Remember gravitas?
It was a word thrown about in the 2000 presidential election which, if you had it, then you possessed a weighty grasp of the issues. Opponents claimed George W. Bush had no gravitas and, as it turned out, they were partially correct. Unfortunately for them, vice-presidential candidate Dick Cheney -- whatever you think of the man -- oozed gravitas and Bush was able to eke out the election on the strength of electoral votes.
The best word to use for this election cycle is "veracity" defined as a "habitual observance of the truth in speech or statement and conformity to fact.
Notice the word of choice is not "ideology" or "conservative" or "enthusiasm."
Most people are tired of a political class who are elitist and too clever by half in trying to accomplish what they think needs to be done to keep themselves in office. They no longer want officials who define themselves by whether they are progressive or liberal or moderate or conservative. They certainly want no one who is holier than thou.
Veracity is a good word because it implies someone who will approach his job with open eyes and communicate the issues to the public in a straightforward manner. If you're an old guy in a rumpled suit with no particular ambitions beyond the office you're running for, you're probably having a good year.
That's why Democrat Jerry Brown is leading Republican Meg Whitman in polling in the California governor's race. He is the old guy (72) in the rumpled suit who has in the past decade positioned himself as a pragmatist, a far cry from his younger "Gov. Moonbeam" days. Whitman, the former eBay CEO, is the kind of person the electorate is moving away from -- the one who thinks she can buy her way into office because she has millions and is entitled. People doubt her, if not cringe, even if they are on her side politically.
The way things are going this election season, there is no way Brown should be within 20 points of Whitman. He's got tremendous baggage for voters who remember his governorship, he's a Democrat in a GOP year, he's a step too extreme on environmental issues and will be supported by the public employee unions that have nearly flushed a beautiful state down the toilet. But he's leading because, while he may not have gravitas, he has veracity.
My bet is if this November election does become a GOP landslide, Whitman will ride the wave to Sacramento. She might turn out to be a good governor, too, for all I know. She should be leading by a lot more than she is currently.
Three other Republican candidates are struggling in Senate races because of "The V Word."
Also in the Golden State, former HP CEO Carly Fiorina is trailing incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer by a couple of points now. I think if people had one senator they could run out of Washington on a rail, it would be Harry Reid of Nevada, but Boxer would be a very close second choice. Unfortunately, Fiorina is another corporate millionaire who bought her way into the general election and voters really don't know what they will be getting from her. Same with Reid's opponent, the erratic Sharron Angle. In Delaware, Christine O'Donnell is being slammed by Democrats who daily uncover her unusual statements and activities in the past.
I'm not sure if much can be done to change Fiorina's persona, but both Angle and O'Donnell are relatively new to the public eye and, with discipline, can improve their campaigns in the final month. They can eye another Tea Party Patriot, Rand Paul, who is running for Senate in Kentucky, who also had to overcome a truckload of gaffes -- and has and is comfortably leading in the polls. We'll see.
Here's another word for 2010: "sober."
This has nothing to do with staying away from adult beverages, but everything to do with approaching problems in a cool, calm and professional manner. Whitman and Fiorina can do that. People have doubts about whether Angle and O'Donnell can. Like Whitman, Angle should hold a double-digits lead over Reid, who is vastly disliked in his home state. O'Donnell is fresh, having just won, so she has a chance to get on the good side with voters. With independents breaking for Republicans this time, they'll have a chance. They just need to convince voters of their veracity.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
Arizona Immigration, Oil Spill
This blog got its start in the last hysteria over illegal immigration, so I might as well post again during the current squabble.
As usual, most of the debate we hear comes from the extremes. Arizona is not being taken over by Nazis and the federal government is actually doing quite a bit about stemming the flow of illegal immigrants, from building border fences to conducting raids on businesses that hire them. That's it's not enough is a sign of the magnitude of the problem, not that we're not trying.
A poll released Monday shows that Americans are much closer to the center on this issue, as they are on most others. Rasmussen Reports found that 58 percent of Americans want an immigration policy that's considered "welcoming." And if you think that racist Republicans are behind the new law in Arizona, members of the GOP were more in favor of the welcoming policy than Democrats. At the same time, the poll found that we need to control the borders.
Control our borders, know who is coming in and leaving, and maintain our status of a melting pot nation of immigrants who follow procedure as they arrive on our shores. That's what we want, and according to the poll results, that's what we've wanted for years.
---
So much for off-shore drilling. When the explosion and fire took place last week off the Gulf Coast, it seemed to be a tragedy only in that it took lives. I use the word "only" advisedly, of course. That's because a second tragedy is unfolding which could do untold environmental damage to an area still recovering from Hurricane Katrina and a couple of successors.
As a resident of a coastal city, I approve of off-shore drilling only reluctantly. I think we need to tap what oil reserves we have because it will take years -- if not decades -- to develop the green, clean energy that we want.
Now I don't see off-shore drilling being approved at all, for any reason. That's a third tragedy.
As usual, most of the debate we hear comes from the extremes. Arizona is not being taken over by Nazis and the federal government is actually doing quite a bit about stemming the flow of illegal immigrants, from building border fences to conducting raids on businesses that hire them. That's it's not enough is a sign of the magnitude of the problem, not that we're not trying.
A poll released Monday shows that Americans are much closer to the center on this issue, as they are on most others. Rasmussen Reports found that 58 percent of Americans want an immigration policy that's considered "welcoming." And if you think that racist Republicans are behind the new law in Arizona, members of the GOP were more in favor of the welcoming policy than Democrats. At the same time, the poll found that we need to control the borders.
Control our borders, know who is coming in and leaving, and maintain our status of a melting pot nation of immigrants who follow procedure as they arrive on our shores. That's what we want, and according to the poll results, that's what we've wanted for years.
---
So much for off-shore drilling. When the explosion and fire took place last week off the Gulf Coast, it seemed to be a tragedy only in that it took lives. I use the word "only" advisedly, of course. That's because a second tragedy is unfolding which could do untold environmental damage to an area still recovering from Hurricane Katrina and a couple of successors.
As a resident of a coastal city, I approve of off-shore drilling only reluctantly. I think we need to tap what oil reserves we have because it will take years -- if not decades -- to develop the green, clean energy that we want.
Now I don't see off-shore drilling being approved at all, for any reason. That's a third tragedy.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The Revolutionary Tidal Wave
There's a political revolution underway in the United States of America as clearly indicated by Tuesday's election of Republican Scott Brown to the US Senate from very liberal Massachusetts. Brown's victory is stunning in itself but made more so in that he is taking over Ted Kennedy's seat, and he reportedly won the Democrat icon's home precinct in Hyannis.
Because of what's happening, I thought it was time to resurrect the ol' blog, which has been dormant for some time while I pursued other projects. I don't know if I'll be able to post as much as I used to, but when inspired, I'll come on here and share my thoughts.
One of the things that encouraged me to blog about politics again is that a lot of people are going to try to manipulate the revolution for their own ends. There will be a lot of misinformation out there. Hopefully I can help set things straight.
-- No question that Brown's victory is a repudiation of the health care bill being pushed through by President Obama and Congressional leaders, at all costs. But only in part.
-- Brown's victory reflects voter anger at Obama's presidency so far, both in what he's done (conservatives energized to vote Tuesday) and not done (liberals who stayed home). Again, only in part.
-- Martha Coakley ran a lousy campaign. I have no idea, but she did lose in a Democrat stronghold, so there's some circumstantial evidence.
Here's the real story.
This GOP victory, combined with gubernatorial wins last year in New Jersey and Virginia, are not just part of a huge voter revulsion over the Obama presidency, but a continuation of a revolt against "politics as usual" that began months before the 2006 mid-term elections.
The stuff happening in the health care debate, the back-room deals, the hiding of details from public view, the out-and-out lies, has the public simply outraged. These types of things have always happened in Washington and always will, but the public perception is our so-called "leaders" are way out of control and need to be reined in. So that's what's taking place and it's the Democrats who happen to be in power right now, so they're taking the brunt. In 2006 and to some extent in 2008, the GOP was in power and voters couldn't wait to send them packing.
The public turned to congressional Democrats in 2006 and Obama in 2008 to get away from all the crap, to improve the level of debate, to be honest and open. The Dems and Obama campaigned like they were "change incarnate" and would govern in a way that would be appreciated by the electorate. Well, nothing changed. It arguably got worse.
So the revolution that started in 2006 has become a tidal wave, and angry voters are unwilling to differentiate between the parties. If you're guilty of lying and corruption, you're out.
I stated to several people late last year that in my several decades of following politics, I have never seen a riper time for a third party. I was not then, and still aren't, convinced the Republicans can reform themselves and become the party that takes over in DC and governs responsibly. I think voters, who only recently tossed them out on their elephant hind quarters, feel the same way. But if there were a third party with a platform of economic responsibility and strong national security, they would win a plurality in the House in November, win a majority of the available Senate seats in November, and in 2012 take control of Congress and the White House.
It hasn't happened yet. My prediction is that if the GOP falls short of retaking Congress in November, then there will be an effort made at forming such a third party.
I certainly can't predict what will happen in November at this point, there are just too many things going on.
-- Within the parties, the Democrat moderates and progressives are going to square off against each other following the Massachusetts debacle. Who knows what the outcome will be or what it will mean. Stay tuned. On the GOP side, you have the Tea Party activists taking on the moderates. Same question and remark. We'll see.
-- Advantage Democrats: we're coming out of the recession. Unless commercial real estate goes haywire, most voters will feel reasonably good about their position in life come November causing them to forget some of the more esoteric stuff. Anger over health care will dissipate if it doesn't pass. If it does, we certainly won't feel the damaging economic impacts for a couple years, so many people will head into November wondering what all the fuss was about.
-- Advantage Republicans: congressional math is in their favor, with a lot of Democrats representing districts that lean to the right. There are also some retiring Democrats. Americans didn't like George Bush very much in his last couple of years, but they fear Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. There's a powerful difference and it could prove critical.
