Retrospectives Archive

A look back at some political predictions and pronouncements. How did they turn out?


APPEARED February 1, 2016, on The Civil Debate Page:

"We’re going to have a tremendous victory."

-- Republican presidential contender Donald Trump, February 1, 2016, on the Iowa Caucus being held that day.

***

APPEARED January 5, 2016, on The Civil Debate Page:

"I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."

-- President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, October 30, 1940.

***

APPEARED May 25, 2015, on The Civil Debate Page:

"Should the infidel Jefferson be elected to the Presidency, the seal of death is that moment set on our holy religion, our churches will be prostrated, and some infamous prostitute, under the title of goddess of reason, will preside in the sanctuaries now devoted to the worship of the most High."

-- The New England Palladium newspaper, 1800, regarding Thomas Jefferson.

***

APPEARED March 5, 2015, on The Civil Debate Page:

"Now, over the last year, there’s been a lot of misinformation spread about health reform. There’s been a lot of fear-mongering, a lot of overheated rhetoric. … John Boehner called this passage of this bill “Armageddon.” You had others who said this is the end of freedom as we know it. So after I signed the bill, I looked around. I looked up at the sky to see if asteroids were coming. I looked at the ground to see if cracks had opened up in the earth. You know what, it turned out it was a pretty nice day. … Nobody had lost their doctor. … So before we find out if people like health care reform, we should wait to see what happens when we actually put it into place. … So now that this bill is finally law and all the folks who have been playing politics will finally have to confront the reality of what this reform is, they’re also going to have to confront the reality of what it isn’t. They’ll have to finally acknowledge that this isn’t a government takeover of our health care system. They’ll see that if Americans like their doctor, they will keep their doctor. And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future."

-- President Barack Obama, April 1, 2010.

***

APPEARED February 4, 2015, on The Civil Debate Page:

With industrial production, capacity utilization, real disposable income, real personal consumption, real sales retail and food service sales, and real manufacturing and trade sales uniformly declining in their latest reports, coincident economic indicators – having generally peaked in July – are now following through on the weakness that we’ve persistently observed in leading economic measures. We continue to believe that the U.S. economy joined a global economic downturn during the third quarter of this year.

-- John P. Hussman of Hussman Funds, December 3, 2012.

***

APPEARED January 16, 2015, on The Civil Debate Page:

"I can tell you that the President is obviously going to engage and do everything he can to assist Democrats running in 2014 … the Democratic Party is not going to lose control of the Senate, in our view. And that’s precisely because of the policies that he and Democrats support that are focused on expanding opportunity, as opposed to repealing benefits; that are focused on providing broad support for the middle class so that it can become more secure going forward; and that more jobs are created, as opposed to support for special interest tax loopholes that benefit the few. I mean, that’s sort of a general principle. And the President feels very strongly that that approach is one that broadly speaking the American people support."

-- White House briefing with Press Secretary Jay Carney, February 18, 2014.

***

APPEARED December 25, 2014, on The Civil Debate Page:

"“We expect the bottom to fall out by the second quarter of 2014,” Trends Research Institute founder Gerald Celente predicted last October. … The run on the bank “will start suddenly, build quickly and snowball,” Mr. Means said. “Interest rates will skyrocket, businesses will fail, unemployment will go to record levels.” … Some folks are passing around a chart of the Dow Jones Industrial Average since July of 2012 that also shows the average for the year and a half before the 1929 crash. They’re eerily similar. The parallels may not continue. If they do, the charts indicate we’re about two months away from the big plunge."

-- From "Our Economy Is About to Implode" by Jack Kelly, February 23, 2014.

***

APPEARED January 10, 2013, on The Civil Debate Page:

"A US analyst says US President Barack Obama is unlikely to end his first term as there are serious efforts by American officials to remove him due to his incompetence. "It is very doubtful at this time that he will last his first term," Edward Spannaus of Executive Intelligence Review said in an interview with Press TV on Wednesday. … "It is the question of what he is going to do now in this term, the question of the second term is out of the question," he concluded."

-- PressTV report, October 27, 2010.

***

APPEARED December 29, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"I wanted to give you an update on the current situation around the debt ceiling. … Essentially what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending, both domestic and defense. We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs … What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues, which could be accomplished without hiking taxes -- tax rates, but could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could have lowered rates generally while broadening the base."

-- President Barack Obama, July 22, 2011.

***

APPEARED December 28, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"We are not content to accept the endless growth of relief rolls or welfare rolls. We want to offer the forgotten fifth of our people opportunity and not doles. That is what this measure does for our times. Our American answer to poverty is not to make the poor more secure in their poverty, but to reach down and to help them lift themselves out of the ruts of poverty and move with the large majority along the high road of hope and prosperity. The days of the dole in this country are numbered."

-- President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ), August 20, 1964, during the signing of the Economic Opportunity Act.

***

APPEARED December 15, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"I will come on Morning Joe, and I will shave off my mustache of 40 years if we lose any of those three states [referring to Minnesota, Michigan, and Pennsylvania]."

-- Political advisor David Axelrod, October 31, 2012.

***

APPEARED December 13, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"Look, it's very close. But I believe right now we are currently ahead; internals show us currently ahead. I honestly think that Romney's going to carry Ohio, and you know I haven't been saying this. I now believe it's going to happen."

-- Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) October 28, 2012.

***

APPEARED December 12, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"In a year when independents are flocking to Romney, there simply may not be enough Democrats, youth or minority voters to offset the fact the GOP base will turn out in numbers that will far eclipse their totals in 2008. Discussion about a ground game may be simply an attempt to distract us from the fact that the president’s campaign is betting everything on an organizational plan that can’t overcome the way the electorate has changed over the course of the Obama presidency."

-- Columnist Jonathan S. Tobin October 28, 2012.

***

APPEARED December 11, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"Nancy Pelosi’s way back to the speaker’s gavel was through these districts [in Illinois]. It ain’t going to happen."

-- Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL), reported October 13, 2012.

***

APPEARED December 9, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"History dictates that the Panthers 21-13 victory over the Washington Redskins at FedEx Field bodes well for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. In the 18 presidential elections that have taken place since the Redskins moved to Washington in 1937, 17 have been predicted by the team's performance in its final home game prior to the election."

