Barack Obama Passing on Town Hall Debates is a Mistake

Barack Obama said during his interview with Tom Brokaw that he is moving away from the Town Hall debates idea floated just after the Democratic primary ended, and sticking to three traditional moderated debates instead.

My question is, why?

It is plain to see who has the oratorical edge, who is better on their feet, and who has the issues advantage in this election.

So why are we not looking to hammer McCain and make him look ridiculous on a grand scale? It doesn't have to be anything like getting to the Republicans level and attacking him, I just mean airing out all his flip flops, bad policies, and GWB-like qualities with an audience at home watching.

Can't you see McCain getting flustered in that type of setting, showing that anger we've all heard numerous stories about? I sure can, and I don't know why Obama isn't pushing for it. He doesn't have to attack McCain, he just would have to poke at him enough for Johnny to implode on himself like a dying star. Kind of like the last week has done. Barack did nothing but show why he would be a more effective Commander in Chief, and it riled McCain into making almost a baker's dozen of horrendous mistakes, gaffes and outright lies.

The debates he came off best in during the primary season were the informal ones, where both people sit, either behind a desk or on stools. In the podium debates, he seemed to lose a bit of his gravitas. Now he is the one advocating those as the only method of direct interaction with McCain until November.

Maybe he doesn't want to be paired with McCain in the sense that he could be seen as the big black man dominating the old white guy. Who knows. Or it could be plants in the audience with fluff questions like the flag pin, or attack questions about Rev. Wright or him being a Muslim. Maybe he fears being seen as a snob or an elitist while McCain turns up the good ol' Straight-Talkin' charm.

In short, maybe Obama smells a setup.

This is about the only rationale I can see for not putting himself and a lesser opponent together in a free-wheeling environment.

I don't doubt that Obama will do well against McCain in the traditional debates, but he could do so much more with even one Town Hall.

It just seems like a missed opportunity, where McCain could have been very much exposed, within an hour or so, for the liar, flip flopper and Pander Bear that he is.

I don't know, maybe I'm missing some sort of strategic play here from the Obama camp, but to me, Town Hall debates seem tailor made for a huge Obama advantage.

Cross-Posted on Daily Kos Under the name Red Star

Anti-Media Media

As I was watching The Daily Show tonight, I was thinking about how more than ever, it seems there are some media types that have really started to tee off on the ridiculous coverage of this election, and the insipid nature of the state of journalism as a whole.

John Stewart usually devotes at least the first segment of his show, every single night, to lambasting McCain, and the media by proxy. I know Stewart has always had an 'edge', but it seems like after the writer's strike ended, he was filled with a different kind of fire, and I like it.

Keith Olbermann is a prominent member of the so-called 'MSM' that seems to be trending harder and harder against the media as a whole, calling out CBS, BIG TIME, for the jimmied up editing of the McCain interview the other night. Also of course, there is his long battle with Bill-O from a certain news channel that Nas protested today for, gasp, racist and biased coverage.

These are two examples of the 'Anti-Media Media', who are a part of mainstream news or pop culture, who consistently criticize others in their own medium.

Rachel Maddow and Arianna Huffington would be another two who are bucking the trends of modern journalism for the pure sake of rationality and truthful coverage.

It's like journalism died around these people over the last few years, and they are kind of standing in the ruins, contemplating just WTF happened.

Without these few, the Hannity's, Limbaugh's, Blitzer's and Katie Couric's of the world would be considered all too normal. (Well, maybe not Hannity)

Lightness breaking into darkness, Jedi vs Sith, pick your metaphor, you get the gist.

Of these, only Olbermann can truly be considered mainstream, with a nightly show on a major network, but the others do their part to squeeze the tiny bits they can into the narrative that is being told.

John McCain might get a largely free ride on his now daily idiocy, but with a handful of names fighting for the issues and reporting the stories that others won't, the ones discussed here and on hundreds of other communities, we may just be able to sneak a little bit of this truth thing into the argument.

With McCain's frequent flubs, there are dozens of opportunities to nail him to the wall. 9 times out of 10, he's probably going to slither past, but every now and then, as with the CBS interview, he's going to get hit, and we have the members of the Anti-Media Media to thank for that.

Cross-posted on Daily Kos under the name Red Star

Finally! : After 5 Years, UN Takes Action on Sudan

Sudan has been something that has horrified anyone that even had a cursory understanding of the situation for over 5 years now.

Now we have found out what everyone suspected all along, that the Khartoum government was sponsoring and planning the genocide from its highest levels. A high level commander in the janjaweed militia now says that their actions : raping, pillaging, killing and burning villages in the Darfur region, was straight from Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir.

We all knew this was likely the case, but now there is confirmation, and as this person spilling the beans is a high level commander, it just makes the information carry that much more weight.

There were two other major news pieces on Sudan this week as well.