The bottom line is that voter sentiment in our country has to be viewed over a broader context, but will of course be swayed by individual issues, as became clear in Massachusetts.
Because of what's happening, I thought it was time to resurrect the ol' blog, which has been dormant for some time while I pursued other projects. I don't know if I'll be able to post as much as I used to, but when inspired, I'll come on here and share my thoughts.
One of the things that encouraged me to blog about politics again is that a lot of people are going to try to manipulate the revolution for their own ends. There will be a lot of misinformation out there. Hopefully I can help set things straight.
-- No question that Brown's victory is a repudiation of the health care bill being pushed through by President Obama and Congressional leaders, at all costs. But only in part.
-- Brown's victory reflects voter anger at Obama's presidency so far, both in what he's done (conservatives energized to vote Tuesday) and not done (liberals who stayed home). Again, only in part.
-- Martha Coakley ran a lousy campaign. I have no idea, but she did lose in a Democrat stronghold, so there's some circumstantial evidence.
Here's the real story.
This GOP victory, combined with gubernatorial wins last year in New Jersey and Virginia, are not just part of a huge voter revulsion over the Obama presidency, but a continuation of a revolt against "politics as usual" that began months before the 2006 mid-term elections.
The stuff happening in the health care debate, the back-room deals, the hiding of details from public view, the out-and-out lies, has the public simply outraged. These types of things have always happened in Washington and always will, but the public perception is our so-called "leaders" are way out of control and need to be reined in. So that's what's taking place and it's the Democrats who happen to be in power right now, so they're taking the brunt. In 2006 and to some extent in 2008, the GOP was in power and voters couldn't wait to send them packing.
The public turned to congressional Democrats in 2006 and Obama in 2008 to get away from all the crap, to improve the level of debate, to be honest and open. The Dems and Obama campaigned like they were "change incarnate" and would govern in a way that would be appreciated by the electorate. Well, nothing changed. It arguably got worse.
So the revolution that started in 2006 has become a tidal wave, and angry voters are unwilling to differentiate between the parties. If you're guilty of lying and corruption, you're out.
I stated to several people late last year that in my several decades of following politics, I have never seen a riper time for a third party. I was not then, and still aren't, convinced the Republicans can reform themselves and become the party that takes over in DC and governs responsibly. I think voters, who only recently tossed them out on their elephant hind quarters, feel the same way. But if there were a third party with a platform of economic responsibility and strong national security, they would win a plurality in the House in November, win a majority of the available Senate seats in November, and in 2012 take control of Congress and the White House.
It hasn't happened yet. My prediction is that if the GOP falls short of retaking Congress in November, then there will be an effort made at forming such a third party.
I certainly can't predict what will happen in November at this point, there are just too many things going on.
-- Within the parties, the Democrat moderates and progressives are going to square off against each other following the Massachusetts debacle. Who knows what the outcome will be or what it will mean. Stay tuned. On the GOP side, you have the Tea Party activists taking on the moderates. Same question and remark. We'll see.
-- Advantage Democrats: we're coming out of the recession. Unless commercial real estate goes haywire, most voters will feel reasonably good about their position in life come November causing them to forget some of the more esoteric stuff. Anger over health care will dissipate if it doesn't pass. If it does, we certainly won't feel the damaging economic impacts for a couple years, so many people will head into November wondering what all the fuss was about.
-- Advantage Republicans: congressional math is in their favor, with a lot of Democrats representing districts that lean to the right. There are also some retiring Democrats. Americans didn't like George Bush very much in his last couple of years, but they fear Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. There's a powerful difference and it could prove critical.
The bottom line is that voter sentiment in our country has to be viewed over a broader context, but will of course be swayed by individual issues, as became clear in Massachusetts.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Sort of Right. Future of Politics
Well, my election day predictions if not right on the mark were reasonably close. The Democrats have obviously worked on their ground game more than the Republicans in Florida and Ohio (a place maybe ruined for the GOP for a decade by the state party) while Virginia has tilted from a Republican stronghold to a real battleground. And North Carolina, often seen as a GOP state, has a history of batting from both sides of the plate.
I really think the debates sealed the win for Barack Obama, where he avoided sounding like a free-spending radical liberal as portrayed by his opponents and John McCain failed to make himself into some sort of alternative.
I don't think the country has tilted left or rejected conservatism. The voters bought into Obama's self-description of a pragmatist -- and a non-ideological problem-solver is what people really want. They have also roundly rejected Republicans who don't behave like Republicans. I think voters are relatively okay with politicians on both sides of the political spectrum as long as they act like they're supposed to. Republicans who go to Congress and spend us out of house and home end up getting spanked, and that's what's happened for two elections in a row.
The question is how each party should respond in order to maximize their gains for 2010.
Democrats: I fear Obama got off on the wrong foot as president-elect by trying to get Rep. Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff. Emanuel is as partisan as they get, not the sort of guy we wanted to see in such a position. The new president is going to have to govern as the man we saw in the debates, not as the man who voted as senator, attended church in Chicago or went to meetings of community activists. He will also have to stand up to Congress. Bill Clinton found out early that even though he had the House on his side in 1992, there remains an institutional struggle for power between the legislative and executive branches of government. Guaranteed that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have big plans now that their guy is in the White House. Obama might not want what they're peddling.
Smart move, making John McCain a frequent if informal advisor on national security.
Dumb move, since John Paul Stevens is likely to resign from the U.S. Supreme Court within weeks of Obama's inauguration, he chooses Bill or Hillary.
Republicans: As mentioned above, the GOP got smoked because neither its president nor members of Congress governed as they said they would. They spent like crazy and opened the door for Democratic mis-steps to send the economy into a tailspin. This year's financial mess would have been much easier to handle if the government's house had been in order, but it was not. Therefore, the people responsible have to go and new leadership has to come in. I don't think a majority of people in the country take Sarah Palin seriously, but she does paint the proper path back to representation of the common man. That's the direction the GOP has to go. The best hopes for party leadership right now are Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal -- who can widen the path and take it farther -- and former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who needs to stop trying to be a conservative and go back to being the pragmatist he once was. They also clearly have to find a way to reach the 20-something voter, whose brains are either in or just removed from the leftist college swamps. These people, mainly because of near-total control of mass media by the left, aren't even exposed to conservative ideals.
Smart move: working with Obama to help shape his policies for the good of the country.
Dumb move: seeking revenge for how Democrats treated Bush and using their hold on Senate cloture by fighting him tooth-and-nail every step of the way.
I really think the debates sealed the win for Barack Obama, where he avoided sounding like a free-spending radical liberal as portrayed by his opponents and John McCain failed to make himself into some sort of alternative.
I don't think the country has tilted left or rejected conservatism. The voters bought into Obama's self-description of a pragmatist -- and a non-ideological problem-solver is what people really want. They have also roundly rejected Republicans who don't behave like Republicans. I think voters are relatively okay with politicians on both sides of the political spectrum as long as they act like they're supposed to. Republicans who go to Congress and spend us out of house and home end up getting spanked, and that's what's happened for two elections in a row.
The question is how each party should respond in order to maximize their gains for 2010.
Democrats: I fear Obama got off on the wrong foot as president-elect by trying to get Rep. Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff. Emanuel is as partisan as they get, not the sort of guy we wanted to see in such a position. The new president is going to have to govern as the man we saw in the debates, not as the man who voted as senator, attended church in Chicago or went to meetings of community activists. He will also have to stand up to Congress. Bill Clinton found out early that even though he had the House on his side in 1992, there remains an institutional struggle for power between the legislative and executive branches of government. Guaranteed that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have big plans now that their guy is in the White House. Obama might not want what they're peddling.
Smart move, making John McCain a frequent if informal advisor on national security.
Dumb move, since John Paul Stevens is likely to resign from the U.S. Supreme Court within weeks of Obama's inauguration, he chooses Bill or Hillary.
Republicans: As mentioned above, the GOP got smoked because neither its president nor members of Congress governed as they said they would. They spent like crazy and opened the door for Democratic mis-steps to send the economy into a tailspin. This year's financial mess would have been much easier to handle if the government's house had been in order, but it was not. Therefore, the people responsible have to go and new leadership has to come in. I don't think a majority of people in the country take Sarah Palin seriously, but she does paint the proper path back to representation of the common man. That's the direction the GOP has to go. The best hopes for party leadership right now are Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal -- who can widen the path and take it farther -- and former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who needs to stop trying to be a conservative and go back to being the pragmatist he once was. They also clearly have to find a way to reach the 20-something voter, whose brains are either in or just removed from the leftist college swamps. These people, mainly because of near-total control of mass media by the left, aren't even exposed to conservative ideals.
Smart move: working with Obama to help shape his policies for the good of the country.
Dumb move: seeking revenge for how Democrats treated Bush and using their hold on Senate cloture by fighting him tooth-and-nail every step of the way.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Presidential Prediction, Campaign Reaction
It's been nearly a month since I posted here as I've mostly turned my attention to another project, but with the election coming tomorrow I thought I would throw in my two cents worth.
It's pretty clear that Barack Obama is going to become the president-elect Tuesday night and that John McCain will return to the Senate and end up on the virtual scrap heap of weak GOP candidates past.
Many predictions have Obama winning well over 300 electoral votes. That I don't see. My prediction, with the help of a chart at Realclearpolitics.com, is Obama will win 291 electoral votes or 21 more than necessary to win the White House. McCain will take 247 electoral votes. I think McCain will hold hotly contested Ohio and Florida but Obama appears to have a decisive edge in Pennsylvania and Virginia has moved into his camp. It would be less shocking for Obama to steal Florida or North Carolina to add 42 more electoral votes than it would be for McCain to pull an upset in Pennsylvania and hold Virginia for the GOP. The Democrats have the benefit of a popular politician running for senate in the Old Dominion, so he'll carry the top of the ticket to victory there.
