Recently there was a little spat in New Hampshire between CNN correspondent Dana Bash and presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX). For years, I have considered Bash to be a good correspondent, particularly her work on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail. But as reported in the Huffington Post, she asks Paul a question that is appallingly unrelated to what we need to know about a presidential candidate. It occurs near the end of the two-minute clip below.

Bash: “At the last, stop where you just were, in Madison, there was a woman there who was a New Hampshire voter, who had voted for Barack Obama in last primary, and she told me that if she would have been able to shake your hand and look you in the eye, you would have gotten her vote but now she’s turned off because you left. Does that say anything about your ability to connect?”

Paul spokesman, Jesse Benton, who was there immediately said, “This is junk, a junk question. We’re stopping.” At that point Paul and his contingent walked off. Bash had a shocked look and said, “I wanted to ask about a voter.”

Well, Ms. Bash may have thought that she wanted to ask about a voter. But with the question phrased, “Does that say anything about your ability to connect” she clearly was addressing the candidate. She wasn’t asking Ron Paul about his views on aid to Israel or to explain how the current monetary policy is undermining the economy. She wanted to know if he had difficulty connecting with a voter, and thus all voters, because at some point he had to leave an appearance and didn’t have time to shake everyone’s hand and look them in the eye.

Was her expectation that every candidate for office is not going to leave an appearance until he or she personally connects with each individual there? If a candidate was scheduled to meet with a group of union leaders about job creation, would she prefer the candidate to be late or not show at all because he or she was still shaking hands somewhere down the road?

A more appropriate question for Dana Bash to have asked Ron Paul about the woman was, “Does that say anything about the American electorate?” Do voters really make their decision on whether or not to vote for a candidate based on whether or not the candidate is able to shake their hand and look them in the eye?

If Ms. Bash’s question was frivolous, it was no worse than what her husband, reporter John King, also of CNN, did in the first Republican debate in June, 2011. He thought that the public could learn more about candidates if he asked them “personal questions” that would give voters into their real values. So he asked one candidate which he preferred, Coke or Pepsi. He asked another who they preferred, Leno or Conan. These were both supercilious and no-win questions to the candidates.

If Dana Bash and John King want to query candidates about the likes of handshakes and Pepsi, so be it. But by doing so, they lose any and all credibility in criticizing candidates for not being “heavyweights” when it comes to knowing the issues. Candidates could clearly benefit from less time on the road pandering to any audience and more time studying the issues. If reporters represent frivolity, then how should candidates respond?

It’s clear from other appearances that Dana Bash and John King are both very bright. They need to remind us of that.

The post Can we please spare our candidates from the triviality? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I disagree with Ron Paul on almost everything. Almost.

His views on government [he basically says it should have virtually no role in our lives], the “free” market, the environment, the economy, states’ rights, a woman’s right to control her own body, healthcare in general [and Medicare in specific], and most social issues, would make him a very bad choice for President of the United States [which I’m not sure he actually believes in, either.] I could never vote for the man, and I have apocalyptic visions of what American could become if he were in the White House.  But when he starts talking about war—specifically, America’s most recent wars—I find myself secretly cheering. And, apparently, I’m not the only person who calls herself progressive who reacts this way.

To demonstrate what I’m talking about, I’ve assembled a collection of Paul’s pronouncements on America’s wars. He’s wrong for the White House, but on this one issue, he seems to have it right, and he’s been pushing back against America’s wrong-headed wars for many years. Unfortunately, politicians who speak out in this way—like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich—are generally portrayed as unpatriotic and as kooks and wackos.  I wish others on all points along the political spectrum had the courage to say these things:

1.

This whole idea that was encapsulated with the last administration that “we endorse preventive war, pre-emptive war; we go to war to prevent somebody from attacking us,” that is endless war—and for casual reasons, without declaration. I think that is so dangerous. We should have a defense; we should defend our country. But when you talk about bases because we might need an offensive war, I consider that absolutely un-American.  [Fox News, June 22, 2011]

2.

You’ve heard the war propaganda that is liable to lead us into a sixth war. And I worry about that position. Iran is a threat because they have some militants there. But believe me, they’re all around the world and they’re not a whole lot different than others. Iran does not have an air force that can come here. They can’t even make enough gasoline for themselves. And here we are building this case up, just like we did in Iraq–build up the war propaganda. There was no al Qaeda in Iraq. And [Bush claimed Iraq] had nuclear weapons and we had to go in. I’m sure you supported that war, as well. It’s time we quit this. It’s trillions of dollars we’re spending on these wars. [Iowa Straw Poll Republican Debate, August 11, 2011]

3.

… I wouldn’t wait for my generals. I’m the commander in chief. I make the decisions. I tell the generals what to do. I’d bring them home as quickly as possible. And I would get them out of Iraq as well. And I wouldn’t start a war in Libya. I’d quit bombing Yemen. And I’d quit bombing Pakistan. Our national security is not enhanced by our presence over there. We have no purpose there. We should learn the lessons of history. The longer we’re there, the worse things are and the more danger we’re in, because our presence there is not making friends. [Republican debate, June 13, 2011]

4.

The war in Iraq was one of the most ill considered, poorly planned and just plain unnecessary military conflicts in American history, and I opposed it from the beginning. [The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul, April 1, 2008]

5.