There is now evidence to confirm that China has played a significant role in aiding the genocide militarily, as Chinese military vehicles have been spotted in use on both sides of the conflict. Leaving all moral conflicts aside from helping this sort of movement along, this contravenes a 2005 UN ban on military aid to the Sudanese government. With a recent move to 'not anger China', this will likely go to the wayside, but in the larger sense of the court of public opinion, China's direct support for the Darfur genocide is now on record.

Also, the UN War Crimes Tribunal is likely going to try the leaders of the African nation for war crimes at the Hague for their role in the slaughter.

So, after 5 years of inaction, while it was the cause celebre of the celebrities and non-body hair shaving activists everywhere, we have some solid results on Sudan.

None of this means the genocide will stop, as this news isn't a major change of pace from what we already understood about the conflict. But what it does mean is that countries, such as Canada, can take action now, with hard evidence showing the crimes of Khartoum.

Being bogged down in Afghanistan may prevent us from really stepping up, it just makes it harder for Omar Hassan al-Bashir to continue to deny help from the African Union or the UN to stop the violence.

Sudan is a complex situation, and it will require a lot more than words and empty threats to make the changes that are needed. I think the same is true for Zimbabwe.

The western world largely turns a blind eye to continent as a whole, and only slightly turns a head when millions are dying in horrible and savage conditions. This conflict and the new details about it, seem to have finally broke through and reached a point where people really give a shit, and are prepared to take action.

I hope so, and I hope the war crimes charges stick, I hope China is censured, and I hope we never have to discuss this kind of topic ever again.

But then again, when have 'millions displaced, hundreds of thousands killed' ever really made a meaningful difference in the future?

Remember Rwanda? We said never again. And then we let it happen again.



We need to act. It is just that simple.

G8 Summit : Loooowwwerred Expectaaaatttions...

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Environment Minister John Baird dampened expectations for wide-ranging deals on basically anything at the upcoming G8 Summit in Japan.

There are too many to list off, but climate change and the world economy are the two heavy hitters right now. Environment, at least, is getting pushed back before it evens begins to take hold as an issue, with Baird stating we all have to wait about 18 months, until Fall / Winter 2009 in Denmark, where the next major UN climate change conference will be held.

Yasuo Fukuda, the PM of Japan and host of the summit, wanted to set an agenda to halve greenhouse gases by 2050, at the very least. This was immediately rebuffed by the US, as always. Fukuda declined to say specifically if the US was blocking a deal, but if they weren't Baird and Harper probably would have made the ol' college try themselves.

There are other opportunities for climate change discussions, Baird stated, saying essentially that Canada could build momentum at the G8 for Copenhagen in '09. This seems like the usual right-wing 'stall on climate change until we're out of power' routine, but there are actual opportunities for discussion here, as emerging economic powers like China, India and Brazil will be attending, with a contingent of African nations as well.

I see nothing meaningful coming out of these meetings in terms of climate change, because the biggest polluter, the US, is seeing it's most unpopular President out of power this year, and his final months will not be spent on climate change. They will be spent trying in his own halfassed way to broker peace in the Middle East in Israel / Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond.

Nothing else matters, and nothing else will be accomplished before the US inaugurates its next President.

On the global economic front, there is more ideological games to be played, as the conservative leaning leaders are pushing deregulation and free trade as a way to shore up flagging economies. As has been shown with Mr. Bush, who deregulated the financial industry at home and signed free trade deals with anyone that would scrawl their name next to his, conservative ideology no longer applies, and never really did.

As with climate change, with Bush riding out of power, nothing will be accomplished. The US will continue bungling around, maybe send out another rebate cheque and bomb Iran before November. That's about it.

The last thing on the docket, apparently, is Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe, one of the more successful despots there has been in Africa, in terms of keeping his iron grip on power even with one of the worst economies in all of human history. I'm sure many have heard and read about the one man elections and intimidated opposition dropouts. There seems to be a video out now as well, which shows vote rigging in the election held a few weeks ago. Why there was vote rigging in a one-man election I don't know.

The point is, and Harper actually said this the other day, to have 'one voice' from the G8 criticizing Mugabe, and further pressuring him to either step down or allow foreign intervention to have free and fair elections, where Mugabe would likely get trounced.

That may be an easy way to show progress in this G8 Summit, because in place of all the things that actually matter, such as war, economy, climate change, HIV, etc, etc, we are going to get an empty threat to a dictator who likely will ignore it and continue in power until he dies.

Awesome.

As the title says, these guys really know how to do Loooowwwerred Expectaaaatttions... :



........................

Maybe I'm a tad cynical this morning, and this piece may have been a little more biting than intended, but seeing inaction in the face of so many challenges is rather aggravating. And when I get aggravated, like Hulk, I SMASH....well not really, I write political articles, I don't really smash a thing.....