We've heard two things from the conservative media in the past couple of weeks. One, that the race is tightening. That's true, but only by a percentage point or two here or there. The sort of last-week polling avalanche toward one candidate or the other has not happened in 2008.
Their other point is that those who have been undecided heading into the last week or so will break for McCain. That's also true, which is why I think McCain will win in many states where Obama is currently leading polls by only a plurality or in which he's within two points. However, there still does not appear to be a tsunami in the offing.
I also see no reason to disagree with the consensus that Democrats will make moderate gains in the House and Senate, but won't get the 60 seats necessary to invoke cloture in the upper chamber. The advances will come through simple math and GOP retirements than any change in voter preference to Democrats like in 2006.
---
So how did we end up here, instead of predicting a McCain victory as would have been perfectly reasonable not much more than a month ago?
I haven't seen this explanation anywhere else, but to me it makes perfect sense. When talking about the meltdown of the U.S. financial sector in the vice-presidential debate, Sarah Palin blamed Wall Street and corporate greed and nothing else. John McCain in the first of the debates on domestic issues did the same thing.
The fact of the matter is that Wall Street and corporate greed were (and still are) about a third of the problem. Poor oversight and economic stewardship by the executive branch were substantial contributors. However, also significant bad actors were congressional Democrats who pushed wrongheaded policies on the nation's financial system, and not only failed themselves in oversight but were buddy-buddy with some of the worst of the greedy cads -- Barack Obama included.
We all know that the blame for the financial mess is widespread, not limited to just one area. McCain and Palin assessed blame in the same manner that Obama and Biden did. Therefore, the millions of voters at home who watched the heavily viewed debates saw no major difference between their two choices. They did see a Republican ticket that appeared destined to fail in the second most important task we had for him: confronting a Democrat-led Congress that had a voter approval rating of 11 percent at last check. If McCain wasn't going to challenge Democrats or his fellow congressmen in a campaign debate, how was he going to take them on when he became president. The McCain as a barrier to a radically left legislature concept immediately disappeared.
This scenario played out roughly at the time the polls appeared to be at a tipping point. Voter sentiment could have gone either way. People were looking for an alternative to Barack Obama and did not see one in John McCain. With Iraq less of an issue and Obama seemingly hawkish on Afghanistan, the GOP candidate provided no other reason to get our vote.
On Tuesday, McCain will in fact receive many millions of votes by people who correctly understand that an Obama presidency will impact the U.S. Supreme Court and will bring a lot of people to Washington who hold sentiments similar to William Ayres and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But Obama will be chosen by a million or two more. McCain had his chance but blew it.
It's pretty clear that Barack Obama is going to become the president-elect Tuesday night and that John McCain will return to the Senate and end up on the virtual scrap heap of weak GOP candidates past.
Many predictions have Obama winning well over 300 electoral votes. That I don't see. My prediction, with the help of a chart at Realclearpolitics.com, is Obama will win 291 electoral votes or 21 more than necessary to win the White House. McCain will take 247 electoral votes. I think McCain will hold hotly contested Ohio and Florida but Obama appears to have a decisive edge in Pennsylvania and Virginia has moved into his camp. It would be less shocking for Obama to steal Florida or North Carolina to add 42 more electoral votes than it would be for McCain to pull an upset in Pennsylvania and hold Virginia for the GOP. The Democrats have the benefit of a popular politician running for senate in the Old Dominion, so he'll carry the top of the ticket to victory there.
We've heard two things from the conservative media in the past couple of weeks. One, that the race is tightening. That's true, but only by a percentage point or two here or there. The sort of last-week polling avalanche toward one candidate or the other has not happened in 2008.
Their other point is that those who have been undecided heading into the last week or so will break for McCain. That's also true, which is why I think McCain will win in many states where Obama is currently leading polls by only a plurality or in which he's within two points. However, there still does not appear to be a tsunami in the offing.
I also see no reason to disagree with the consensus that Democrats will make moderate gains in the House and Senate, but won't get the 60 seats necessary to invoke cloture in the upper chamber. The advances will come through simple math and GOP retirements than any change in voter preference to Democrats like in 2006.
---
So how did we end up here, instead of predicting a McCain victory as would have been perfectly reasonable not much more than a month ago?
I haven't seen this explanation anywhere else, but to me it makes perfect sense. When talking about the meltdown of the U.S. financial sector in the vice-presidential debate, Sarah Palin blamed Wall Street and corporate greed and nothing else. John McCain in the first of the debates on domestic issues did the same thing.
The fact of the matter is that Wall Street and corporate greed were (and still are) about a third of the problem. Poor oversight and economic stewardship by the executive branch were substantial contributors. However, also significant bad actors were congressional Democrats who pushed wrongheaded policies on the nation's financial system, and not only failed themselves in oversight but were buddy-buddy with some of the worst of the greedy cads -- Barack Obama included.
We all know that the blame for the financial mess is widespread, not limited to just one area. McCain and Palin assessed blame in the same manner that Obama and Biden did. Therefore, the millions of voters at home who watched the heavily viewed debates saw no major difference between their two choices. They did see a Republican ticket that appeared destined to fail in the second most important task we had for him: confronting a Democrat-led Congress that had a voter approval rating of 11 percent at last check. If McCain wasn't going to challenge Democrats or his fellow congressmen in a campaign debate, how was he going to take them on when he became president. The McCain as a barrier to a radically left legislature concept immediately disappeared.
This scenario played out roughly at the time the polls appeared to be at a tipping point. Voter sentiment could have gone either way. People were looking for an alternative to Barack Obama and did not see one in John McCain. With Iraq less of an issue and Obama seemingly hawkish on Afghanistan, the GOP candidate provided no other reason to get our vote.
On Tuesday, McCain will in fact receive many millions of votes by people who correctly understand that an Obama presidency will impact the U.S. Supreme Court and will bring a lot of people to Washington who hold sentiments similar to William Ayres and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But Obama will be chosen by a million or two more. McCain had his chance but blew it.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
McCain's Last Two Chances
With the presidential election campaign clearly breaking toward Barack Obama with less than a month to go, John McCain is running out of tools in his bag to turn the race back into his favor. The fact that McCain has left some tools unused just makes his job that much more difficult.
Here are the remaining plays in his playbook, as I see it.
1. Remind people of the type of change they want in their leadership. Voters want a different way of doing things in Washington, DC, not a change in ideology. McCain brings the procedural change and Obama brings the ideological change. The GOP candidate has failed to clearly delineate that difference. Now he has to make it a central theme.
2. The federal government, Congress in particular, bears at least half the responsibility for the economic crisis that's struck Wall Street and shrunk the investment portfolios of voters. Unless something changes drastically, the Democrats will not only retain their rule in the next Congressional term but probably expand it. With Obama in the White House, that means Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank -- among those chiefly responsible for the disaster -- will have unchecked power. McCain needs to get voters to think hard about whether that's such a good idea.
Unfortunately, it's doubtful that either of these strategies will be adopted. The McCain campaigns assaults on Obama's associations with William Ayers came too late in the game and smelled of desperation. Attacking Congress at this point would also present difficulties since he is a member of the Senate. Besides, in the debates, all the GOP candidate has ever done is blame Wall Street greed.
Assuming McCain takes neither of these suggestions, GOP chances in the presidential race will become like those of a second-place NFL football team in December. That's when fans are calculating just what combination of factors needs to come through in order for their teams to make the playoffs. The McCain campaign very soon could be like an NFL club that no longer controls its own destiny and needs the teams ahead of them to be defeated by someone else. McCain will need Obama to make a serious gaffe -- unlikely based on his performance in the first two debates -- or for a world event akin to the Russian invasion of Georgia to remind people what a dangerous world we're in.
While I don't see Obama making a major mistake that could tilt the race toward McCain, I can envision a scenario where the Illinois senator suffers from friendly fire. No one wants Obama to win more than the Bush-despisers at the Daily KOS, Code Pink and the Huffington Post. It wouldn't surprise me to see someone get overconfident and in their special vitriolic way share plans for what they'll do beginning next Jan. 20. Something like that would damage Obama in a way he'd never do to himself.
Here are the remaining plays in his playbook, as I see it.
1. Remind people of the type of change they want in their leadership. Voters want a different way of doing things in Washington, DC, not a change in ideology. McCain brings the procedural change and Obama brings the ideological change. The GOP candidate has failed to clearly delineate that difference. Now he has to make it a central theme.
2. The federal government, Congress in particular, bears at least half the responsibility for the economic crisis that's struck Wall Street and shrunk the investment portfolios of voters. Unless something changes drastically, the Democrats will not only retain their rule in the next Congressional term but probably expand it. With Obama in the White House, that means Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank -- among those chiefly responsible for the disaster -- will have unchecked power. McCain needs to get voters to think hard about whether that's such a good idea.
Unfortunately, it's doubtful that either of these strategies will be adopted. The McCain campaigns assaults on Obama's associations with William Ayers came too late in the game and smelled of desperation. Attacking Congress at this point would also present difficulties since he is a member of the Senate. Besides, in the debates, all the GOP candidate has ever done is blame Wall Street greed.
Assuming McCain takes neither of these suggestions, GOP chances in the presidential race will become like those of a second-place NFL football team in December. That's when fans are calculating just what combination of factors needs to come through in order for their teams to make the playoffs. The McCain campaign very soon could be like an NFL club that no longer controls its own destiny and needs the teams ahead of them to be defeated by someone else. McCain will need Obama to make a serious gaffe -- unlikely based on his performance in the first two debates -- or for a world event akin to the Russian invasion of Georgia to remind people what a dangerous world we're in.
While I don't see Obama making a major mistake that could tilt the race toward McCain, I can envision a scenario where the Illinois senator suffers from friendly fire. No one wants Obama to win more than the Bush-despisers at the Daily KOS, Code Pink and the Huffington Post. It wouldn't surprise me to see someone get overconfident and in their special vitriolic way share plans for what they'll do beginning next Jan. 20. Something like that would damage Obama in a way he'd never do to himself.