-- Chris Strauss, USA TODAY Sports, November 4, 2012.

***

APPEARED December 8, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"I do know that the source of our confidence is, and that's the quality of our candidates. They're just great. … And that the issues are with us. … So we have a message. We have the messengers. We have the money. We have the mobilization. We have an excellent chance to take back the House. … I feel very confident about our ability to win."

-- House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, (D-CA), September 16, 2012, during interview on CNN's State of the Union with Candy Crowley.

***

APPEARED December 7, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"Democrats are winning at least one key aspect of the 2012 campaign: voter contact. Some Republicans are starting to fret a little bit about their ground game and a new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that fear is at least somewhat justified. According to the poll, 20 percent of registered voters say they have been contacted by the Obama campaign, compared to 13 percent who say they have been contacted by Mitt Romney’s campaign."

-- Reporter Aaron Blake, August 29, 2012.

***

APPEARED December 6, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"Among the wisest words spoken this cycle were by John Dickerson of CBS News and Slate, who said … that he thought maybe the American people were quietly cooking something up, something we don’t know about. I think they are and I think it’s this: a Romney win. … Something old is roaring back. … There is no denying the Republicans have the passion now, the enthusiasm. The Democrats do not. … I suspect both Romney and Obama have a sense of what’s coming, and it’s part of why Romney looks so peaceful and Obama so roiled."

-- Columnist Peggy Noonan, November 5, 2012.

***

APPEARED December 5, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"Why, then, am I still confident Obama will win? Because months ago, the President successfully framed this as a choice election, not a referendum, and the Republicans never offered a compelling alternative choice."

-- TV pundit Touré, October 14, 2012.

***

APPEARED December 4, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"Mitt Romney will win. The tie in the polls goes to the challenger. Here’s why: Enthusiasm. It matters enormously, and it’s disproportionately on the Republican side … The Obama get-out-the-vote drive (GOTV) is not quite the powerful juggernaut it was in 2008 and the Republican effort is far better than four years ago. … Issues. The most important ones favor Romney: the economy, the deficit, and the debt."

-- Political commentator Fred Barnes, November 5, 2012.

***

APPEARED December 3, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"Bob Dylan says he thinks President Barack Obama is going to win a landslide. … "Don't believe the media. I think it's going to be a landslide." After his comments, Dylan completed the song to the roar of the crowd."

-- AP news story reporting on November 5, 2012, remarks by singer/songwriter Bob Dylan.

***

APPEARED December 2, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"I think it's gonna be very close, which is, you know, 51-48, which could be a two point to two-and-a-half point race. And I think Romney gets 279 to 281 or 286 in the Electoral College."

-- Republican strategist Karl Rove, November 4, 2012.

***

APPEARED December 1, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"I’ve been saying for months that I think Obama is likely to win, and, as you might expect, I’m not changing my opinion now. Indeed, I’m more confident than I was a week or two ago. … Obama 303, Romney 235."

-- Columnist John Cassidy, November 5, 2012.

***

APPEARED November 30, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"I guess the wild card in what I've projected is I'm projecting Minnesota to go for Romney. Now, that's the only state in the union … that's voted Democratic in nine consecutive elections. But this year, there's a marriage amendment on the ballot that will bring out the evangelicals and I think could make the difference."

-- Columnist George Will, November 4, 2012, George Will Predicts Romney Wins Big, 321-217.

***

APPEARED November 29, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"I do expect that we're going to win. I do expect that we're going to have an advantage. I think we're going to win Iowa and I think we're going to win Ohio. And that should do it."

-- Former Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT), November 4, 2012.

***

APPEARED November 28, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"[I]n this election I expect the American people to choose to take a different path for the next four years … Obama’s base of support has shown signs of being less engaged, less active, and less eager to vote. … Thus, my prediction for Tuesday is this: Obama 260, Romney 278."

-- Columnist Ben Domenech, November 3, 2012.

***

APPEARED November 27, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"I think that we're going to win. I don't think it's going to be close in the Electoral College. I think we're going to win clearly … I think we're going to win this state, Ohio. … I think we're going to win Iowa, we're going to win Wisconsin, we're going to win Nevada, we're going to win New Hampshire. I think we've got an even chance of winning Virginia and Florida."

-- Vice President Joe Biden, November 4, 2012.

***

APPEARED November 26, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"Fundamentals usually prevail in American elections. That's bad news for Barack Obama. … most voters oppose Obama's major policies and consider unsatisfactory the very sluggish economic recovery … Bottom line: Romney 315, Obama 223."

-- Columnist Michael Barone, November 2, 2012.

***

APPEARED November 25, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"The winner of the Scholastic Student Vote is President Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, with 51 percent of the vote. The Republican nominee, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, received 45 percent of the vote … A majority of kids in four of five key swing states -- Colorado, Florida, Nevada, and Ohio -- chose Obama. … Romney won Virginia, the other key swing state".

-- Contributing writer to Scholastic News Jennifer Marino Walters, October 16, 2012.

***

APPEARED November 24, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"We're going to win by a landslide. It will be the biggest surprise in recent American political history. It will rekindle a whole question as to why the media played this race as a nail-biter, where in fact I think Romney is going to win by quite a bit. My own view is that Romney is going to carry 325 electoral votes."

-- Political commentator, consultant, and pollster Dick Morris, November 4, 2012.

***

APPEARED November 23, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"Where does the misery index stand now? As of the third quarter, it was 9.8%, down from 11.3% four years ago." Our conclusion is that if voters choose their candidate based on this metric alone, the election will narrowly tilt in favor of the current President," said Carl Riccadonna, a Deutsche Bank economist who recently issued a report on the topic."

-- "Misery Index predicts Obama will win the election", by Annalyn Censky, October 17, 2012.

***

APPEARED November 22, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"I think Mitt Romney is likely to win next Tuesday. For two reasons: (1) Romney leads among voters on trust to get the economy going again. (2) Romney leads among independents."

-- Columnist Jay Cost, November 2, 2012.

***

APPEARED November 21, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"[W]e’re quickly approaching a point where his comeback would be unprecedented in modern presidential history. And if the Romney campaign begins to crack under the pressure, then that comeback becomes that much less likely."