Dion's Delivery Failure -- And No, I'm Not Talking Emails Here

As you can tell by the last article I posted up, I am in favor of a carbon tax to address the problems of climate change.

Now, this support of the BC plan does not mean I support the idea across the board.

Here we come to the point of this post, which is Stephane Dion's proposed federal carbon tax. It has been hammered from the start, much like the BC Liberals plan, from all sides. There is a reason why though, and it points towards a huge part of Dion's overall problem as Liberal leader.

Delivery.

The BC Liberals delivered their carbon tax with hard-set plans to offset the tax through tax cuts and dividend cheques. It hasn't quelled the furor, but when people actually get down to it, and look at their paystubs, hopefully the message finally hits home, and I don't have to convince person after person, some who I view as extremely bright, that the carbon tax is not akin to Satan rising up from the depths of Hell to swallow children.

That aside, Dion did not deliver his carbon tax in any way that would have been palatable. He introduced it flippantly, without a plan to show why it would be revenue neutral, and has been shooting himself in the foot with the details ever since.

There are some plans in place now, with hard prices per tonne of carbon ($10 in the first year, rising to $40 by the fourth year). There will be tax increases of around $15 billion on the highest fossil fuel consumers and carbon emitters, and it will be offset by around $15 billion in tax cuts, which trickle mostly to lower and middle income families who will feel most tightly squeezed by the new rules.

From CBC.ca :

• A 1.5 percentage point rate reduction for the lowest tax bracket (the first $37,885 of taxable income), to 13.5 per cent from 15.
• A one percentage point rate reduction for the second-lowest tax bracket ($37,885-$75,769), to 21 per cent from 22.
• A one percentage point rate reduction for the bracket between $75,769 and $123,184, to 25 per cent from 26.

There is also set to be a supplement of $1225 to low income families with kids under 18, by the fourth year, there will be a $350 child tax credit every year, and rural taxpayers would receive a $150 dividend cheque every year.

Dion predicts a family of four with an income of $60,000 / year will actually end up saving $1300 a year under these types of programs, even though their fuel costs will have risen.

Dion has also pledged that gas prices will not rise due to his new tax, which I personally find to be the most troubling part of the whole idea. Basically the justification for this belief is that oil and gas companies are already making tremendous profits off our backs, so they wouldn't translate the new tax over to the pump.

If I may, let me just say, bullshit. Absolute bullshit. The large oil and gas producers have already translated higher costs of oil down to us, at a rate higher than what the actual cost of a barrel of oil is rising. They have shown no remorse in raping everyone at the pump up until now, so where is the belief that they will magically stop? This tax is targeted to make their industry more expensive to run, and eventually either force them to diversify or die. If I'm in that position, I'm probably not going to be too peachy about going along and making the plan easier to swallow.

Gas prices will likely rise nationally, and Dion will have to account for it, or risk losing the whole argument up front.

The most major part, as with BC, in selling this kind of plan, is to make it 'revenue neutral'. Ah, there's that lovely buzzword again. He has pledged to make it so, and to have the Auditor General do a review every year to ensure that commitment continues to hold water.

Dion has said flat-out that within four years of his new system, costs for a regular, median household in Canada would rise $225-$250. Home heating costs will jump up to 8%. But as those increases will be offset by tax cuts, we're all good right? Wrong.

The most vocal critic of this plan has obviously been Stephen Harper, who is a much better communicator and politician than the BC carbon tax's main opponent, Carole James of the NDP. The fact that Harper can communicate his opposition, and basically Western Canada's opposition to Dion's plan so well may doom it from the start. Harper can deliver his ideas, Dion cannot.

I may not like Dion's style, but he seems to be rather ballsy when it comes to something he believes in. He has said flat-out this tax will hurt Saskatchewan and Alberta most (Alberta obviously, but Saskatchewan due to a high number of coal-fired power plants) and now he is touring there to sell / convince skeptics. If nothing else, this may push Dion's timid and tepid image to the back burner a bit.

The carbon tax. Yes, we need it. Yes, it will help us in the end, even though it may be painful now. Yes, BC, and Canada can be world leaders in green technology.

The problem is that it is long term. Our politics, mindsets, society, is all instant. Instant gratification, quick money and real-time results is what we thrive on, and it is not what the carbon tax gives us.

This is why, in the end, I am labeling Dion's ideas good, but his delivery of them as absolutely craptacular. The carbon tax is something you push through when already in power (see Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberals), not something to campaign upon. You campaign on those short-term, positive sounding ideas that sell you and your government to the people, then you start the wide-ranging, long term policies once in office.

This is fairly fundamental in our politics, but it is something Dion doesn't seem to grasp.

It's all about the message, where, when and how it is communicated.

In short, my friends, it is about the delivery, something Dion needs to learn if he has a hope in hell of selling his carbon tax, and the Liberals as a whole to Canada.