Friday, October 3, 2008
The End of Compassionate Conservatism
All week while congressmen debated the $700 bailout package, we've been treated to articles discussing the end of capitalism as we know it and the death of fiscal conservatism. In Thursday's vice presidential debate, Democratic candidate Joe Biden regularly mentioned the failure of the economic policies of the past eight years.
They're all wrong. What the past couple of weeks has proven more than anything is that what should be put to death is "compassionate conservatism." The is the George W. Bush creation, a follow on to the "new tone" of his father, that basically means there won't be any criticism of pet liberal programs. Compassionate conservatism is what led Bush to allow liberal icon Sen. Edward Kennedy to write the education reform bill that the left attacks so loudly.
Compassionate conservativism is also the reason why the Republicans in the executive branch and Congress were so reluctant to keep close watch on mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, why there were no investigations when there were warnings of trouble with the agencies, and why it took so long to finally take action to limit the damage that had been caused.
Congressional liberals tasked these quasi-government organizations with bringing low-cost mortgages to the masses, those who ordinarily wouldn't qualify for a home loan. Coupled with bans on red-lining, the practice of denying loans to customers in minority areas, the policies opened up the ownership society to millions who had not been able to participate in the past. Conservatives, and rightly so, love the idea of the ownership society.
But all this feeling good, liberals thinking they're helping the working poor and conservatives thinking they can improve people's lots in life by owning rather than renting, blinded everyone to the fact that a lot of these people who ended up getting mortgages were truly incapable of paying them back. So there was no oversight, and the agencies that backed the loans got in trouble.
There's obviously a lot more to the story. There was some predatory lending. There were a lot of cases of people who already owned homes who traded up and found themselves unable to handle the extra payments. There are as many foreclosed homes in rich areas as in poor areas.
It was just so nice that everyone was getting into housing ownership that there was no reason to really closely look at what was really happening to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the many private firms that have failed. We needed a cold eye to absorb reality. Compassionate conservativism failed us.
---
I was shocked when all the TV pundits, including those on MSNBC, praised GOP VP candidate Sarah Palin's debate performance. I thought she overlooked so many angles of attack on Biden and appeared so disgustingly cute and folksy that there was no way she could have won against the intense senator.
There were a couple of times when I was screaming at my television set for Palin to call Biden "mommy."
Since when did we Americans need all this government help? Excuse me, just create some conditions in which I can be successful, then get the hell out of the way.
---
Can you spell "Buyer's Remorse?"
Half the Democrats wanted to dump Obama until the financial crisis gave the Illinois senator a boost. Meanwhile, McCain's campaign has been terrible. His only highlights have been Palin's VP acceptance speech at the RNC and his suspension of his presidential campaign during negotiations over the bailout bill. Palin subsequently lost most of her gloss and McCain was unable to convert his return to the Senate into a substantial increase of support.
McCain is running out of chances, which means the Tuesday debate will be huge for him. Maybe make or break.
They're all wrong. What the past couple of weeks has proven more than anything is that what should be put to death is "compassionate conservatism." The is the George W. Bush creation, a follow on to the "new tone" of his father, that basically means there won't be any criticism of pet liberal programs. Compassionate conservatism is what led Bush to allow liberal icon Sen. Edward Kennedy to write the education reform bill that the left attacks so loudly.
Compassionate conservativism is also the reason why the Republicans in the executive branch and Congress were so reluctant to keep close watch on mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, why there were no investigations when there were warnings of trouble with the agencies, and why it took so long to finally take action to limit the damage that had been caused.
Congressional liberals tasked these quasi-government organizations with bringing low-cost mortgages to the masses, those who ordinarily wouldn't qualify for a home loan. Coupled with bans on red-lining, the practice of denying loans to customers in minority areas, the policies opened up the ownership society to millions who had not been able to participate in the past. Conservatives, and rightly so, love the idea of the ownership society.
But all this feeling good, liberals thinking they're helping the working poor and conservatives thinking they can improve people's lots in life by owning rather than renting, blinded everyone to the fact that a lot of these people who ended up getting mortgages were truly incapable of paying them back. So there was no oversight, and the agencies that backed the loans got in trouble.
There's obviously a lot more to the story. There was some predatory lending. There were a lot of cases of people who already owned homes who traded up and found themselves unable to handle the extra payments. There are as many foreclosed homes in rich areas as in poor areas.
It was just so nice that everyone was getting into housing ownership that there was no reason to really closely look at what was really happening to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the many private firms that have failed. We needed a cold eye to absorb reality. Compassionate conservativism failed us.
---
I was shocked when all the TV pundits, including those on MSNBC, praised GOP VP candidate Sarah Palin's debate performance. I thought she overlooked so many angles of attack on Biden and appeared so disgustingly cute and folksy that there was no way she could have won against the intense senator.
There were a couple of times when I was screaming at my television set for Palin to call Biden "mommy."
Since when did we Americans need all this government help? Excuse me, just create some conditions in which I can be successful, then get the hell out of the way.
---
Can you spell "Buyer's Remorse?"
Half the Democrats wanted to dump Obama until the financial crisis gave the Illinois senator a boost. Meanwhile, McCain's campaign has been terrible. His only highlights have been Palin's VP acceptance speech at the RNC and his suspension of his presidential campaign during negotiations over the bailout bill. Palin subsequently lost most of her gloss and McCain was unable to convert his return to the Senate into a substantial increase of support.
McCain is running out of chances, which means the Tuesday debate will be huge for him. Maybe make or break.
Friday, September 26, 2008
McCain Loses by Not Winning Debate
If this is a debating society, you could make either John McCain or Barack Obama the winner of Friday night's first debate. Kind of a boxing match won on points with a split decision.
That doesn't help John McCain. The Arizona Republican needs to flip a reasonably large state and flip some Obama-leading voters to win in November, and without a decisive win, he won't do that.
(as I write this, BTW, a lot of talking heads, including those on left-leaning MSNBC, are giving the debate to McCain for technical debate reasons. I don't think we voters really care about debating technique.)
No question that McCain was on the offensive and Obama on the defensive all night. However, Obama did well on the defensive and McCain was looking like a nasty old man by the end of the debate. I thought the discussion of the current financial situation and bailouts was a wash.
McCain won decisively on Iraq. Obama brought up his old arguments about why we shouldn't have gone to war in the first place, when the question was about what lesson we learned about the conflict. McCain came back and said the next president will have to worry about how to get us out responsibly, not about how we got in.
Obama then came right back and made perfect sense in how he would engage some of the world's brutal dictators and explain he didn't mean "preconditions" in the sense that his GOP opponent was casting it.
Other thoughts:
-- While debating the economy, Obama jumped on McCain for supporting corporate tax cuts and took a long time to get around to defending his position. He's right, we have to lower the tax burden on our economic engine. Instead, he started talking about companies in Ireland. Huh?
-- Obama plays into class warfare, a big issue now, by promising not to raise taxes to those making less than $250,000. The two problems, which the GOP campaign will have to bring out, is that's about what small business job creators make. You don't want to knock those people down. Secondly, while Obama might really believe that, the people who will come into his administration and Democrats in Congress want to siphon as much money out of anyone they can get it from.
-- While not as bad as George HW Bush checking his watch, Obama's appearance hurt him. He smirked too much at times and, when speaking, seemed stern and disengaged, which is not the style that made him the beloved Democratic candidate. And who did his makeup? This is a man who is half-black, but his appearance was one of a guy who is entirely black. I wonder if that's intentional or not.
-- Neither one looked presidential to me in the least. Both look, at best, like Secretaries of Whatever. Both are poor debators and managed only to avoid gaffes.
The subject matter of foreign policy and national security are McCain's strengths, and he needed a resounding victory in the debate to flip the voters he needed to. Obama, on the other hand, came across as a hawk. All his previous comments that made him appear soft had an explanation that sounded reasonable. He made you forget for an hour and a half the types of people who he'll be populating his administration with. Obama likely made many independents and moderate Democrats strongly considering McCain feel safe staying with their usual vote. That's critical for Obama and why he comes out ahead in round one.
That doesn't help John McCain. The Arizona Republican needs to flip a reasonably large state and flip some Obama-leading voters to win in November, and without a decisive win, he won't do that.
(as I write this, BTW, a lot of talking heads, including those on left-leaning MSNBC, are giving the debate to McCain for technical debate reasons. I don't think we voters really care about debating technique.)
No question that McCain was on the offensive and Obama on the defensive all night. However, Obama did well on the defensive and McCain was looking like a nasty old man by the end of the debate. I thought the discussion of the current financial situation and bailouts was a wash.
McCain won decisively on Iraq. Obama brought up his old arguments about why we shouldn't have gone to war in the first place, when the question was about what lesson we learned about the conflict. McCain came back and said the next president will have to worry about how to get us out responsibly, not about how we got in.
Obama then came right back and made perfect sense in how he would engage some of the world's brutal dictators and explain he didn't mean "preconditions" in the sense that his GOP opponent was casting it.
Other thoughts:
-- While debating the economy, Obama jumped on McCain for supporting corporate tax cuts and took a long time to get around to defending his position. He's right, we have to lower the tax burden on our economic engine. Instead, he started talking about companies in Ireland. Huh?
-- Obama plays into class warfare, a big issue now, by promising not to raise taxes to those making less than $250,000. The two problems, which the GOP campaign will have to bring out, is that's about what small business job creators make. You don't want to knock those people down. Secondly, while Obama might really believe that, the people who will come into his administration and Democrats in Congress want to siphon as much money out of anyone they can get it from.
-- While not as bad as George HW Bush checking his watch, Obama's appearance hurt him. He smirked too much at times and, when speaking, seemed stern and disengaged, which is not the style that made him the beloved Democratic candidate. And who did his makeup? This is a man who is half-black, but his appearance was one of a guy who is entirely black. I wonder if that's intentional or not.
