policy with pop

The Best Political Speech of the Past Decade

With many reflecting on the top of so and so in the past decade (congrats to ‘Nsync for having the best selling album with No Strings Attached and to Mariah Carey for earning the top song with We Belong Together), I thought I’d put my two cents on the top political speech of 2000-09.

When thinking about the best political speakers of the past decade two men instantly pop out. And while both these men can lay claim to holding the highest office in the land, it is a woman who won the honors of being the Best Political Speech of the Past Decade according to PolicyWithPop.com (aka me).

If Hillary Clinton had spoken like this during the primaries, she might be President today. Like her historic bid for the White House, Clinton’s 2008 Democratic National Convention speech was epic. 

On that night, she had the awkward task of making the case for Barack Obama when a few weeks ago she was making the case against him in a heated primary. On top of that, she had to respond to criticism that she dragged out the primary because she refused to quit. Oh, and she was obligated to take jabs at the Republican nominee, John McCain. No other speaker had so much on his or her plate. And, Hillary rose to the occasion.

Known more for having a wonky speaking-style, Hillary employed passion, humor, and inspiration in this speech.

To make the case for Obama and call for unity in the Democratic Party, she connected the issues she ran on to Obama. By doing so, Hillary argued that Democrats should vote Obama for substantive reasons, while highlighting and associating her groundbreaking campaign with those causes.

With this speech, Hillary was able to reframe her campaign from the barrage of criticism that she had stayed in the primary for too long. “To my supporters, my champions – my sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits - from the bottom of my heart: Thank you. You never gave in. You never gave up. And together we made history,” said the future Secretary of State. She utilized her image as a fighter that never quits and emphasized the historic nature of her campaign.

Hillary also had some memorable zingers against her friend, John McCain. “No way. No how. No McCain” was probably the best condensed line of attack on the Republican nominee at the convention. And, of course, Hillary used the Bush card. After listing positions McCain and President George W. Bush shared, she humorously added, “With an agenda like that, it makes perfect sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together next week in the Twin Cities, because these days they’re awfully hard to tell apart.”

But perhaps the highlight of her speech was when she quoted Harriet Tubman, a black female New Yorker who helped lead slaves to freedom. The symbolism of Harriet Tubman and her “keep going” message resonated on so many levels. It was a brilliant move.

Considering everything this speech had to do, it was well-crafted and executed excellently. Thus, Hillary Rodham Clinton earns PolicyWithPop.com's Best Political Speech of the Past Decade. Congrats, Madam Secretary!

Obviously, this is just one blogger’s pick for the best speech of the past decade. Is there another performance that I am missing? Who deserves the top honors in your ears?

BCS: Bowl Congressional Series?

College football is one of the most thrilling sports to watch. Take a look at one of the most exciting games of this year:

Heading into the game, Norte Dame was predicted to win against the Michigan Wolverines. But, the Victors prevailed despite the chatter.

With that in mind, in recent years the University of Southern California football team is annually hyped as the contender for the national title. Yet, nearly every year USC kills its chances to play in the national championship game by losing to a lower tier PAC-10 school. Then USC fans decry the unfairness of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) system, claiming that USC is best team in the country. Remember when USC convinced coaches to award it a #1 ranking in the AP/Coach’s Poll and then proclaimed itself to be the national champions? Take that, BCS!

The BCS system selects two teams to play for the national championship based on rankings, determined by… the AP Poll, Coaches’ Poll and computer average? Does anyone really know how the BCS works? Anyway, proponents of this system argue that this system reduces the amount of the physically-intensive games student-athletes go through while properly selecting bowl match-ups.  BCS supporters believe that a play-off system would prolong an already long season and take an unnecessary toll on the college kids.

USC fans are not the only BCS-haters, Members of Congress are getting into the mix and in a bi-partisan way too! Busy congressmen found time in between debating healthcare reform and troop levels in Afghanistan to create a political, fundraising group, the “Play-off PAC.” The money raised from this PAC will go to politicians who support getting rid of the BCS system and replace it with… a play-off system, which they argue would be fairer and generate millions of dollars by adding extra games.

Who is part of this group? Money will go to such politicians like Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, who saw his Utah Utes  go undefeated last season yet be shut out of the national game, and Democratic Congressman Neil Abercrombie, who co-sponsored the Championship Fairness Act of 2009. This is an important issue to these lawmakers. Rep. Abercrombie slammed the BCS system as an exclusive country club… that apparently excludes USC…

Do you think college football should get rid of the BCS system in favor of play-offs? Or are USC and certain congressmen just bitter? Is there another system?

And what is your reaction to the congressional intervention of college football? Is it necessary or just a ploy to raise money?

Facebook Status Updates on President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize Win

Where do you go for news? I get my news from Facebook.

Of course, I also go to internet news sites to get verification and more details. But, Facebook allows me to see what stories my friends are interested in as well as their opinions. And you know how much I love to read people’s opinions (comment on my blog please)!

Anyway, yesterday I learned from Facebook status updates that President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. My Facebook friends had a lot of thoughts on the selection. Here’s a highlight of what I learned from my friends (to protect their identities, names have been changed but their grammatical and spelling errors have not):

The Harsh

Feisty  Frenchie “is wondering if the members of the Nobel Prize Committee have TV and read newspapers! As far as I can tell, Obama was not yet successful at settling the Arab-Israeli conflict…  or easing tensions with Iran… or coming to an agreement with North Korea… or bring the Burmese junta to the negotiate… I love the guy but that looks more like an ‘E’ for effort!”

Former Obama campaigner is “pretty stunned Obama got the prize. Where’s the peace?”

Mr. Protocol says, “First peace then a prize, not the other way around.”

Just Saying points out: “You Know Gandhi never got a nobel peace prize…hrmm…”

Designated (Political) Driver’s observations: “Obama receives Nobel Peace Prize. Clearly everyone has drank the Koolaid.”

Clever guy writes “What?! Is it true? Barack Obama just won project runway???”

Burn… And these comments are from my liberal-hippie buddies. Now a few words from my pals from the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Female, minority GOP supporter wonders: “is this a joke, Nobel Committee?????”

Conservative movie critic’s review: “Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace prize is like Shakespeare in Love winning the Oscar for Best Movie. If it’s a bad year, just save the award….”

Wordy-McWord-Word publishes, “You’ve got to be kidding me!! Some people spend their entire lives working towards achieving peace in their home regions and don’t even win the prize. This guy only makes a few passionate speeches…and he’s automatically qualified to become a Nobel laureate? Moreover, he’s been in office for less than a year and hasn’t even done anything worth writing home about. This the HYPE surrounding Obama is utterly absurd, and its way out of control. But who knows…maybe if future presidential candidates use the term ‘hope’ in their campaign slogans, they too can win the Nobel Prize.”

The Happy

Guy who drank the Kool-Aid exclaims, “Well done! Celebrate this and let it embolden you to further action.”

Deep Thoughts proclaims, “The world is bigger than one self-important nation. Keep the message alive, President Obama.”

ObamaFanBoy240131 writes, “Congratulations, Mr. President!!!”

In the Winner’s Circle points out that “Thorbjorn Jagland, chairman of the Nobel committee, said the decision was ‘unanimous’ and came with ease. Hope prevails :)”

In the Middle

Makin’ It Work states, “So I'm definitely an Obama fan...but really??? still pondering this one. Maybe it was retitled ‘Noble (Potential) Peace Prize’ How about ‘Nobel Peace Prize - Most Improved’?”

Mr. Analysis concludes, “Apparently Obama just won the Nobel Peace Prize for not being George W. Bush”

Historian-in-the making scribes: “Today cannot be real: Barack wins Nobel Peace Prize, Marge Simpson on Playboy’s cover, Limbaugh to judge Miss America!?”

In Other News

Unemployed’s stream of consciousness: “I want a Nobel Peace Prize! Oh, wait. A freaking JOB would be good enough at this point.”

Observant but hungry writes, “haven’t eaten today, just watched people eat. that’s all.”

With that, my summary ends. But what are your thoughts on President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize?

Evolution Gives Kirk Cameron Growing Pains

Once known for playing troublemaker Mike Seaver on the sitcom “Growing Pains,” Kirk Cameron found God and started the Way of the Master, a Christian evangelical ministry. One of his current projects is to dispel the theory of evolution.

On the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s Origin of Species, Kirk and his ministry will distribute special copies of the book that includes a forward, discrediting Darwinism, at top colleges around the country. Watch Kirk explain his reasoning and plan:

Kirk says, “Our kids can no longer pray in public. They can no longer freely open a Bible at school. The Ten Commandments are no longer allowed to be displayed in public places.” Now, if taken literally, Kirk’s assertions are factually incorrect. But, I think what he is really concerned about it that the government cannot force or coerce a religion Christianity on public school children and people in general. Is this concern valid?