-- Columnist Ezra Klein, September 17, 2012.

***

APPEARED November 20, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"I have to conclude that there is no remaining path at this late date for Obama to win the national popular vote. He is toast."

-- Commentator Dan McLaughlin, October 26, 2012.

***

APPEARED November 19, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"[A]ccording to most polls, the Romney-Ryan ticket is falling further and further behind. How can this be? Because Republicans are failing the central test of electability. Instead of putting together the largest possible coalition of voters, they're relying largely on one slice of America -- middle-aged white men -- and alienating just about everyone else."

-- Political and economic commentator Robert Reich, September 16, 2012.

***

APPEARED November 18, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"Gallup’s new partisan ID split, one that mimics what Rasmussen has been saying all along, predicts nothing less than doom for the Democrats, and a solid, national win for Mitt Romney this year."

-- Columnist Neil Stevens, October 26, 2012.

***

APPEARED November 17, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"Mitt Romney is not going to be president of the United States."

-- House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, (D-CA), September 16, 2012.

***

APPEARED November 16, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"If you're going to believe the polls released from CBS/New York Times this morning -- you know, the polls the media's currently using to beat Romney senseless and to depress Republican enthusiasm, you have to believe that the turnout advantage for Democrats over Republicans will blow away every previous record and common sense. It's that simple. Because these polls are not only telling us that Romney is losing OH, PA, and FL by insurmountable margins; these polls are also telling us that Democrat turnout is projected to blow away every modern record."

-- Columnist John Nolte, September 26, 2012.

***

APPEARED November 15, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"The stars are aligned for Barack Obama’s re-election in November 2012. He won’t join Jimmy Carter to be the second Democrat in 120 years to lose a second term."

-- Political activist Ralph Nader, April 27, 2011.

***

APPEARED November 14, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"Yes, Obama and the Democrats are entitled to a bit of a victory lap today, after Chief Justice Roberts searched deeply within his political self and found a path to uphold ObamaCare. … But, today's ruling will probably go down in history as the most effective GOP voter turnout operation ever. There is only one way to repeal ObamaCare and that is through the ballot box. It will happen."

-- Columnist Mike Flynn, June 28, 2012.

***

APPEARED November 13, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

When three MSNBC hosts forecast the winner of next year's presidential race, their choice isn't surprising, considering the network's liberal tilt. … Lawrence O'Donnell, host of "The Last Word," flatly predicted the re-election of President Barack Obama. Rachel Maddow also named Obama … "Hardball" host Chris Matthews waffled, saying Obama's fate will rest largely on the economy as well as his GOP rival. One easy opponent? Mitt Romney, whom Matthews dismissed as "a mood ring."

-- AP story by Frazier Moore, August 2, 2011, reporting on an event held by the Television Critics Association.

***

APPEARED November 12, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"A University of Colorado analysis of state-by-state factors leading to the Electoral College selection of every U.S. president since 1980 forecasts that the 2012 winner will be Mitt Romney. … According to their analysis, President Barack Obama will win 213 votes in the Electoral College … Romney will win 52.9 percent of the popular vote to Obama’s 47.1 percent, when considering only the two major political parties."

-- Projection from University of Colorado Boulder, released on August 22, 2012.

***

APPEARED November 11, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"I'm gonna win."

-- President Barack Obama, in an interview on ABC's "The View" released May 15, 2012, regarding the November presidential election.

***

APPEARED November 10, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"The smart money in a presidential election is on the incumbent. But in a down economy, or when the public perceives the incumbent as feckless, dithering or simply not up to the task -- can you say Jimmy Carter or George H.W. Bush? -- the conventional wisdom can go out the window. That’s pretty much where we are with President Obama. Several factors, when taken together, make it almost impossible for him to win reelection."

-- Political and economic analyst Merrill Matthews, April 28, 2011.

***

APPEARED November 9, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"Barack Obama will be back on top; Here's why the president will win re-election in 2012 ... The White House operation will improve; but most decisively, so may the GDP. The next two years will be a bumpy ride, but Barack Obama can renew his presidency -- and even without the safety net of an extremist GOP nominee -- in re-election. Then like Reagan, glibly consigned to the dust bin as a one-year wonder after the 1982 midterms, he may yet ultimately realign American politics."

-- Political consultant Bob Shrum, November 11, 2010.

***

APPEARED November 8, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"President Obama will not be re-elected. Period. Why? Obamaflation has arrived, and this is what it looks like. Milk. A gallon of skim. At the local Giant in Central Pennsylvania: January 11, 2011: $3.20; February 28, 2011: $3.24; March 6, 2011: $3.34; April 23. 2011: $3.48 ... the real election here is who will be the next Republican president of the United States. Because the rest of this election is already over. Barack Obama has lost his re-election."

-- Political strategist and author Jeffrey Lord, April 26, 2011.

***

APPEARED November 1, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"The Dow Jones Industrial Average will lose about half of its value over the next couple of years … according to Charles Nenner, founder and president of Charles Nenner research. … unemployment and leading indicators suggest the Dow will drop to 5,000 in the next two to two-and-a-half years, Nenner told CNBC".

-- CNBC article, "Dow Faces Bouncy Ride to 5,000: Strategist" August 24, 2010.

***

APPEARED October 3, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

"So let's conduct a little thought experiment … Suppose in adopting the opposite of every one of President Reagan's economic policies, President Obama gets just the opposite results. That would mean that instead of this second year of his presidency being Obama's worst year, it is his best. And instead of the economy taking off next year on a historic, generation-long economic boom, it collapses into an extended double-dip downturn, with even worse consequences following."

-- Columnist Peter Ferrara, October 13, 2010.

***

APPEARED September 15, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH): "You’ll see us every single week move bills that will cut spending."

-- October 11, 2010, describing what would happen if Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in the upcoming November 2010 elections.

***

APPEARED September 3, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL): "The People’s Republic of China has manipulated its currency for years … Unfortunately, the [Bush] Administration has failed to effectively challenge or change China’s behavior. … Your department’s refusal to take action against China raises serious questions about the Administration’s commitment to protecting the interests of American businesses and American workers. … Treasury’s refusal even to acknowledge the costs of Chinese currency manipulation, justifies the fear of many Americans that this Administration lacks the will to stand up against trade abuses and labor or environmental violations that create an unfair playing field for American workers."