-- Neither one looked presidential to me in the least. Both look, at best, like Secretaries of Whatever. Both are poor debators and managed only to avoid gaffes.
The subject matter of foreign policy and national security are McCain's strengths, and he needed a resounding victory in the debate to flip the voters he needed to. Obama, on the other hand, came across as a hawk. All his previous comments that made him appear soft had an explanation that sounded reasonable. He made you forget for an hour and a half the types of people who he'll be populating his administration with. Obama likely made many independents and moderate Democrats strongly considering McCain feel safe staying with their usual vote. That's critical for Obama and why he comes out ahead in round one.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Economy and Bailouts
The spectacle playing out this week and last regarding the U.S. financial system shows a continued wide gulf between the power brokers in Washington, D.C., and New York City and the rest of us here at home.
It's pretty clear that the big reason why we're here in the first place is that a bunch of Ivy League MBA-types with no values beyond making money have been using borrowed cash in a maniacal chase of the almighty dollar. Too often, that income was just listed on paper, too, and never became real income for anyone, and the house of cards eventually had to collapse. They were enabled by their sycophants on both sides of the aisle in the nation's capital.
That compares with normal people, who go to work every day and draw a paycheck every two weeks. Many of us, after paying for higher gas and food prices and astronomically skyrocketing insurance and medical payments, try to use a little left over to invest in stocks and mutual funds in hopes they'll increase in value faster than passbook savings accounts and remain ahead of inflation.
You also have a big difference in opinion regarding the bailouts. Rasmussen Reports says that just over a quarter of us support the current bailout plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. That is in line with many previous polls that show support for bailouts in general is very much in the minority. People know that the high-flyers messed up, so make them pay for it instead of the taxpayers is the sentiment.
Yet, politicians, Wall Street and many talking heads are pushing for the bailout. The only criticisms by John McCain or Barack Obama are that too much power is in the hands of one man, Paulson, and that there's not enough independent oversight. That might be the least of my worries, actually. I would rather have one smart guy who can cut through the crap steer us out of this mess than to try to do it by committee. The problem with a mini-tyranny is that Paulson might try to enrich friends or favor firms in which he's familiar, but he's going to be under such a microscope that even if he did have such temptations, I doubt he'd act on them.
On the other hand, I worry a bit about the everyone's push for quick consideration of the plan. It reminds me a lot of McCain's immigration bill a couple of years back. He wanted immediate approval without scrutiny. When it was examined, it turned out to be a bad piece of legislation and was correctly dismissed. Maybe Paulson's plan is a bad one, also.
On bailouts, I find myself in the middle. I don't like them yet sometimes they're necessary. It's kind of like the death penalty -- I hate it but sometimes crimes are so utterly heinous that you need to have it available. If an individual company screws up big-time, like Lehman Brothers, then see ya! However, if you get an AIG, the collapse of which would have worldwide economic repercussions, then a bailout is necessary. Troubling, but necessary.
The big bailout when I was a teenager, of Chrysler by the Carter Administration, was unnecessary and might have prevented Ford and GM executives from taking a harsh look at their companies, which have struggled ever since.
I also, as a free-market capitalist, have no problems with new regulations being placed on financial markets. Our Ivy League-educated dumbshits -- these people are financially privileged but neither smart nor have traditional values -- continually lead us into trouble and need to be reigned in. Unless you've forgotten the Internet bubble or the S&L crisis.
I also have to say the timing of the sudden lack of confidence in our financial institutions is quite suspicious. Just as McCain is getting ready to run Obama out of town in the polls, big money gets yanked out of the financial markets. The Democrats are the party of big money these days. Sure, the companies involved were vulnerable and might have collapsed at some point, anyway, but the timing is questionable.
Obama has and will benefit somewhat by what's taken place in the last 10 days. The party not in power during an economic crisis always gets a boost and the party that appears to favor stronger regulation -- Democrats -- will also be helped. It won't be by much, though, as Obama, running mate Joe Biden and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd are all up to their ears in Wall Street money. It'll be like Enron again, where pro-business Republicans will take a lot of flak but Democrats will be unable to take substantial advantage because of their deep ties to the affected organizations.
---
A nod to Richard Gere and Julia Roberts.
Remember that rather sappy chick flick "Pretty Woman," where Gere plays a corporate raider and Roberts a high-class call girl? Roberts character keeps asking Gere's character what his business makes, and Gere keeps responding that he doesn't make anything, he just makes money.
When that movie first came out, it looked like typical unsophisticated Hollywood anti-business blather. Now it appears that producer Garry Marshall and writer J.F. Lawton were ahead of their time.
It's pretty clear that the big reason why we're here in the first place is that a bunch of Ivy League MBA-types with no values beyond making money have been using borrowed cash in a maniacal chase of the almighty dollar. Too often, that income was just listed on paper, too, and never became real income for anyone, and the house of cards eventually had to collapse. They were enabled by their sycophants on both sides of the aisle in the nation's capital.
That compares with normal people, who go to work every day and draw a paycheck every two weeks. Many of us, after paying for higher gas and food prices and astronomically skyrocketing insurance and medical payments, try to use a little left over to invest in stocks and mutual funds in hopes they'll increase in value faster than passbook savings accounts and remain ahead of inflation.
You also have a big difference in opinion regarding the bailouts. Rasmussen Reports says that just over a quarter of us support the current bailout plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. That is in line with many previous polls that show support for bailouts in general is very much in the minority. People know that the high-flyers messed up, so make them pay for it instead of the taxpayers is the sentiment.
Yet, politicians, Wall Street and many talking heads are pushing for the bailout. The only criticisms by John McCain or Barack Obama are that too much power is in the hands of one man, Paulson, and that there's not enough independent oversight. That might be the least of my worries, actually. I would rather have one smart guy who can cut through the crap steer us out of this mess than to try to do it by committee. The problem with a mini-tyranny is that Paulson might try to enrich friends or favor firms in which he's familiar, but he's going to be under such a microscope that even if he did have such temptations, I doubt he'd act on them.
On the other hand, I worry a bit about the everyone's push for quick consideration of the plan. It reminds me a lot of McCain's immigration bill a couple of years back. He wanted immediate approval without scrutiny. When it was examined, it turned out to be a bad piece of legislation and was correctly dismissed. Maybe Paulson's plan is a bad one, also.
On bailouts, I find myself in the middle. I don't like them yet sometimes they're necessary. It's kind of like the death penalty -- I hate it but sometimes crimes are so utterly heinous that you need to have it available. If an individual company screws up big-time, like Lehman Brothers, then see ya! However, if you get an AIG, the collapse of which would have worldwide economic repercussions, then a bailout is necessary. Troubling, but necessary.
The big bailout when I was a teenager, of Chrysler by the Carter Administration, was unnecessary and might have prevented Ford and GM executives from taking a harsh look at their companies, which have struggled ever since.
I also, as a free-market capitalist, have no problems with new regulations being placed on financial markets. Our Ivy League-educated dumbshits -- these people are financially privileged but neither smart nor have traditional values -- continually lead us into trouble and need to be reigned in. Unless you've forgotten the Internet bubble or the S&L crisis.
I also have to say the timing of the sudden lack of confidence in our financial institutions is quite suspicious. Just as McCain is getting ready to run Obama out of town in the polls, big money gets yanked out of the financial markets. The Democrats are the party of big money these days. Sure, the companies involved were vulnerable and might have collapsed at some point, anyway, but the timing is questionable.
Obama has and will benefit somewhat by what's taken place in the last 10 days. The party not in power during an economic crisis always gets a boost and the party that appears to favor stronger regulation -- Democrats -- will also be helped. It won't be by much, though, as Obama, running mate Joe Biden and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd are all up to their ears in Wall Street money. It'll be like Enron again, where pro-business Republicans will take a lot of flak but Democrats will be unable to take substantial advantage because of their deep ties to the affected organizations.
---
A nod to Richard Gere and Julia Roberts.
Remember that rather sappy chick flick "Pretty Woman," where Gere plays a corporate raider and Roberts a high-class call girl? Roberts character keeps asking Gere's character what his business makes, and Gere keeps responding that he doesn't make anything, he just makes money.
When that movie first came out, it looked like typical unsophisticated Hollywood anti-business blather. Now it appears that producer Garry Marshall and writer J.F. Lawton were ahead of their time.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Campaigns Get Down to Hard Work
The hoopla of the conventions and poll bounces now over, the presidential campaigns now move into the hard work of the last two months of the campaign. With Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin running neck-and-neck, the candidates who are most able to outwork and outsmart the others will emerge victorious in November.
In a recent post, I cautioned to wait until the conventions were over to see where things stand between the candidates. Most national polling had Obama a couple of points ahead of McCain before the DNC. Now that the RNC is over and nearly a week has past since the GOP nominee made his acceptance speech, we're right back where we started, with McCain's bounce possibly fading some and the two candidates running in a statistical tie.
Now it's a matter of who can grind it out better than the other.
Here's a couple factors that could make a difference:
1. The two presidential debates and the vice-presidential debate might be the most-watched ever. Neither Obama nor McCain did well in formal debate settings in the primaries. McCain appears to do better in impromptu situations, which is why he wanted some informal town halls. Obama is marvelous in prepared situations. I suspect in the end it will be a wash, barring a major gaffe by other side.
2. Any world event that causes uncertainty is a plus for McCain, as his improvement of a couple points after Russia's invasion of Georgia demonstrates. Anything more like this could put the GOP nominee over the top. However, there's a real advantage for Obama in here. French President Sarkozy has had some mild success in his diplomatic efforts to settle the Russia-Georgia problem. If Sarkozy comes up with a dramatic breakthrough, Obama can point to it as proof that his strategy of diplomacy and engaging rivals is wiser than McCain's saber rattling.