To fight the growing atheism in the USA, Kirk opens up with an attack on Darwin’s theory of evolution… well, not the theory itself… more like attacking Darwin. Kirk calls Darwin a racist and sexist. He also cites Hitler’s connection with the theory. If these assertions are true, are they effective in discrediting Darwin? How about discrediting his theory of evolution?

Isn’t Kirk opening Christianity up to similar attacks? The Bible has been historically used to justify racism and sexism. Hitler also invoked the Lord’s name to justify the persecution of Jews. Do these arguments discredit Christianity? Or God?

But Kirk is not done; he tries to make scientific-based jabs at the theory of evolution. He mocks the notion that “nothing created everything” as absurd. That might be true, but what does the big bang theory have to do with the validity of Darwinism? Kirk also mentions the incredible structure of DNA… But he doesn’t explain how DNA disproves evolution. Last, Kirk states that there is an absence of fossil evidence to support evolution. Finally, Kirk puts a dent in evolution! But just because you can’t see the evidence, doesn’t mean that evolution doesn’t exist, does it? You tell me.

In place of evolution, Kirk would like students to believe in creationism (or intelligent design). Kirk states that creationism has scientific credence because famous scientists, including Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton and Louis Pasteur, believed in God. Do these endorsements validate creationism in your eyes?

Aside from Kirk Cameron’s arguments against Darwinism and for creationism, what do you think about his grassroots strategy? Does giving out 1,000 special edition copies of Darwin’s Origin of Species at each top 50 college advance his goal of a less atheist nation?

If you attend a top 50 university, will you try to get your hands on a free copy of Origin of Species – a $29.99 value?

Congressman Joe Wilson Fries for Saying the President Lies

Decorum? What decorum?

Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) screamed at President Obama, accusing the President of being a liar when he said his healthcare plan would not cover undocumented immigrants during the President’s Joint Session of Congress.

If you missed it, here is the clip:

Did you see Speaker Pelosi’s face? Shock and disgust.

And of course, every Congressional Democrat was outraged. Some are even talking about censuring the boisterous Republican. And, of course, they are cashing in on his outburst. Representative Wilson’s Democratic challenger raised more than $400,000 in one day.

While most Congressional Republicans have noted that Congressman Wilson’s outburst was inappropriate (including Wilson himself), some are coming to his defense. The "hottest freshman in Congress" Aaron Schock points out that Democratic membersaccused President Bush of being a liar in the past.

True. But, they made those comments at during their own speeches, press conferences and interviews, not at a Presidential address. Is it better that Wilson made the accusation to the President’s face? Or was the Joint Session of Congress an inappropriate time and place? If so, should he be punished?

Of course, Democrats expressed their displeasure at President Bush’s speeches during his Joint Sessions and State of the Unions. But, they booed and hissed at his policy positions. Is that are arguably different than making a shouted personal attack at President Obama’s character? Or is booing just as disrespectful during a Presidential address?

What do you make of Wilson’s comments? Was he accurate or lying himself? How does his behavior reflect on him and Republicans? And does this news bit help or detract from Obama’s efforts to win support for his healthcare plan?

By the way, what did you think of the President’s speech?

Anthony Woods: The Democrats' New Dream Candidate?

Move over President Obama, there is a new groundbreaking candidate and campaign in town.

Anthony Woods at 29 years of age already has a compelling life story similar to the President’s background. Like Obama, Woods grew up in a very modest, single-mother household. Both are also African American men who happen to be Democrats and Harvard-educated.
 
But Woods is not an Obama clone. He stands in his own right as a historic candidate. Woods is a decorated Iraq War veteran, earning the bronze star for commanding 81 soldiers, who all returned home safely.

Woods’ bravery does not end at the battlefield. While attending the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, Woods stood up against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and subsequently was discharged. As a result, he lost his military funding for school. Yet, Woods persevered and completed his master’s degree in public policy. Afterwards, he became an economic policy specialist. Now he’s running for Congress.

Anthony Woods may be Democrats’ dream candidate post-Obama’s victory. Woods breaks stereotypes in every way liberals could hope for. He’s black. He’s gay. He’s an Iraq War vet. He’s Harvard and West Point educated. He comes from humble beginnings. No story could be written better.

