a ticket with Clinton as presidential nominee. Both are active in the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, and both have insisted they will not demand a specific date for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
A few days back, Hotline proposed some theories about the role Hillary could play in the race for the ‘08 Democratic nomination. Theory 1:
…unless she either doesn’t run or appears very vulnerable early on , one theory of the case holds that they will spend their time cozying up to her and tearing into each other. (Grover Norquist endorses that theory, too.) At least in part, they’ll try to use the primaries to audition for the general election.
To be clear: Bayh, Warner, Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsack — they all want to be president, not vice president. But they will almost certainly hedge their bets. They will not run a true-blue, rouse-the-base primary campaign.
Theory 2, however, simply says that Hillary is too polarizing a figure and won’t get anywhere. In that case, though, candidates might still stick to centrist rhetoric in an effort to distinguish themselves from Clinton (if the voters aren’t convinced by Hillary’s current centrist bent).
Frank Luntz’s piece today doesn’t talk much about this, but Luntz does attempt to lay out a strategy for Hillary to get elected. I’m really not sure a short, public essay could possibly prove useful to a presidential campaign, but here’s his first recommendation:
First, she must be herself. Her recent tack to the right - from equivocating on the Iraq war, to supporting a ban on flag burning - is fooling no one and is seriously agitating her liberal base. The reason Hillary became so popular in the first place was her unflinching willingness to tell it like it is. She must say what she means, and mean what she says.
Similarly, recent efforts by Clinton to inject religious references into her speeches to prove she’s a person of faith is like fingernails on a chalkboard to Democrat primary voters. Clinton must win the primary first - then worry about the general election. If Democrats really cared about religion, they’d be Republicans.
Will she? And is she really the vicious liberal that Luntz thinks she is in the first place? Perhaps, but it’s not looking like it right now.
I should also note that our coverage of 2008 contenders has been spotty of late. Our schedules haven’t permitted us to attend the candidates’ appearances across the state (which isn’t to say we don’t like getting the invitations, so thanks to the staffers who have kept us on their mailing lists…), so we’ve been reading Chris’s coverage on PoliticalForecast. We hope to get better as our schedules permit, but we still plan to spend more time analyzing the political issues facing Iowa than we’ll spend on national political celebrity watch.
And check out MyDD’s presidential straw poll, now reinstated. Chris Bowers rightly discontinued it four months ago because of how repetitive the results were, but maybe things will be different now.
July 17th, 2006
There’s been a fairly heated debate raging today over at Political Forecast about whether Culver has placed undo stress on choice during the campaign, and it seems people in the Iowa blogosphere aren’t the only ones to have noted how the navigation of this sticky issue has changed in state races.
The New York Times highlights our very own gubernatorial race as an example of how South Dakota has changed choice in state races. Instead of questions about how to regulate abortions, candidates are now faced with a binary choice: ban or no? This places candidates like Blouin, who are personally pro-life but oppose a ban, in an awkward position. How does one articulate a nuanced position on a hot-button issue without committing an “I supported abortion before I was against it” misstep? (That was meant to be rhetorical, but I reckon picking a pro-choice female doctor as a running mate and letting her answer the question is one method of assuaging people’s fears!)
The article also points out that no one really knows how this issue will play out. Some pro-lifers are against ban proposals because they don’t see them as a pragmatic approach to eliminating abortion, and worry that they will call pro-choicers to action (well duh!). Perhaps the Nussle folks are worried about this too, as Nussle declined an interview with the Times, and his spokesperson noted that he has not publicly stated whether he would support a ban. On the other hand, he may just be standing aside to let the Dems pick each other apart—a strategy that has obviously been working.
June 5th, 2006