3. Sarah Palin. Need we say more? Okay, just a little bit. Her speech at the RNC was a real kick and established her as a force in American politics. But can she grind? Will she still be funny day after day after day in taking on Democrats, or will she tire and appear shrewish? I think, especially in this election season, voters are willing to buy her as a vice president. The ultimate question, of course, is whether Americans can envision her as president. She'll be much closer to the White House than previous VPs because of McCain's age, despite his relatively good health.
4. The election will come down to battleground states, not the popular vote totals. Obama has most of the big electoral vote states in his camp, and the only traditional big Democrat state in question is Pennsylvania. McCain only has Texas as a big state, while big battlegrounds like Ohio, Florida and Virginia traditionally go for the GOP when Republicans win the presidency.
---
McCain, by selecting Palin as his running-mate, effectively snatched the "change" mantle from Obama and actually has a record on which to set it. Palin resonates with Americans because she's the anti-Hillary. She's a regular person, a mother who didn't like the way things were being run and set out to make changes. Hillary, and thousands of others like her from both parties in Washington, D.C. and state capitals nationwide, is and are what we want change from. No more scheming politicians and lawyers who place their own ambitions and ideologies above the good of the country.
McCain really did get the change message and showed it by selecting this woman. Obama, to his detriment, showed by selecting Joe Biden that the only change he wants is one to extreme liberalism. He had his chance and fumbled the ball away. His hope now is that the anti-Republican tide will hold sway for another two months.
Politics as usual is over. Dead. Gone. We at home get it. McCain got it. Obama, the Washington elite and the national media have not gotten it. It'll be interesting to see if they get the message in November.
---
I went to realclearpolitics.com and clicked around an interactive map for which direction I thought the various battleground states would go, and I ended up with a 269-269 tie, which would throw the election to the House of Representatives and, presumably, Obama.
In a recent post, I cautioned to wait until the conventions were over to see where things stand between the candidates. Most national polling had Obama a couple of points ahead of McCain before the DNC. Now that the RNC is over and nearly a week has past since the GOP nominee made his acceptance speech, we're right back where we started, with McCain's bounce possibly fading some and the two candidates running in a statistical tie.
Now it's a matter of who can grind it out better than the other.
Here's a couple factors that could make a difference:
1. The two presidential debates and the vice-presidential debate might be the most-watched ever. Neither Obama nor McCain did well in formal debate settings in the primaries. McCain appears to do better in impromptu situations, which is why he wanted some informal town halls. Obama is marvelous in prepared situations. I suspect in the end it will be a wash, barring a major gaffe by other side.
2. Any world event that causes uncertainty is a plus for McCain, as his improvement of a couple points after Russia's invasion of Georgia demonstrates. Anything more like this could put the GOP nominee over the top. However, there's a real advantage for Obama in here. French President Sarkozy has had some mild success in his diplomatic efforts to settle the Russia-Georgia problem. If Sarkozy comes up with a dramatic breakthrough, Obama can point to it as proof that his strategy of diplomacy and engaging rivals is wiser than McCain's saber rattling.
3. Sarah Palin. Need we say more? Okay, just a little bit. Her speech at the RNC was a real kick and established her as a force in American politics. But can she grind? Will she still be funny day after day after day in taking on Democrats, or will she tire and appear shrewish? I think, especially in this election season, voters are willing to buy her as a vice president. The ultimate question, of course, is whether Americans can envision her as president. She'll be much closer to the White House than previous VPs because of McCain's age, despite his relatively good health.
4. The election will come down to battleground states, not the popular vote totals. Obama has most of the big electoral vote states in his camp, and the only traditional big Democrat state in question is Pennsylvania. McCain only has Texas as a big state, while big battlegrounds like Ohio, Florida and Virginia traditionally go for the GOP when Republicans win the presidency.
---
McCain, by selecting Palin as his running-mate, effectively snatched the "change" mantle from Obama and actually has a record on which to set it. Palin resonates with Americans because she's the anti-Hillary. She's a regular person, a mother who didn't like the way things were being run and set out to make changes. Hillary, and thousands of others like her from both parties in Washington, D.C. and state capitals nationwide, is and are what we want change from. No more scheming politicians and lawyers who place their own ambitions and ideologies above the good of the country.
McCain really did get the change message and showed it by selecting this woman. Obama, to his detriment, showed by selecting Joe Biden that the only change he wants is one to extreme liberalism. He had his chance and fumbled the ball away. His hope now is that the anti-Republican tide will hold sway for another two months.
Politics as usual is over. Dead. Gone. We at home get it. McCain got it. Obama, the Washington elite and the national media have not gotten it. It'll be interesting to see if they get the message in November.
---
I went to realclearpolitics.com and clicked around an interactive map for which direction I thought the various battleground states would go, and I ended up with a 269-269 tie, which would throw the election to the House of Representatives and, presumably, Obama.
Friday, August 29, 2008
McCain Goes for Palin
As mentioned last week, the choice of a vice president is a good way to judge how a campaign thinks things are going. Therefore, we get some clues from John McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running-mate.
First, polls are showing that while the race overall for president is very close, Barack Obama leads generally in the high single-digits among women. Yet his lead is substantially higher with women of color than white women, likely because of the Hillary factor. If the choice of Palin blunts Clinton's deliverance of support in Denver and brings him a few more disaffected white women, then McCain has a shot to win some close states.
Second, he probably feels he does not need to bring the risk of a Mitt Romney. As we stated last week, the former Massachusetts governor has an extravagantly successful track record, but he was a horrible campaigner who Democrats would have had a field day with. Romney also would have overshadowed the sometimes thin-skinned McCain.
Third, while Obama went off-track in his "change" message by picking 35-year Senate veteran Joe Biden as his running-mate, McCain wanted for once and for all to kill the "Bush's third term" attack of Democrats. Palin is a reformer who has angered a lot of the Alaska GOP rank-and-file. McCain, a maverick, felt he had to shore up his reformist credentials. That he did so with someone who is unknown is interesting.
Finally, I can't help but think of Dan Quayle. This might not be fair to Palin, but while Quayle was pretty smart, you could never get over the feeling that he was a lightweight brought in so he would not threaten George H.W. Bush. McCain ran such a risk with Romney. Whether Palin is a lightweight or the rising female GOP star I wondered about last week is questionable. I, nor few others, know her well enough.
That the vice presidential candidates of both parties came from non-battleground states with a combined 6 electoral votes is interesting.
---
(Add Palin) After giving it some thought, I have mixed feelings about the pick. I love her record as a reformer. Alaska was a Republican machine, as we've seen with some indictments, until Palin came along and started to tear things down. Yeah, it's a little odd that McCain had to improve on his maverick credentials, but reform is desperately needed in DC. The more the merrier, I guess.
However, the experience issue is going to give pause to some voters. That old adage of being one heartbeat from the presidency will apply to her more than any Veep since George the Elder. I'm confident she can handle the role, as can Biden, but the odds of her playing a major role in running the country by the end of McCain's term are relatively high. The way she handles this is not by constantly trumpeting her being mayor and councilwoman of a small Anchorage suburb, but with day-in-day out competency on the campaign trail. An assured appearance, lack of gaffes and a handle on complex issues will serve her well. If not, she could doom her campaign.
---
After a strong speech at Denver's Invesco Field, it'll be interesting to see what bounce Obama gets in the polls. He'll get some, but the Biden VP pick is going to hold him back some. Beware of Friday stories showing a big or small bounce. Wait until Monday, when the major polling firms have been able to sample people for a few days. Then we'll know whether the DNC was a success or not.
Then again, we go straight into the RNC now, which means McCain has a chance for a boost in the polls, too. By Monday, Sept. 8, we could very well be right back where we started.
First, polls are showing that while the race overall for president is very close, Barack Obama leads generally in the high single-digits among women. Yet his lead is substantially higher with women of color than white women, likely because of the Hillary factor. If the choice of Palin blunts Clinton's deliverance of support in Denver and brings him a few more disaffected white women, then McCain has a shot to win some close states.
Second, he probably feels he does not need to bring the risk of a Mitt Romney. As we stated last week, the former Massachusetts governor has an extravagantly successful track record, but he was a horrible campaigner who Democrats would have had a field day with. Romney also would have overshadowed the sometimes thin-skinned McCain.
Third, while Obama went off-track in his "change" message by picking 35-year Senate veteran Joe Biden as his running-mate, McCain wanted for once and for all to kill the "Bush's third term" attack of Democrats. Palin is a reformer who has angered a lot of the Alaska GOP rank-and-file. McCain, a maverick, felt he had to shore up his reformist credentials. That he did so with someone who is unknown is interesting.
Finally, I can't help but think of Dan Quayle. This might not be fair to Palin, but while Quayle was pretty smart, you could never get over the feeling that he was a lightweight brought in so he would not threaten George H.W. Bush. McCain ran such a risk with Romney. Whether Palin is a lightweight or the rising female GOP star I wondered about last week is questionable. I, nor few others, know her well enough.
That the vice presidential candidates of both parties came from non-battleground states with a combined 6 electoral votes is interesting.
---
(Add Palin) After giving it some thought, I have mixed feelings about the pick. I love her record as a reformer. Alaska was a Republican machine, as we've seen with some indictments, until Palin came along and started to tear things down. Yeah, it's a little odd that McCain had to improve on his maverick credentials, but reform is desperately needed in DC. The more the merrier, I guess.
However, the experience issue is going to give pause to some voters. That old adage of being one heartbeat from the presidency will apply to her more than any Veep since George the Elder. I'm confident she can handle the role, as can Biden, but the odds of her playing a major role in running the country by the end of McCain's term are relatively high. The way she handles this is not by constantly trumpeting her being mayor and councilwoman of a small Anchorage suburb, but with day-in-day out competency on the campaign trail. An assured appearance, lack of gaffes and a handle on complex issues will serve her well. If not, she could doom her campaign.