-- June 13, 2007, letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

***

APPEARED August 27, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

Columnist Paul Krugman: "Two years from now unemployment will still be extremely high, quite possibly higher than it is now. But instead of taking responsibility for fixing the situation, politicians and Fed officials alike will declare that high unemployment is structural, beyond their control."

-- August 1, 2010, from "Defining Prosperity Down" column.

***

APPEARED July 9, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

Henry Blodget on Yahoo! Finance's Tech Ticker: "And everyone's right to be worried, says Peter Morici, an economics professor at the R.H. Smith School Of Business at the University of Maryland. Deflation is coming. We've had it for a couple of years now in the form of shrinking economic output, and now we're going to get it in the form of falling prices. … The U.S. is headed for deflation, Morici says, because of the combination of a weak economy, suffocating government restrictions, and an overvalued currency."

-- September 3, 2010. [Obama Watch at AIP News.com] [Yes, Deflation's Coming, Says Morici -- Because The Government Doesn't Have The Guts To Stand Up To China]

***

APPEARED March 12, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

Senator Joe Biden (D-DE): "The most basic premise of President Bush's approach, that the Iraqi people will rally behind a strong central government headed by Maliki, in fact, will look out for their interests equitably, is fundamentally and fatally flawed. It will not happen in anybody's lifetime here, including the [lives of the congressional] pages."

-- April 24, 2007. [PolitiFact: Joe Biden says he never called for partition of Iraq] [Thales: Joe Biden Leaves Out the Iraq Surge]

***

APPEARED March 8, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

Glenn Beck: "I have been warning you that we are on the same path to repeat the same exact mistakes as the Weimar Republic. … They monetized their debt. … I also said that food inflation was coming. … I can't tell you when things are going to happen. I have no idea. … But here's what's coming: inflation. According to the NIA, National Inflation Association -- I had these guys checked out six ways to Sunday … these are credible people … according to them, we can see prices as high for one ear of corn, $11.43… $23.05 for a 24-oz. loaf of wheat bread. … $62.21, 32-oz packaged granulated sugar … $24.31 for a 32-oz. container of soy milk … $77.71 for for an 11.5-oz container of Folger's Classic Roast coffee. Not according to me, according to inflation experts. … If you get a 64 fluid ounce container of Minute Maid orange juice, $45.71. … For 1.55-oz of Hershey's milk chocolate, they say this could cost as much $15.50. Welcome to your future of monetizing the debt."

-- Glenn Beck on his TV show in November 2010. [YouTube: Glenn Beck-Food Prices Will Rise 700% to 1000% or more in 2011] [NoisyRoom.net: Glenn Beck-Food Prices Will Rise 700% to 1000% or more in 2011]

***

APPEARED February 28, 2012, on The Civil Debate Page:

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL): "When George Bush came into office, our debt -- national debt was around $5 trillion. It's now over $10 trillion. … we have had over the last eight years the biggest increases in deficit spending and national debt in our history. And Senator McCain voted for four out of five of those George Bush budgets. … We are mortgaging our children's future. … So we're going to have to make some investments, but we've also got to make spending cuts. And what I've proposed, you'll hear Senator McCain say, well, he's proposing a whole bunch of new spending, but actually I'm cutting more than I'm spending so that it will be a net spending cut."

-- October 7, 2008. [NY Times transcript of 2nd presidential debate] [During Campaign, Sen. Obama Promised a "Net Spending Cut" to Address Deficit]

***

APPEARED April 28, 2009, on The Civil Debate Page:

Senator Arlen Specter (PA): "I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role, a more important role, to play there. The United States very desperately needs a two-party system. That's the basis of politics in America. I'm afraid we are becoming a one-party system, with Republicans becoming just a regional party with so little representation of the northeast or in the middle atlantic. I think as a governmental matter, it is very important to have a check and balance. That's a very important principle in the operation of our government. In the constitution on Separation of powers."

-- March 17, 2009. [The Hill's Blog Briefing Room, April 28, 2009: Specter had disavowed a switch]

***

APPEARED January 30, 2009, on The Civil Debate Page:

Senator-elect Barack Obama (D-IL): "Guys, I'm a state senator. I was elected yesterday. I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. I've never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow I'm immediately going to start running for higher office just doesn't make sense. So look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that I'm the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois. … I am not running for president in 2008 … I mean, come on guys. The only reason I'm being definitive is because until I'm definitive you will keep asking me this question, but it's a silly question."

-- November 3, 2004. [Chicago Sun-Times, November 4, 2004: Obama for president? That's 'silly' - Landslide winner says he'll be happy to learn the ropes in Senate]

***

APPEARED November 5, 2008, on The Civil Debate Page:

Senator John McCain, (R-AZ): "Now let me give you some straight talk about the election. America faces a big choice, and there's one day left. The pundits have written us off just like they've done before, and been wrong before. And my opponent is measuring the drapes in the White House. You know, they may not know it, but the Mac is back! And we're going to win this election!"

-- November 3, 2008. [CNN Transcript: John McCain Campaigns in Tennessee; Eye on Ohio]

***

APPEARED October 9, 2008, on The Civil Debate Page:

Alan Colmes: "What do you think when people say, 'Joe Biden, he'd be strong on security. Great vice president.'"
Senator Joe Biden, (D-DE): "I know. Well, the one that I find fascinating now is I'm apparently everybody's choice for secretary of state. A very nice thing. But I am not running for vice president. I would -- I would not accept it if anyone offered it to me. The fact of the matter is I would much prefer to stay as the chairman of the foreign relations committee than vice-president."

-- August 10, 2007. [Fox News' Hannity & Colmes]

***

APPEARED June 9, 2008, on The Civil Debate Page:

CBS News anchor Katie Couric: "If it's not you [who becomes the Democratic presidential nominee], how disappointed will you be?"
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY): "Well, it will be me, but, of course, I'm ready to support the Democratic nominee, whoever it is."
Couric: "I know that you're confident it's going to be you, but there is the possibility it won't be, and clearly, you're, you have considered that possibility."
Clinton: "No, I haven't."
[interview continues]
Couric: "So you never even consider the possibility."
Clinton: "I don't, I don't."