Because of his unique life, Woods has earned national attention, fundraised impressive amounts, and attracted a loyal base of supporters.

But, winning California’s 10th congressional seat in a special election to replace Ellen Tauscher, who left the seat to take an appointment in the State Department, will not be easy for Woods. He runs against not one but three Democratic-establishment candidates. They are California’s Lt. Governor John Garamendi, state Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan and state Senator Mark DeSulnier.  The three Sacramento politicians have better name identification. But, ultimately, voter turnout in this special election will decide the winner.

The Democrat with the most votes in the primary will likely win the election outright. Sound familiar? Well, if Woods wins on September 1st, it may be one of the biggest political upsets in history, rivaling that of Obama’s victory against the Clinton machine. I’m almost certain a movie will be made if that occurs.

But, if Woods does not pull off a political upset in Northern California, he should take comfort in the fact that Obama lost his election for a congressional seat in Illinois in 2000.

Just Tax: A Lady GaGa Makeover of the Republican Party?

Congressman Aaron Schock’s abs is not the only strategy the GOP has to attract a following of The Young & the Republicans. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele wants to attract youths by giving the GOP a hip-hop makeover… Yeah…

Well, 23 year old Peter Cowman has a different genre of music to reestablish the Republican Party.

Parodying Lady GaGa’s “Just Dance” is a creative way to slam Democrats with a familiar GOP attack - Democrats just tax and spend. Not only is the young Republican’s video gaining traction on YouTube, but his Congressman, Dave Reichert, proudly showed off the video at the weekly GOP conference meeting. Rep. Reichert wanted to highlight how Republicans can use young people and new media to appeal to new voters.

Do you think Cowman’s video is effective? Will it reach a new audience and pick up new Republican voters? Should the GOP adopt this type of media strategy? Or is it just a video some kid made?

What about the substantive argument itself? Do you think that Democrats are the party of tax and overspending? President Barack Obama’s party does not seem to mind increasing taxes on the rich and spreading the wealth. Is that a bad thing?

And are Republicans a little hypocritical for criticizing Democrats for overspending and taxing? When President George W. Bush and the Republicans were in power, they practiced deficit spending and nearly doubled the national debt to $10.7 trillion, which essentially is a tax on the future.

Speak your mind. Or Just Dance!

You Be the Judge: The Obama Presidency

During the elections, then-Senator Barack Obama ran a near flawless campaign. Obama edged out the Clinton machine in the primaries and then convincingly trounced John McCain and the Republicans in the general election. With his message of “hope” and “change,” Obama ran a disciplined, organized and innovated campaign, resulting in unprecedented fundraising, millions of votes and the election of the first black President.

But the election was so last season... two seasons.

It has been about six months since Obama became President of the United States. Now that Obama has established an executive record, many of my friends have begun to evaluate him as Commander and Chief.

I expected my Republican friends to downplay any Obama successes, but I was surprised to hear some of my pro-Obama friends harshly criticize the President. These are not just people that voted for him. These are former hardcore fans that were Obama precinct captains and had posters of the man up on their bedroom walls. Now they are taking him down a notch or two… or ten for their perception of his inaction on a variety of issues.

Some of my friends are having voters’ remorse. They say Obama has not been the progressive reformer his campaign rhetoric made him out to be. Universal healthcare? They point to his administration wishy-washy stance on including the public option.  “A fierce advocates for gay rights”? Not exactly. Shutting down Gitmo? There’s been a delay… Questions arise as to why a Democratic President and Congress cannot or do not make a liberal’s wildest dreams come true.

But that’s not to say Obama has lost all his popularity with his base. I have friends who fiercely defend the President’s record. These friends point out that the President is busy managing two wars and a recession, left over by President Bush, as well as handling each international crisis as they arise. Thus, they say, “He can’t do everything at once.” Moreover, Obama is constrained by Congress – Democratic or not.

These faithful Obama fans also applaud the President’s efforts thus far. He has lifted the federal ban funding on stem cell research, signed into law the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (helping women sue for equal pay), and nominated the first Latina to the Supreme Court among other things. Furthermore, they say he has already changed the tone in Washington. Indeed, Obama’s style has been to build consensus on issues, which often is slower and means more compromises than liberals would like. But, it has been a departure from the previous administration.

So what do you think about the Obama presidency? A success so far? Or should it have done more?

