If only I could raise $30 million in three weeks...

According to CNN's Political Ticker, Newt Gingrich announced Monday that he would enter the campaign if donors contributed "at least $30 million... over a three-week period starting Monday and ending Oct. 21."

But before you all experience a euphoria-induced blog-o-seizure, let's think about Gingrich's chances should he enter the 'invisible primary.'

As most of you have probably noticed, a couple battleground political states are waging a rather subtle yet important war. Each vying to overtake New Hampshire for the title of 'first primary,' preliminary elections are moving closer and closer to the beginning of 2008. I've even heard CNN refer to what was known as 'Super Tuesday' as 'Super Duper Tuesday' (thanks, Wolf...) because the primaries now resemble a sort of national referendum on the candidates.

That effectively leaves Gingrich four months to campaign; a hurdle that underlies the effects of unequal media (in)exposure during the primary process.

And let's not forget Gingrich's $30 million challenge. As of June 30, 2007, the top two candidate in terms of fund raising, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, campaigned for nearly $35 million and $33 million, respectively.

In other words, Gingrich hopes to do in three months what the current candidates have been doing for well over six. That's a little too idealist for me.

I mean, I, like anyone else, want to see a competent man or woman elected to the office of the president in 2008. I, again like the rest of this Web site's bloggers, hope the person who makes the grade does so fairly and openly with as much discourse as possible. But there is a fine line between idealism and pragmatism. Gingrich should run, but he needs to tone down his expectations if he wants to be successful; expectations are usually the reasons candidates fail. And he has to remember that despite his criticism, the system is what it is. He can hate the present state of political discourse and lambaste the insular primary or donor systems all to the approval of voter applause, but he has to play and rely on the system if he wishes to fix it. Tis the irony of politics.

The political clock is ticking, Newt.

Commissioning the Presidential Debate

For years, presidential debates were sponsored by the networks and the League of Women Voters. However, for every debate since 1988, including the upcoming 2008 debates, the Commission on Presidential Debates has had control of the debates.
The Commission, formed of bipartisan members, gets to decide who can debate, where the debates will be held, and who will moderate them.
According to Common Dreams, the Commission has a history of advocating for an even stronger, more defined, two-party system. When Ross Perot joined Clinton and Bush the First in the 1992, the networks experienced record-breaking audiences. While this increase in viewers is likely due to the novelty of a three party debate, at least it got more people to pay attention.
Maybe a little more novelty is what we need. The presidential debates today are boring to everyone who isn’t a political geek, and most of them already know the candidates’ positions.
Why not allow the candidates to ask each other questions, to rebut each others’ assertions, to discuss topics at length? And why not – get your tasers ready – let the audience participate? Would it be a little disorganized? Sure, but debate should be disorganized, and no important issue fits neatly into a nice, 30-second box.
Of course, this would require the Commission, so invested in maintaining the status quo, to either open its mind or step off. A number of citizen’s groups have advocated just that. Check out the Citizen’s Debate Commission (http://citizensdebate.org), which proposes a new way to run the debates.
Need more reasons why this system needs to change? NPR commentator Connie Rice has 10.

Second-Class Citizen

I’m one of those… oh, what do you call them? bleeding-heart liberals? You know, a "we're descended from monkies, women have a right to choose, pull out of Iraq, homosexuality is not a choice, the humanities can safeguard our culture" kind of person. And it’s my firm belief that theatre –like an internet blog- is a powerful medium of political awareness and discourse –just look to ancient Greece for evidence on how public performance can be used as a means of civic engagement. In the 2,500 years since Aeschylus first produced his Oresteia, however, theatre has shifted to –and is seen almost solely as- a form of entertainment rather than education. Now is the time to change that perception.

But doing so is difficult: in today’s world of Bonos and Brangelinas, many actors are politically vocal, but few are politically aware. I need your help to change this. In the coming weeks, I want to learn more about the positions of presidential candidates on a subject that many actors care deeply about and has only been talked about within the past two decades on stage: homosexuality. I want the candidates’ –and all of your- opinions on don’t-ask-don’t tell, marriage versus civil unions, federal anti-discrimination laws, allocations for AIDS research and the development of the queer image. It’s my hope that this blog might create more civic discourse so that this actor –as well as anyone else who will share- might be a bit more informed when standing in the voting booth a year from now.