-- November 26, 2007. [CBS: Confident Clinton Takes Aim At Attackers]

***

APPEARED April 23, 2008, on The Civil Debate Page:

"There is a great desire for a new start, combined with a desire for cohesion and unity."

-- Italian Premier Romano Prodi, May 17, 2006, insisting that his government would last for five years until the next scheduled elections. [st st]

***

APPEARED March 27, 2008, on The Civil Debate Page:

"Evil men, evil people, are going to try to do evil things to us and to others during the last part of this year. I don't know whether it will be in the fall, or in September, or later on, but it'll be the second half, somehow, of 2007. There will be some very serious terrorist attacks. The evil people will come after this country, and there's a possibility that, that chao -- not a possibility, a definite certainty that chaos is going to rule, and the Lord said the politicians will not have any solutions for it. There's just going to be chaos. ... It's going to happen. And I'm not saying necessarily nuclear, the Lord didn't say nuclear, but I do believe that it will be something like that. It'll be a mass killing. Possibly millions of people."

-- Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson, January 2, 2007. [tr st vid]

Barack Obama's Comments on "Bitter" Midwesterners

It was recently revealed by the Huffington Post that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (IL) made the following comments about residents in the Midwest on April 6, 2008:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. ... And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. ... And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Obama has been criticized for being dismissive of the political positions of Midwesterners. In response, he offered these comments in his defense on April 11:

"When I go around and talk to people, there is frustration and there is anger and there is bitterness. And what's worse is when people are expressing their anger, and politicians try to say, 'What are you angry about?' Of course they're bitter. Of course they're frustrated. You would be, too -- in fact, many of you are."

"And so people don't vote on economic issues, because they don't expect anybody's going to help them. People are voting on issues like guns, are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. They take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and the things they can count on. But they don't believe they can count on Washington."

And he made these comments a day later on April 12:

"Lately, there’s been a little typical sort of political flare-up because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois, who are bitter. ... They are angry. They feel like they have been left behind. They feel like nobody is paying attention to what they're going through. So I said, well you know, when you're bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people, they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community. And they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country or they get frustrated about how things are changing. That’s a natural response. ... Now, I didn't say it as well as I should have. ... Because the truth is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation, those are important, that’s what sustains us. But what is absolutely true is that people don’t feel like they are being listened to."

"If I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that. The underlying truth of what I said remains, which is simply that people who have seen their way of life upended because of economic distress are frustrated and rightfully so."

Let's start with Obama's initial statement, and then look at his attempts to defend them.

Obama's initial assertion was that many Midwesterners are facing economic hardships, such as unemployment, and that they find that no one is responding to their plight. So, Obama says, they become bitter and take refuge in religion or gun ownership. Or they blame their hardship on and nurture a resentment toward immigrants or trade.

This assertion is questionable on a lot of points. So far as the news reports go, Obama offers no evidence for his claim that this is how some (let alone many or all) Midwesterners respond to economic hardship. Moreover, he doesn't (again, as far as the news reports go) consider any other explanations for why Midwesterners might have the beliefs they have about religion, gun ownership, trade and immigration. He doesn't seem to consider that Midwesterners take refuge in their religion because they believe it's true and that it provides them with spiritual and moral guidance; that they support gun ownership on the grounds that it is within their moral and constitutional rights and that it enhances their safety; or that they oppose certain trade deals because they unfairly put the U.S. at a disadvantage.

Senator Obama's comment about immigration deserves particular scrutiny. His initial comments accuse Midwesterners (or at least some of them) of "antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment". While his later comments instead refer to ILLEGAL immigration, it sounds as if Obama is furthering the caricature that anyone who is opposed to illegal immigration or amnesty is an anti-immigrant xenophobe. This distortion is all too common in current political discussion, and, at the very least, Obama does nothing to contradict it.

(In fact, he has engaged in it previously: see the "Obama on Republican Immigration Policy" section on The Civil Debate Page's February 6, 2008, "More Presidential Primary Highlights" entry. It is in the pre-Blogger archives. Further examples of this pervasive distortion can be found in the February 17, 2008, "More Distortions on Immigration Reform" entry, as well as in the December 11, 2007, "False Accusations of Being Anti-Immigrant" entry, and the October 22, 2007, entry, "Name-Calling in the Debate on Illegal Immigration" in the 2007 archives.)

In general, what is wrong with Obama's initial assertion is that he doesn't appear to allow that the positions Midwesterners are taking on these issues are motivated by moral considerations. Instead, he dismisses and diminishes their beliefs by claiming that they are based on selfish or feeble foundations, such as bitterness and helplessness. This, of course, is what many politicians routinely do, and it is a major part of what is wrong with contemporary political debate. Despite his frequent protests against "negative politics," Obama just engages in more of the same.

Even if Midwesterners and others are wrong in some or all of their beliefs about religion, guns, trade and immigration (which is surely a matter of debate), it is both condescending and inaccurate for Obama to speak as if no attempt at moral calculation went into any of these beliefs. He makes it sound as if there's no moral or rational considerations in their thinking, just resentment and bitterness about job loss.

Obama's attempts to defend his assertion on April 11 and 12 do nothing to address this flaw. He apologizes, but he does it without admitting what he is apologizing for. That is, he doesn't admit that he was wrong to caricature people's beliefs in a derisive manner.

He does, however, manage to make things worse. He adds opposition to gay marriage to the list of beliefs arrived at via bitterness. And he offers a dubious translation of his initial assertion, saying that by "antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment," what he really meant was that Midwesterners "take refuge ... in their community".

And, of course, he misrepresents his critics, saying they are worked up "because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois, who are bitter." I'm not aware of anybody who has criticized Obama for saying that people in the Midwest were bitter or upset. In fact, Obama's critics are worked up because he - falsely - said that the beliefs of many Midwesterners on religion, guns, trade, and immigration (and gay rights, too, apparently) were arrived at without taking into account moral considerations.

If Obama truly wants to make up for his mistakes, he should say, "I misspoke, I shouldn't have said that." But he can't do that while insisting, as he does, that what he said is true.

