The current US race for the White House is different from earlier races in many respects. Even a basic difference such as implementing a new political calendar impacts the race.
Nevada's caucus is now scheduled just after the Iowa caucus and ahead of the New Hampshire primary. Many other states are planning to move forward their primaries.
As of mid-March, eight states, including California and New Jersey, have moved their primary elections to next Feb. 5.
Fourteen other states, including Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas, are proposing to move their primaries to the same date. So some 50 percent of the delegates could be chosen by Feb. 5, narrowing the field down to a few strong candidates.
There are large numbers of declared or presumed candidates in both parties. Their main efforts now are fund raising and assembling a competent campaign staff. Because of the large amount of money required to run a serious campaign, some fringe candidates are expected to withdraw early. Others may stumble by saying the wrong thing or failing to ignite support among voters.
According to an average of seven national polls in February of likely Republican voters, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani led with 40 percent, followed by 22 percent for Senator John McCain, 11 percent for former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and 7 percent for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.
McCain is nevertheless regarded as the front-runner by virtue of his campaign team, fund-raising resources and experience in the US Congress and military. However, his strong support for the Iraq War is a sharp departure from voter sentiment. At 70, his age could also be a negative factor.
There are also a few other Republican hopefuls.
There are also many contenders on the Democratic side. New York Senator Hillary Clinton, the former first lady, has a substantial lead over her Democrat rivals. According to a recent survey conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News, 36 percent of Democrats support Clinton, 24 percent back Illinois Senator Barack Obama, 14 percent support the party's 2000 nominee, former vice president Al Gore, and 12 percent endorse John Edwards, the party's vice presidential nominee in 2004.
Clinton's advantages include name recognition, fund-raising prowess and a reputation for sharp intelligence. Possible liabilities are the perception that she is polarizing, may not be electable partly because of "Clinton fatigue," perceived relatively poor oratory skills, and consistent support of the Iraq War -- although she has been adjusting her stance on how and when US forces may be withdrawn from Iraq.
Obama is an attractive fresh face. He is articulate and comes across as someone genuinely committed to doing good for the country. He is an excellent speaker and author of two best-selling books who could draw considerable Black-American support away from the Clinton camp. He also objected to the Iraq War when it was politically risky to do so. The concern is his lack of experience. He has been in the US Senate for only two years.
Edwards has cultivated good relations with workers unions across the country. He is deeply committed to eliminating poverty and has traveled extensively overseas since 2004 to broaden his horizons. He is talented and is already developing policy proposals such as a comprehensive healthcare coverage plan. He could be a viable contender, depending on the progress of the Iraq War, the state of the economy and other unforeseen developments. On March 22, Edwards announced in a press conference that his wife Elizabeth's cancer had returned, but the campaign would continue.
The polls cited above may not be reliable since at this early stage: The results primarily reflect name recognition. As the long campaign progresses, voter preferences will undoubtedly shift.
A new poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times from Feb. 13 to Feb. 26 of 313 members of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and 133 members of the Republican National Committee (RNC) showed quite different results.
Among Democrats, Clinton won 20 percent of the support, Edwards 15 percent, Obama 11 percent, Gore 10 percent and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson 9 percent.
Among Republicans, Romney won 20 percent, Giuliani 14 percent, McCain 10 percent and Gingrich 8 percent.
Since the DNC and RNC members are delegates to the national nominating conventions, key organizers and opinion leaders, this insider poll possibly provides a more accurate reading of each candidate's party support.
Because of the Iraq fiasco and numerous scandals under the current administration, such as the Katrina relief failure, the perjury conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff Scooter Libby, the callous treatment of wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Medical Center, and the newly emerging controversy about the politically motivated firing of eight US attorneys by the Justice Department, there is a desire among independent voters to kick the rascals out. This inclination for change will favor the Democratic nominee.
This is not good news for Taiwan, since Democrats tend to see China as an economic challenge rather than a military threat. However, Taiwan's strategic value as an example of democracy for China and as a bastion against China's expansionist ambitions will dictate US policy no matter which party wins the White House.
The next US president will undoubtedly inherit the thorny problems of the Middle East and will have little time to pay attention to developments in Taiwan.
Concerns about Taiwan's future have prompted many Taiwanese-Americans and Taiwanese-American organizations to lobby the US government to ensure Taiwan's survival as a democratic state free from China's control. Such efforts have concentrated on the US Congress.
In reality, foreign policy is initiated and implemented by the president with support from the National Security Council, the State Department, the Pentagon and other executive agencies.
The congressional role to advise and consent is secondary. Whoever wins the race to the White House will have the greatest say about US policy towards Taiwan, China and East Asia in general. So it is important to pay attention to the ongoing presidential election, even though the first primary is ten months away.
Taiwanese-Americans need to monitor the evolving presidential race and try to approach the campaign staffs of the major contenders in each party, even though policy formulation is not the immediate concern of the candidates.
Once the candidates are nominated by their party convention, it will be much more difficult to approach their foreign policy aides. The objective is to provide useful information regarding US policy toward Taiwan, China and East Asia from the perspective of US citizens' interested in advancing US interests in the Asia-Pacific region. Such efforts could conceivably influence the drafting of party platforms in the summer before the presidential election.
Another goal is to help prevent the emergence of policy positions detrimental to the interest of both the US and Taiwan, such as John Kerry's advocacy of "one country two systems" for Taiwan's future in 2004.
Taiwan will have a new president in May next year. The new administration will need to maintain solid relations with the administration of US president George W. Bush while keeping a watchful eye on the US presidential election, the outcome of which will be known in November next year, with the new president inaugurated in January 2009.
The distraction of the protracted presidential race in the US means that Taiwan should be vigilant in bolstering its national defense and economic security in order to safeguard the nation's hard-won freedom.
Li Thian-hok is a freelance political commentator based in Pennsylvania.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS