I had a day of politics while I was studying yesterday. Here it was:
1. First, I did something that I had not done in a long time: I listened to Rush Limbaugh. I don't entirely agree with him on organic farming, but he did say something obvious that I had not considered before: the media overestimate Bill Clinton's vote-getting ability. Rush read a headline that said Bill Clinton has decided to help Hillary's campaign, and he legitimately asked, "Well, what has he been doing?" Then, Rush argued that Clinton's reputation as a major vote-getter is a myth. Clinton couldn't save Gray Davis. He didn't get a majority of votes in 1992 and 1996. He lost the Congress to the Republicans during his first term. Why should we assume that all of America is enamored with Bill Clinton? I'm sure that the Clintons are enamored with the Clintons, but that doesn't mean everyone else is.
2. I was turning my TV to C-SPAN2 to watch the Republican debate, and its coverage of the Senate was still on. I saw an excellent presentation by Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. She was arguing for a reform of the farm subsidies program. She noted that farm subsidies went to areas that did not have many farms (e.g., Beverly Hills 90210), and she also proposed income limits as a criterion for who can receive them. According to Senator Klobuchar, there are millionaires who get rich off of the federal farm subsidy program. She stated that we need to be more responsible with the budget. I was surprised to find myself in agreement with a Democrat (for once). To her credit, Klobuchar acknowledged that President Bush has the same concerns that she does, and she expressed eagerness to work with Republicans on this issue. After her speech, I saw another example of bipartisanship for the common good. Senator Tom Harkin (a liberal Democrat) was working with Senator Tom Coburn (a conservative Republican) to make sure that people weren't getting rich off of federal farm subsidies. If only our leaders would unite more often to reduce government waste!
3. Finally, I watched the Iowa Republican debate. Alan Keyes got on my nerves, and I wished that the moderator would shut off his mike (though she was probably afraid he'd go ballistic). Apparently, Keyes has more support in Iowa than Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich. That's why he was on last night's debate, whereas Kucinich and Gravel won't be on the Democratic one tonight. So I guess the Democratic debate will be more boring than usual!
Fred Thompson got to appear as bad to the bone when he stood up to the moderator (oooooh!!!). He said that he wouldn't participate in the hand-raising exercises, and the people Frank Lutz interviewed were actually impressed by his bold leadership (I'm serious). Personally, regardless of what detractors say, I actually like it when the moderator asks for a show of hands in response to a question. It allows the candidates to give a clear answer rather than their usual spin. I was impressed with Thompson on other things. He blamed the National Education Association for the decline of American education. Looks like he lost their vote (and, for a moment, gained mine)! He injected humor into the debate when he told Romney that he (Mitt) was becoming a better actor. He also said something like, "Think about which candidate you would like to see dealing with this dangerous world, and he is the one you should elect as President." Well, I thought about his question for a second, and the name that came to my mind was "Giuliani." I'm sure that's not the answer Thompson was expecting. But I won't vote for Rudy because he's pro-choice.
A pundit on C-SPAN2 was calling the debate a free ride for Huckabee, apparently because he was not grilled on serious issues like his stance on Mormonism. But, during the debate, I thought something about Huckabee. The thought's been swimming in my mind for a while, but it came to the surface last night. It was: "What exactly are his policy proposals?" He affirms that we need art and music in schools. He says that all Americans should have the same quality of health care as Congress. In the Tavis Smiley debate, he lamented the existence of racism in America. But does he have a plan for the government to deal with these problems, which is the impression that Tancredo got? Or is his plan simply to use the bully pulpit to encourage others to address them? If his idea is the former, should we expect him to govern as a big government "conservative"? And if his idea is the latter, what makes him think that anyone will listen to him as President (as eloquent and as likable as he may be)?
I have some thoughts on what Huckabee said about consensus, but those will have to wait for another day.