2007

Today's Debate

December 11, 2007

False Accusations of Being Anti-Immigrant

Many news stories recently have falsely accused several presidential candidates of being anti-immigrant, when these candidates are, in fact, opposed to illegal immigration as well as proposals to reduce penalties on illegal immigrants.

Consider the examples below:

"Republicans Push Tougher Border Laws Before Hispanic Audience"

by Lorraine Woellert

Published by Bloomberg on December 10, 2007.

Text: Candidates avoided a repeat of the anti-immigration one-upmanship that marked a November event. At that debate, Giuliani and Romney each accused the other of giving "sanctuary" to illegal immigrants while in office.
*

"GOP Hopefuls Temper Anti-Immigrant Talk"

by Jim Kuhnhenn

Published by the Associated Press on December 9, 2007.

Text: GOP Hopefuls Temper Anti-Immigrant Talk
*

"Richardson 'Disgusted' at Republicans on Immigration"

by Lorraine Woellert

Published by Bloomberg on November 30, 2007.

Text: Anti-immigration sentiment was evident during the Nov. 28 Republican debate. Ex-Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney accused former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani of making the city into a "sanctuary" for illegal immigrants, while Giuliani said Romney operated a "sanctuary mansion" because illegal immigrants worked at his home.
*

"Tancredo Ad Invokes Terror, Immigrants"

Published by the Associated Press on November 14, 2007.

Text: Tom Tancredo, the Republican presidential candidate running on an anti-immigration message, is airing this scene in a television ad in Iowa that casts border security as a defense against terrorism.

Governor of New Mexico and Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson has also made this accusation. Appearing on "Political Capital with Al Hunt" on December 1, 2007, Richardson said the Republican presidential candidates were "trying to outdo each other on demonizing immigrants".

This assertion, that Republican presidential candidates are anti-immigrant, is false and unfair. Though many of the Republican candidates have been vocal in their opposition to illegal immigration, none of them is opposed to legal immigration. Even Tancredo, who wants to significantly decrease levels of legal immigration, is in favor of having 250,000 immigrants come to the United States each year (as stated on his web site, http://teamtancredo.org/).

In fact, many of the Republican candidates have opposed illegal immigration on the grounds that it is unfair to legal immigrants, as is revealed by some of the very same news stories that describe them as being anti-immigrant:

"Republicans Push Tougher Border Laws Before Hispanic Audience"

by Lorraine Woellert

Published by Bloomberg on December 10, 2007.

Text: Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani packaged their law-and-order border enforcement positions with the observation that legal immigrants are among those hurt most by the growing number of people entering the country illegally.

"There should be no special pathway for those that have come here illegally to jump ahead of the line or to become permanent residents or citizens," Romney said in a debate aired last night on the Spanish-language network Univision.
*

"GOP Hopefuls Temper Anti-Immigrant Talk"

by Jim Kuhnhenn

Published by the Associated Press on December 9, 2007.

Text: Still, Giuliani, Huckabee and Romney made it clear they would not favor a special path toward citizenship for the estimated 12 million immigrants in the Unites [sic] States illegally.

"There can't be an amnesty policy, because that's an insult to all the people who waited, sometimes, ridiculously, for years, just to be able to make the transition here," Huckabee said.

Text: Said Romney: "Those who have come illegally, in my view, should be given the opportunity to get in line with everybody else, but there should be no special pathway for those that have come here illegally to jump ahead of the line or to be come [sic] permanent residents or citizens."

So, Republican candidates who are opposed to illegal immigration are having their positions distorted. Ironically, contrary to the claim that they are demonizing immigrants, it is THEY who are being demonized.

Today's Debate

December 10, 2007

Hypocrisy at the Bali Climate Convention?

Currently, representatives for several nations and interest groups are meeting in Bali, Indonesia, for a meeting on climate change and global warming. The meeting is being hosted by the United Nations, and its purpose is to reach an agreement among the nations of the world on reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in order to stem global warming.

A charge of hypocrisy has been leveled by some against the meeting and those who are attending it, because of the massive amounts of CO2 that will be emitted by those traveling to, from, and around the meeting, as well as for their accomodations during the two-week conference. The accusation amounts to: "They claim that we should be reducing CO2 emissions, yet here they are, hosting a meeting that releases huge amounts of CO2. They're hypocrites."

But this accusation of hypocrisy is not so easy to support. Although the participants in the UN conference are emitting a great deal of CO2, they could argue that the conference is necessary in order to reach an agreement that will lead to far greater reductions in CO2 emissions. In other words, this could be similar to committing a minor injustice in order to avoid a much greater injustice.

Of course, anyone offering this rebuttal would need to provide some evidence that the Bali conference really is likely to help bring about such reductions. But, likewise, the accusation of hypocrisy also needs more support. That is, it needs to be shown that the conference isn't playing a role in leading to greater reductions in CO2 emissions.

Today's Debate

December 7, 2007

Huckabee's Evasion on the Religious Affiliation of Mormons

On Sunday, December 2, Republican presidential candidate and former governor (AR) Mike Huckabee refused to give his opinion on whether Republican presidential candidate and former governor (MA) Mitt Romney was a Christian. Huckabee is a Southern Baptist, and Romney is a Mormon. Mormons consider themselves to be Christians, though many Christians deny that Mormons are Christian.

Huckabee was asked in an interview on ABC News' "This Week" whether Romney was a Christian. Huckabee's response:

"You know, Mitt Romney has to answer that. Nobody can answer for another person, for you, for me."

Huckabee added:

"We all have to personally answer for what our faith is and whether we call ourselves a Christian or we call ourselves Jewish or Muslim. And it's not for me to determine what somebody else's faith is."

This, however, is very much like the "Not My Decision" evasion.

While Huckabee is certainly right that one's religious affiliation is, generally, a matter of personal choice, the question he was being asked wasn't, "Should someone else be allowed to choose Romney's religion for him?" The question posed to Huckabee, essentially, was: if somebody chooses to be a Mormon, as Romney has, are they therefore also choosing to be Christian?

Understandably, Huckabee doesn't want to answer this question with a "yes" or a "no". If he says "yes", he offends the many Christians who believe that Mormons aren't Christian. If he says "no", he offends all the Mormons who do consider themselves to be Christian.