It should be harder to promote war, especially when there are so many regrets in the end. In the last 60 years, the American people have had little to say over decisions to wage war. We have allowed a succession of presidents and the U.N. to decide when and if we go to war, without an express congressional declaration as the Constitution mandates. Since 1945, our country has been involved in over 70 active or covert foreign engagements. On numerous occasions we have provided weapons and funds to both sides in a conflict. It is not unusual for our so-called allies to turn on us and use these weapons against American troops. In recent decades we have been both allies and enemies of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and the Islamists in Iran. And where has it gotten us? The endless costs resulting from our foolish policies, in human lives, injuries, tax dollars, inflation, and deficits, will burden generations to come. For civilization to advance, we must reduce the number of wars fought.  [A Foreign Policy of Freedom, Ron Paul, 2007]

6.

Was the Iraq war a good idea and worth the price? It was a very bad idea, and it wasn’t worth it. The al Qaeda wasn’t there then; they’re there now. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Had nothing to do with 9/11. There was no aggression. This decision on policy was made in 1998 because they called for the removal of Saddam Hussein. It wasn’t worth it, and it’s a sad story because we started that war and we should never be a country that starts war needlessly.  [Republican debate, Boca Raton, FL, 2008]

7.

For civilization to advance, we must reduce the number of wars fought. Two conditions must be met if we hope to achieve this.  First, all military (and covert paramilitary) personnel worldwide must refuse to initiate offensive wars beyond their borders This must become a matter of personal honor for every individual.  Second, the true nature of war must be laid bare, and the glorification must end. Instead of promoting war heroes with parades and medals for wars not fought in the true defense of our country, we should more honestly contemplate the real results of war: death, destruction, horrible wounds, civilian casualties, economic costs, and the loss of liberty at home. The neoconservative belief that war is inherently patriotic, beneficial, manly, and necessary for human progress must be debunked. These war promoters never send themselves or their own children off to fight. Their hero, Machiavelli, must be buried once and for all.  [A Foreign Policy of Freedom, Ron Paul, 2007]

If, by some chance, Ron Paul wins the Republican presidential nomination, it won’t be because of his views on war.  But whoever wins the 2012 presidential election would be very wise to appoint Ron Paul to the cabinet as Secretary of Peace.

The post The wrong candidate is right [sort of] appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Conservatives breathe the same air as progressives; they drink the same water. They fly the same planes and they eat the same food.

It would stand to reason that conservatives are just as concerned as liberals about longevity, avoiding toxins, safety in our skies and avoiding food poisoning.

Yet conservative are willing, even anxious, to reduce or eliminate the regulations that we have to protect ourselves from illness, injury, or even death. They cite the burdens of regulations and taxes on businesses as reasons why our economy is in neutral at best, as the job market continues to stagnate.

Maybe they know something that progressives don’t. In their view, businesses, left to their own devices, will take all necessary steps to protect both their workers and their customers. If this means not polluting our lakes, rivers and streams with toxic effluents, they will take whatever measures are necessary. If this means ensuring that the food we eat is safe, they will test the meats, fruits, vegetables we eat to ensure that no unwanted bacteria or viruses are present.

Perhaps what conservatives know and progressives don’t is that all citizens, particularly those in business, and most particularly those running mega-businesses, are kind, gentle, altruistic individuals. Yes, they want to make a profit, but not at the expense of the public good.

What conservatives don’t like is the imposition on their freedom from government regulations, no matter how noble the purpose of the regulations might be. It’s like one adult being told by another to drive safely. Why say it? The driver already knows it.

There are some of us who even flaunt rules when we think that they are unnecessary or just plain silly. If we see a message in a theater with a high-amp sound system telling us to be quiet during the movie, we may be inclined to carry on a conversation, because the movie is assaulting us with excessive decibels.

So, if the conservatives are right, at least in theory, in their contention that even reasonable regulations are not needed because those whom they impact already know what to do, then maybe progressives should back off and eliminate some or all of these regulations. It would cut costs, humanize relations between competing groups, and perhaps most importantly, affirm the basic “goodness” of humankind.

On the other hand, if government eliminates regulations and private industry shows a lack of regard for public safety, then conservatives have a choice to make. They can join progressives in supporting necessary regulations to protect us from harm. Or they can follow the option expressed by Rep. Ron Paul in the “Tea Party” debate on Sept. 13. We can live with whatever results the free market provides us. Ron Paul, who is a physician, felt that it was more important for a seemingly healthy thirty-year-old to have the right to not buy health insurance than it is for him or her to be treated in a hospital for a serious injury. If recovery could come only after emerging from a six-month coma, then the market would say, “Tough luck; you could have chosen to buy insurance, but you didn’t.” You die, and the market wins.

One of the key characteristics of progressives is empathy. We are uncomfortable with and pained by the thirty-year-old dying because he or she hadn’t purchased insurance in a free market system. There is something greater to us than the sanctity of the free market.

So, if conservatives can provide convincing evidence that the private sector has a conscience that cares for others as effectively as regulations do, then I’ll join them in their efforts to de-regulate America. However, if left to its own devices, the private sector shows little regard for the health and safety of others, then I’ll remain committed to my support of regulations. Of greater importance is, if in the face of evidence that deregulation leaves people unnecessarily at risk, will conservatives accept the necessity of regulations. If the answer to that is yes, then I’ll believe in the integrity of the current anti-regulation mantra expressed by conservatives.

The post Maybe progressives just don’t know how responsible conservatives are appeared first on Occasional Planet.