---
After a strong speech at Denver's Invesco Field, it'll be interesting to see what bounce Obama gets in the polls. He'll get some, but the Biden VP pick is going to hold him back some. Beware of Friday stories showing a big or small bounce. Wait until Monday, when the major polling firms have been able to sample people for a few days. Then we'll know whether the DNC was a success or not.
Then again, we go straight into the RNC now, which means McCain has a chance for a boost in the polls, too. By Monday, Sept. 8, we could very well be right back where we started.
Friday, August 22, 2008
McCain Comes Out Ahead in VP Choices
Late Friday night, it appeared that Barack Obama had chosen Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden to be his vice-presidential candidate, and there was word that John McCain had settled on former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
If those reports are indeed true, and it will take a while before we really know the GOP choice, then McCain comes out ahead. While the VP candidate has little bearing on whether someone wins a presidential race, it could be significant this year. Recent polls show Obama and McCain neck-and-neck in a wide number of battleground states, including Colorado -- which the Democrats need -- and Virginia -- necessary for Republicans.
It could be that the VP choices only sway only one percent of voters. That could be enough this year.
While I don't have time for in-depth analysis on this post, it looks like the Obama camp has gone the safe route in picking Biden. While he adds nothing, he also costs nothing. Biden only gets his support from university academics and newspaper columnists who consider him an intellectual. It's safe to assume they're wrong. Most regular Americans have only heard his name and will not be impressed.
Obama wisely resisted the temptation to pick Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, probably figuring he's made nice enough with the Clinton camp so that he doesn't need a woman on the ticket. Sebelius, whose claim to fame is blaming President Bush for a deadly outbreak of tornadoes, would have been a disaster.
On the other hand, I think one of the other finalists, Indiana's Evan Bayh, might have helped Obama win the election. Biden will be cast as a moderate, and he's really not. Sebelius would have been cast as a moderate, and she's definitely not. Bayh is the real deal and could have helped in troublesome areas of the country like Ohio and Indiana -- which is slated to go McCain's direction.
As for Romney, the McCain campaign is taking the high-risk, high-reward tack. The primary season wound down last winter with the ex-Salt Lake City Olympics chief as clearly the best choice for president -- albeit in a horrible field -- but without question the worst campaigner (Gee! How can I market myself to people today?).
If McCain gets the Romney who clearly articulates the necessary solutions to our economic problems and reminds Americans of his Midas touch, then he'll be tough to beat. If he gets the smarmy Romney who is too slick by two-thirds, he'll be in trouble.
---
I thought when I heard Biden's name come up as the choice that it opened McCain up to choose a a youngish, well-thought-of Republican woman. That person would be ... uh, uh, hmm. The GOP had some great female politicians back in the 1990s, but Elizabeth Dole, as the chief example, turned out to be pretty mediocre once in office.
If those reports are indeed true, and it will take a while before we really know the GOP choice, then McCain comes out ahead. While the VP candidate has little bearing on whether someone wins a presidential race, it could be significant this year. Recent polls show Obama and McCain neck-and-neck in a wide number of battleground states, including Colorado -- which the Democrats need -- and Virginia -- necessary for Republicans.
It could be that the VP choices only sway only one percent of voters. That could be enough this year.
While I don't have time for in-depth analysis on this post, it looks like the Obama camp has gone the safe route in picking Biden. While he adds nothing, he also costs nothing. Biden only gets his support from university academics and newspaper columnists who consider him an intellectual. It's safe to assume they're wrong. Most regular Americans have only heard his name and will not be impressed.
Obama wisely resisted the temptation to pick Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, probably figuring he's made nice enough with the Clinton camp so that he doesn't need a woman on the ticket. Sebelius, whose claim to fame is blaming President Bush for a deadly outbreak of tornadoes, would have been a disaster.
On the other hand, I think one of the other finalists, Indiana's Evan Bayh, might have helped Obama win the election. Biden will be cast as a moderate, and he's really not. Sebelius would have been cast as a moderate, and she's definitely not. Bayh is the real deal and could have helped in troublesome areas of the country like Ohio and Indiana -- which is slated to go McCain's direction.
As for Romney, the McCain campaign is taking the high-risk, high-reward tack. The primary season wound down last winter with the ex-Salt Lake City Olympics chief as clearly the best choice for president -- albeit in a horrible field -- but without question the worst campaigner (Gee! How can I market myself to people today?).
If McCain gets the Romney who clearly articulates the necessary solutions to our economic problems and reminds Americans of his Midas touch, then he'll be tough to beat. If he gets the smarmy Romney who is too slick by two-thirds, he'll be in trouble.
---
I thought when I heard Biden's name come up as the choice that it opened McCain up to choose a a youngish, well-thought-of Republican woman. That person would be ... uh, uh, hmm. The GOP had some great female politicians back in the 1990s, but Elizabeth Dole, as the chief example, turned out to be pretty mediocre once in office.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Russia and Georgia, Olympics, Edwards, Polling
A new cold war between the West and Russia is unlikely despite the battles raging in the Republic of Georgia this week, unless there are some major diplomatic or military gaffes.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is among the last of a dying breed, the old-line Soviet communists who dreamed of world domination. His claim to power is rooted in nationalism, which is powerful in electoral politics and Olympics-style athletics. As popular as Putin is among the "Russkies," his appeal is likely to collapse if he tries to launch a series of military ventures. The Russian people care about their country up to a point but I just don't see them following Putin into war. There are a lot of Russians with powerful fiefdoms that would be disrupted by conflict, and these are the guys with Putin's ear. They'll tell him when it's time to stop.
The biggest question is what the United States and other western nations should do. We know the answer to what they will do. Nothing. Russia has veto power on the U.N. Security Council. The so-called non-aligned nations will vote against any measure condemning Russia in the U.N. General Assembly. The Euro-weenies will not have the will to remove Russia from the G-8 or any similar body of world leadership over fear that Putin will cut off their supply of natural gas.
What should be done? First of all, President Bush should admit that he misjudged Putin when they met early in his first term and he called him someone he could work with. We need to reconfigure our relationship with Russia from naivete to wariness. Bush could go a long way toward paving such a new path for his successor, be it Obama or McCain. We should push the various world bodies on anti-Russia resolutions for, if nothing else, to get countries to consider the problem and declare on which side they stand.
As friendly as the Georgian government has been to us, we cannot and I'm sure will not respond militarily. The U.S. embassy is passing out cash to those who've suffered losses. That's fine. We could embark on a wide program of humanitarian aid.
---
Too bad this isn't college football. Georgia would be favored by at least three touchdowns.
---
The politics of the 2008 Olympic Games left me cold, with the International Olympic Committee acquiescing to China's unkept promises in the months leading up to the games. More out of disinterest than thoughts of a boycott, I didn't think I'd watch much of the action.
However, a friend set me straight in that the competition and the athletes have nothing to do with all that side stuff. The diver preparing for his twisting and turning drop into a pool of water, the sprinter setting his feet in the blocks and the archer slowing down his breathing and heartbeat before firing his arrow have nothing to do with politics.
I'm glad I heard that. I'm still not watching a whole lot, but more than I thought I would.
---
If Websters ever decides to place a dictionary illustration beside the word "gall," it should be an image of John Edwards. That the guy cheated on his wife is bad enough, but to do it while she was recovering from cancer makes him a scumbag.
But that's not the worst of it. That John Edwards chose to run for president, knowing his affair was bound to become public knowledge is stupefying.
---
The narrative of last week was why isn't Obama pulling away from McCain in the presidential campaign polls? The question was legitimate. The narrative this week should be why isn't McCain taking advantage of his opportunity and edging even closer? He appears to be stalling at 2-3 points behind in the popular vote, and is not making any significant gains in the electoral college.
Despite the many problems to date with the Democratic candidate and his campaign, he is still well on track to becoming the next president.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is among the last of a dying breed, the old-line Soviet communists who dreamed of world domination. His claim to power is rooted in nationalism, which is powerful in electoral politics and Olympics-style athletics. As popular as Putin is among the "Russkies," his appeal is likely to collapse if he tries to launch a series of military ventures. The Russian people care about their country up to a point but I just don't see them following Putin into war. There are a lot of Russians with powerful fiefdoms that would be disrupted by conflict, and these are the guys with Putin's ear. They'll tell him when it's time to stop.
The biggest question is what the United States and other western nations should do. We know the answer to what they will do. Nothing. Russia has veto power on the U.N. Security Council. The so-called non-aligned nations will vote against any measure condemning Russia in the U.N. General Assembly. The Euro-weenies will not have the will to remove Russia from the G-8 or any similar body of world leadership over fear that Putin will cut off their supply of natural gas.
What should be done? First of all, President Bush should admit that he misjudged Putin when they met early in his first term and he called him someone he could work with. We need to reconfigure our relationship with Russia from naivete to wariness. Bush could go a long way toward paving such a new path for his successor, be it Obama or McCain. We should push the various world bodies on anti-Russia resolutions for, if nothing else, to get countries to consider the problem and declare on which side they stand.
As friendly as the Georgian government has been to us, we cannot and I'm sure will not respond militarily. The U.S. embassy is passing out cash to those who've suffered losses. That's fine. We could embark on a wide program of humanitarian aid.
---
Too bad this isn't college football. Georgia would be favored by at least three touchdowns.
---
The politics of the 2008 Olympic Games left me cold, with the International Olympic Committee acquiescing to China's unkept promises in the months leading up to the games. More out of disinterest than thoughts of a boycott, I didn't think I'd watch much of the action.
However, a friend set me straight in that the competition and the athletes have nothing to do with all that side stuff. The diver preparing for his twisting and turning drop into a pool of water, the sprinter setting his feet in the blocks and the archer slowing down his breathing and heartbeat before firing his arrow have nothing to do with politics.
I'm glad I heard that. I'm still not watching a whole lot, but more than I thought I would.
---
If Websters ever decides to place a dictionary illustration beside the word "gall," it should be an image of John Edwards. That the guy cheated on his wife is bad enough, but to do it while she was recovering from cancer makes him a scumbag.