So he opted for an evasion, which was first of all illegitimate because the question wasn't suggesting that he had the authority to determine or proclaim some people to be Christians or not. Rather, it was asking whether he thought Mormons did enough of the right sort of things to be considered to be Christians. That is, he was being asked if he could discern - not determine - whether Mormons are Christians.

The second reason Huckabee's evasion was illegitimate is because - contrary to his claim that "nobody can answer for another person" - there are cases where we CAN discern another person's religion. If someone asks if the Pope is Buddhist, or Hindu, or Muslim or Jewish, we can clearly answer "no". We can then go on to say that the Pope is Catholic, and that Catholics are Christians. We can also say that Muhammad was a Muslim and that Gandhi was a Hindu.

There are, of course, cases where religious identity is more controversial. The standards for what is required in order to belong to a particular religious group are not always clear or universally agreed-upon. As a result, there are some religious groups, such as Mormons, about which there is much debate regarding their membership in a larger group. For instance, Messianic Jews claim themselves to be both Jews and Christians; many Jews, however, insist that Messianic Jews are not Jewish, and many Christians insist that Messianic Jews are not Christians.

But that doesn't mean that anything goes. Someone who works on Saturdays and eats pork can't rightly claim to be an observant Jew. Someone who eats pork and denounces Muhammad and the Qur'an can't rightly claim to be Muslim. And someone who denies the existence of God and denies that Jesus is anybody's savior can't rightly claim to be Christian. Despite the controversial cases, we can, in principle, discern another person's religion.

Huckabee was asked what his position was on the controversial case of religious membership regarding Mormons and Christians. That's what presidents are often expected to do, to make a call on a controversial matter. If he doesn't know whether Mormons are Christians, he should just say "I don't know". If he doesn't think the issue is relevant to his presidential campaign, he should just say "That issue is not relevant to my presidential campaign". He can't duck the question by saying that he doesn't have the authority to decide who is or who isn't Christian - an authority no one attributed to him anyway - or by appealing to the false claim that we can NEVER discern another person's religious affiliation.

(Another reason that I say religious affiliation is "generally" a matter of personal choice, because you could argue that there are exceptions. For instance, a widely accepted standard for being Jewish maintains that you are Jewish if your mother is Jewish, regardless of whether or not you choose to observe Jewish law.)

Today's Debate

December 7, 2007

Huckabee's Statements about the Wayne DuMond Case

Republican presidential candidate and former governor (AR) Mike Huckabee argued on Wednesday, December 5, that people should not try to "politicize" the deaths of people at the hands of convicted rapist Wayne DuMond.

Some background: In the 1980s, DuMond had been convicted of rape in. In the 1990s, he was paroled, and Huckabee, as governor at the time, had expressed support for his parole. After his release, DuMond was charged in the September 2000 rape and murder of Carol Sue Shields, for which he was convicted in 2003. Prior to his death in 2005, DuMond was also being investigated for the June 2001 rape and murder of Sara Andrasek.

Shields' mother, Lois Davidson, said on Wednesday, December 5, that she would work to defeat Huckabee's presidential campaign, and many other people have criticized Huckabee for supporting the parole of a convicted rapist who want on to commit murder.

Huckabee responded to the criticism later that day, saying that, while he sympathized with the families of Shields and Andrasek, "for people to now politicize these deaths and to try to make a political case out of it rather than to simply understand that a system failed and that we ought to extend our grief and heartfelt sorrow to these families, I just regret politics is reduced to that."

Huckabee also denied that he had pressured the parole board to release DuMond, pointing out that Democratic governors had appointed the board members who made this accusation.

Now for the analysis in terms of good reasoning and civil discourse:

First, there's nothing "political" in the negative sense about evaluating the actions Huckabee made as governor in order to evaluate his acceptability as a presidential candidate. They're part of his public record, which makes them fair game. If people think he made a bad decision as governor - or a good one, for that matter - how is it unfair to bring it up as a way of judging whether or not he would make a good president? How else are we supposed to evaluate a candidate?

Second, Huckabee's reference to the political affiliation of the parole board members is nothing more than ad hominem reasoning. What he is (implicitly) arguing is that, because they are Democrats, their criticism of him is suspect and should be dismissed. That line of reasoning is straightforwardly ad hominem. If he believes what they are saying is false, then he should say so. But it's flawed reasoning to say "their accusation against me is false because they're from a different political party than me."

Today's Debate

November 18, 2007

Irrelevant Partisanship

Earlier this month, Democratic members of Congress's Joint Economic Committee (JEC) produced a report claiming that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost roughly twice as much as previously estimated. The Bush administration attempted to dismiss the claim with ad hominem reasoning: the Associated Press quoted White House press secretary Dana Perino as saying the committee that created the report was made up of "Democrats on Capitol Hill" and "is known for being partisan and political."

Perino might be correct that the committee is made up of Democrats who have it out for the Bush administration, but that doesn't prove that the report is false. To make such a leap - from, "they're partisan and political" to "their report is false" - is simply ad hominem reasoning. If such reasoning were valid, Democrats could rebut the Bush administration by saying, "Hey, the Bush administration is known for being partisan and political. Therefore, their criticism of our report is false."

You don't evaluate an assertion according to the partisanship of the person making the assertion. The accuracy of the report is determined by how it measures up to the facts, not by its relation to this or that person's political agenda. If the Bush administration believes that the report makes false assertions, it should point those assertions out and provide evidence for their falsity. If the report makes false assertions, then the facts will be more than enough to prove it wrong. They should not try to convince people that the report is false simply by saying, "Well, the people who wrote it are partisan."

Today's Debate

November 18, 2007

Not Standing Against Name-Calling

Let me bring attention to two instances where there was a failure to stand up against name-calling in political discourse.

The first involved Republican presidential candidate and US Senator John McCain (AZ). McCain attended an event for his presidential campaign on November 12, during which a woman in attendance asked "How do we beat the bitch?" The question was in reference to Democratic presidential candidate and US Senator Hillary Clinton (NY). McCain and others in attendance laughed immediately following the question. Though he responded by saying "I respect Senator Clinton," McCain did not rebuke the woman for making the disparaging reference to Clinton.