And what metric are you using to judge President Obama? President Bush? Obama’s campaign promises? The current social, political and economic realities?

(Poster by: Shepard Fairey)

Kings, No Queens: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Thanks to Hulu.com I have found a new show to watch – Kings. I’ve only seen the first episode of the NBC drama so far, but its strong storytelling makes it a compelling watch.

Set in a fictional world, Kings follows the inner turmoil of the absolute monarchy in the country of Gilboa. The first episode starts with the country at war. Modest farm-boy turned soldier David Shepherd emerges as a national hero after rescuing captured soldiers, including Prince Jack Benjamin, from enemy lines. 

As David is celebrated as Gilboa’s golden boy by both the country and King Silas, Jack is jealous and feels resentment towards his father. The playboy prince confronts Silas, wanting to know why his father does not give him the respect he deserves as a soldier and as his son. Startling revelations are revealed in their heated conversation. Watch:

This scene immediately made me think about the national debate on the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, in which gay military personnel are discharged if their sexual orientation is revealed.

Originally enacted during the 1990’s, President Clinton hoped to find a compromised solution that would allow the LGBT community to serve in the military. Before “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the military did not allow any gay people to join the military. Once enacted, the law allows gay people to serve if they hide their orientation. If not, they’re kicked out.

Proponents of the policy argue that openly accepting gay military members hurts military morale and cohesion. Some argue that many recruits have conservative beliefs and would not feel comfortable being around openly gay people. They argue that this tension would hinder military performance. So just like Silas, they essentially argue that LGBT servicemen should “wrestle it to the ground.”

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is criticized by opponents as a policy that is degrading, unfair and hurts military power. They argue the notion that heterosexuals can’t serve with openly homosexual soldiers insults the professionalism of our straight men and women in uniform. Other countries allow for LGBT people to serve openly without a decrease in cohesiveness or morale. Moreover, opponents say that the policy is degrading as it forces gay people to hide who they are. And, finally, they argue that discharging needed military men and women, especially in time of war, is dangerous. Arabic translators are in high demand in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars; however, more than 50 Arabic translators have been discharged because of “Don’t Tell, Don’t Ask” since the policy’s inception.

A number of people have called for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” including President Clinton’s wife (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) and a number of military higher-ups. President Obama has also stated he would like to see the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” His actions on this issue, however, have been… well… minimal at best. And congressional leaders, at least in the Senate, seem hesitant to put this issue up to a vote.

As politicians struggle with the future of this policy, what do you think? Should we take a King Silas approach and ask our gay men and women to hide who they are? Or would that mentality underestimate the professionalism of our straight servicemen and be an insult to the LGBT community? And what do you think is the best strategic military option?

Aaron Schock the Republican Party?

Where are the young Republicans at!?! Anyone?  Anyone? No really. Polls indicate that the GOP is losing the younger demographic between 18 and 29 years old. Apparently the party of “old white men” doesn’t appeal to the youngsters. But there is one Republican under 60…

His name is Aaron Schock and he is the youngest congressman at 27. With his good looks, he has been dubbed the "Brody Jenner of Congress." (I’m not sure who should be offended, Representative Schock or Brody?) Even liberals have taken notice of Schock, voting him the “hottest freshmen” congressman. And even Stephan Colbert has a man-crush for the Schockster. 

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Better Know a District - Illinois' 18th - Aaron Schock
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Gay Marriage

Anyway, Congressman Schock is being heralded as the savior of the Republican Party since he’s young, handsome, articulate and media savvy. In fact, he has reached a new audience that the traditional GOP politician has not, with Schock’s TMZ outreach.

Wonder how many new votes that picture earned Schock and the GOP…  So does he represent the new wave of Republicanism? Or is he just a pretty face?

In terms of voting, the boyish congressman has not schock-ed the House. Schock has been a consistent traditional-Republican vote. No to the stimulus package.  No to stem cell research. No to the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Act. No to the expansion of environmental protections.

Not to be outdone by the boy wonder, the old guard of the Republican Party launched a “listening tour.”  Apparently, they will listen (and talk) to the people, but rest assured their party ideals will not change from these town hall events.

To thrive as a party, do Schock and the Republicans need only present their party principles in a fresh manner? Or do they need to overhaul some of their positions (à la pro-gay marriage and pro-sex ed. Megan McCain) to win over younger voters (or voters in general)?

Essentially how does the Republican Party win elections in the future?