Two days later, McCain defended this omission, saying that he "can't dictate what other people say" at campaign events. "Nor is it an appropriate role for me to play in a gathering at a restaurant," he said, "and if anybody thinks that I should, then I think they have the wrong idea of what [political campaign] gatherings are all about."

McCain's response to the woman's act of name-calling was inadequate. It is not enough for him to say that he respects Clinton, especially after laughing in response to someone using a slur to refer to her. He should have gone on to tell the woman that her language was not appropriate. He should have made his respect for Clinton more apparent by rebuking someone who treated her disrespectfully. Suppose that, at a campaign event for Clinton, attendees used slurs to refer to McCain? Would it be enough for Clinton to just stand there, laugh, and say, "I respect McCain"?

Moreover, for McCain to say it's not his job to rebuke people at his campaign events is just false. He may not be able to control what they say, but he can certainly take a stand against it. That's the responsibility of ANY individual involved in political debate. Isn't it also the job of presidential candidates who want to lead the country?

The second involved an article by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) that catalogued several comments made by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The article, posted November 12, 2007, was entitled "Chavez's colourful quotations" and provided "a selection of the most memorable of Mr Chavez's colourful quotations." These included quotes referring to US President George W. Bush as "the Devil," an "ignoramus," a "donkey," and "an alcoholic, a drunk, a liar." They also included references to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as "little girl" and Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS), Jose Miguel Insulza, as "quite an idiot, a true idiot."

While the BBC article does state that "Hugo Chavez's verbal abuse of world leaders has become legendary," it still insists on making light of Chavez's comments by calling them "colorful" (or "colourful", to use the British spelling). Chavez's comments are nothing more than name-calling, so it's unfortunate that the BBC would insist on using the term "colorful".

(Strangely, this is the same term the BBC used to describe an act of assault and domestic abuse. In a November 10, 2007, article on Norman Mailer - "In pictures: Norman Mailer's life" - one photo carried this caption: "His private life was colourful. In 1960 he was accused of stabbing his second wife Adele with a knife. She failed to press charges.")

Today's Debate

October 22, 2007

Name-Calling in the Debate on Illegal Immigration

The New York Times today published an editorial ("Ain't That America," October 22, 2007) that has once again engaged in name-calling and misrepresented the nature of the debate regarding illegal immigration. The editorial takes aim at those who oppose immigration reforms supported by the New York Times' editorial board, reforms which include allowing most illegal immigrants to remain in the country.

While the editorial is correct to note that deporting all illegal immigrants would be a massive task - perhaps to the point of being unworkable - it engages in verbal abuse and distortion in the way it describes those who oppose the New York Times' favored reform plan. The editorial says the opponents of reform are "demagogues" who employ "only histrionics and outrage" in order to make their case. The opponents of reform, it says, are appealing to a "combustible strain of nativism" in the U.S., and veering the country into a state of "hatred and fear" by "treating a hidden group of vulnerable people [i.e., illegal immigrants] as an enemy to be hated and vanquished."

This, however, is a caricature of the real nature of the debate. It is not the case that those support the New York Times' favored immigration reforms are decent, rational people, while those who oppose them are nativist demagogues (or hate-filled "Know-Nothings," to cite a previous instance of name-calling engaged in by New York Times: "The Immigration Deal," May 20, 2007). Rather, as I've pointed out here, there are real concerns on all sides of this debate.

In particular, there are concerns about what would happen to wages and employment for U.S. citizens if the bulk of the illegal immigrants currently here were allowed to stay. In addition, allowing them to remain here, it is worried, might also lead to a loss of respect for immigration law in general. Moreover, allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the country means that U.S. jobs will go to them before they can be filled people trying to emigrate to the U.S. legally, and it just seems unfair to let jobs be taken by those who broke the law ahead of those who obeyed it.

Granted, there are other considerations in this debate, and some of them may argue in favor of immigration reforms desired by the New York Times: compassion for illegal immigrants, the impracticality of mass deportation, etc. But this editorial makes it sound as if opponents of those reforms have nothing to reason from besides hatred and bigotry.

It's all to typical of how most political debate is conducted in the U.S. today. Even as the New York Times' editorial board rightly points out some of the name-calling engaged in by its opponents - CNN anchor Lou Dobbs calling New York Governor Eliot Spitzer a "spoiled, rich-kid brat" - it fails to see the name-calling it is contributing in the very same paragraph.

Today's Debate

October 20, 2007

Is Barack Obama a Black Candidate or a White One?

Senator Barack Obama (Illinois), one of the leading Democratic presidential candidates, is consistently referred to in the media as a black or African-American candidate. However, although his father is black, his mother is white. So, why is he only ever called a black candidate, and never a white one?

It seems like the media are using two different standards in order to determine whether or not a person - in this case, Senator Obama - is black or white. Just having ONE black parent is enough to make you black, apparently; however, in order to be white, BOTH of your parents have to be white.

But why should there be two different standards? Why not just say that, for any race or ethnicity, as long as you have one parent who belongs to it, then you belong to it, too? In that case, Senator Obama would be both black AND white, and the media could refer to him as "black and white candidate Barack Obama."

Or, we could accept the more stringent standard, and say that, for any race or ethnicity, BOTH of your parents have to belong to it in order for you to belong to it. In that case, Senator Obama would be neither black nor white. The media would then, I imagine, refer to him as "mixed race candidate Barack Obama."

But instead of taking either of these routes, the media seems to be endorsing these two different standards for racial membership, without any good reason. Now, these differing standards have been used in the past, but largely by white supremacists who wanted to keep the white race 'pure'. Given that they were employing different standards in order to achieve bigoted goals, is there any good reason why we should continue to use them? None that I can think of.

Moreover, I wonder if there's any good reason to be consistently identifying candidates by their race or ethnicity, anyway. After all, we don't use religion or gender all the time to refer to candidates - when was the last time you heard someone referred to as "Christian candidate," "Jewish candidate," "male candidate," or "female candidate"? - and I don't know that we need to. It seems far more sensible to refer to their political or ideological affiliation - for instance, "Democratic candidate," "conservative candidate," etc. - given that it's their political ideas that they are running on.