But that's not the worst of it. That John Edwards chose to run for president, knowing his affair was bound to become public knowledge is stupefying.
---
The narrative of last week was why isn't Obama pulling away from McCain in the presidential campaign polls? The question was legitimate. The narrative this week should be why isn't McCain taking advantage of his opportunity and edging even closer? He appears to be stalling at 2-3 points behind in the popular vote, and is not making any significant gains in the electoral college.
Despite the many problems to date with the Democratic candidate and his campaign, he is still well on track to becoming the next president.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Obama is Liberal Daddy Instead of Messiah
More than 200,000 Berliners and others crowded Tiergarten Park to watch presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama what turned out to be a hum-drum of a speech on foreign affairs. More lined the streets to see his motorcade pass by.
The attendance figure provided by police was far lower than a prediction that a million Germans would turn out to listen to Obama, but it was certainly enough, nearly three times the crowd that came to hear him in Portland, Oreg. during the primary campaign.
The huge crowds and adoration given to the Illinois senator has led to a lot of head-scratching among those not caught up in the love-fest. Obama has reached what some called a messianic status among his supporters. I don't need to go through all the evidence here. It's all over the Internet. Heck, just turn on the network television news and you'll see all you need.
I, however, have never bought in to the Messiah label for Obama. It was close, but wasn't quite right. Here's where I landed: "Daddy." That's the term that describes Obama's hold over liberals in this country and in Europe more than anything. There he was Thursday, speaking in "The Fatherland" before a massive and rapturous audience.
Obama is Daddy.
The left deifies children even more than Christians, who every December celebrate the birth of a baby. Pat phrases like "it's all about the children," "we are the world, we are the children," "war hurts children and other living things," are familiar in the political and social lexicon.
People on the left -- and I'm talking about the committed far-left activists here, not you average liberals at home -- really do think of themselves as children and often act like children. The desire to act without restraint is childlike in nature. The unhinged hatred toward President Bush and Karl Rove rarely comes from adult behavior. The mind-numbing ability to despise all things Republican while calling conservatives mean-spirited can only come from someone who is immature. The need to have more and more government control over basic aspects of their lives from work to housing to health care, while trying to have it both ways by keeping government out of their bedrooms where they want to do whatever it is they want, consequences be damned.
The love being shown to Obama in Western Europe is no surprise. It's where slowly failing nanny-states are taking care of citizens cradle-to-grave. Consequences, like home-grown terrorism from immigrants (or children of immigrants) needed to keep the welfare state intact, be damned. With few exceptions, they're children across the Atlantic.
Obama is not only the most liberal presidential candidate in our nation's history, but he also has lectured his audiences several times now on the responsibilities that come with fatherhood. He's fully embraced the Daddy role. Now that he's got Democrats wrapped around his finger, he can take on the fatherly role of enforcement. He can whip them into shape and keep them in line. It's something that children need and crave.
So, while on the surface, it might seem like leftists here and abroad worship Obama in the same way that Christians exalt Jesus, to me it's more like they are orphans overjoyed to have finally found a father.
The attendance figure provided by police was far lower than a prediction that a million Germans would turn out to listen to Obama, but it was certainly enough, nearly three times the crowd that came to hear him in Portland, Oreg. during the primary campaign.
The huge crowds and adoration given to the Illinois senator has led to a lot of head-scratching among those not caught up in the love-fest. Obama has reached what some called a messianic status among his supporters. I don't need to go through all the evidence here. It's all over the Internet. Heck, just turn on the network television news and you'll see all you need.
I, however, have never bought in to the Messiah label for Obama. It was close, but wasn't quite right. Here's where I landed: "Daddy." That's the term that describes Obama's hold over liberals in this country and in Europe more than anything. There he was Thursday, speaking in "The Fatherland" before a massive and rapturous audience.
Obama is Daddy.
The left deifies children even more than Christians, who every December celebrate the birth of a baby. Pat phrases like "it's all about the children," "we are the world, we are the children," "war hurts children and other living things," are familiar in the political and social lexicon.
People on the left -- and I'm talking about the committed far-left activists here, not you average liberals at home -- really do think of themselves as children and often act like children. The desire to act without restraint is childlike in nature. The unhinged hatred toward President Bush and Karl Rove rarely comes from adult behavior. The mind-numbing ability to despise all things Republican while calling conservatives mean-spirited can only come from someone who is immature. The need to have more and more government control over basic aspects of their lives from work to housing to health care, while trying to have it both ways by keeping government out of their bedrooms where they want to do whatever it is they want, consequences be damned.
The love being shown to Obama in Western Europe is no surprise. It's where slowly failing nanny-states are taking care of citizens cradle-to-grave. Consequences, like home-grown terrorism from immigrants (or children of immigrants) needed to keep the welfare state intact, be damned. With few exceptions, they're children across the Atlantic.
Obama is not only the most liberal presidential candidate in our nation's history, but he also has lectured his audiences several times now on the responsibilities that come with fatherhood. He's fully embraced the Daddy role. Now that he's got Democrats wrapped around his finger, he can take on the fatherly role of enforcement. He can whip them into shape and keep them in line. It's something that children need and crave.
So, while on the surface, it might seem like leftists here and abroad worship Obama in the same way that Christians exalt Jesus, to me it's more like they are orphans overjoyed to have finally found a father.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Tehran Playing Us Like a Fiddle
Without particularly great insight or inside sources, I pass along the opinion that Iran is pulling so many strings regarding Iraq right now that its having a major impact on our policy and even our election campaign. Maybe a peaceful Tehran is more dangerous than a belligerent Iran.
There's been a lot of surprise and wonderment about why the Maliki government has done an about-face and demanded that the United States remove its troops by 2010 -- which came as a complete surprise to the Bush administration. On its own, the idea is not a bad one. The success of the surge means the Iraq army can protect most of its own land, our benchmark for when we start to pull out. And we need more military resources in Afghanistan, where the Taliban has been more active than usual recently.
However, nothing in the Middle East happens on its own. The place is not a vacuum. Events always seem to be inter-related.
Therefore, my theory is that Maliki didn't just come up with this withdrawal idea just by himself.
A timeline of events clears the muddle:
-- Maliki needed to clear southern Iraq of Iranian-backed Shiite militants in order to continue improving the country's security situation, so he sent troops into Basra, the main city in the region. His troops were mauled until U.S. forces came to stabilize the situation. The extremists who held out for days suddenly leave after an accord is reached with the assistance of Iran.
-- Extremist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who lives in Iran so he's not assassinated, agreed to keep his personal army from fighting Iraqi soldiers.
-- Maliki continued his offensive, successfully, in the teeming Shiite Baghdad slum of Sadr City and in a southern border town that is the crossroads of smuggling from Iran.
We've called this series of events a great victory, and it has been for the most part. But how did Maliki turn what appeared to be a massive military setback into this stunning win?
He gained a ton of prestige from his success. What price did he pay for it?
The removal of U.S. troops from Iraq, that's what. Iran thinks it can delay nuclear provocations until after President Bush is gone, but what happens after that is unpredictable. The farther away heavy U.S. combat forces are from the Iranian border, the better for the mullahs. That the withdrawal scenario has played into Barack Obama's hands in U.S. presidential politics, so much the better. Guarantee that they'd rather deal with Obama, who wants to pull out, than John McCain, who will be confrontational.
The gains made in southern Iraq and other Shiite areas are hard-won and real. No disrespect for the soldiers who made them happen. But bigger political forces are also at play and could be pulling the strings.
---
All that said, it would be interesting to see if there was some miscalculation by the Shiites here. The people who live in Basra in particular are enjoying the new security situation and freedom to be themselves. While Iran and other Shiite leaders are biding their time before we leave and they take power again, the citizens in those areas might go too far along with their newfound freedoms and be far more hostile to the mullahs aims.
---
The first Atlantic hurricane to truly threaten the United States is finally set to arrive, possibly making landfall on the Texas coast -- in late-July. Can't wait for someone to blame global warming.
There's been a lot of surprise and wonderment about why the Maliki government has done an about-face and demanded that the United States remove its troops by 2010 -- which came as a complete surprise to the Bush administration. On its own, the idea is not a bad one. The success of the surge means the Iraq army can protect most of its own land, our benchmark for when we start to pull out. And we need more military resources in Afghanistan, where the Taliban has been more active than usual recently.
However, nothing in the Middle East happens on its own. The place is not a vacuum. Events always seem to be inter-related.
Therefore, my theory is that Maliki didn't just come up with this withdrawal idea just by himself.
A timeline of events clears the muddle:
-- Maliki needed to clear southern Iraq of Iranian-backed Shiite militants in order to continue improving the country's security situation, so he sent troops into Basra, the main city in the region. His troops were mauled until U.S. forces came to stabilize the situation. The extremists who held out for days suddenly leave after an accord is reached with the assistance of Iran.
-- Extremist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who lives in Iran so he's not assassinated, agreed to keep his personal army from fighting Iraqi soldiers.
-- Maliki continued his offensive, successfully, in the teeming Shiite Baghdad slum of Sadr City and in a southern border town that is the crossroads of smuggling from Iran.
We've called this series of events a great victory, and it has been for the most part. But how did Maliki turn what appeared to be a massive military setback into this stunning win?
He gained a ton of prestige from his success. What price did he pay for it?
The removal of U.S. troops from Iraq, that's what. Iran thinks it can delay nuclear provocations until after President Bush is gone, but what happens after that is unpredictable. The farther away heavy U.S. combat forces are from the Iranian border, the better for the mullahs. That the withdrawal scenario has played into Barack Obama's hands in U.S. presidential politics, so much the better. Guarantee that they'd rather deal with Obama, who wants to pull out, than John McCain, who will be confrontational.
The gains made in southern Iraq and other Shiite areas are hard-won and real. No disrespect for the soldiers who made them happen. But bigger political forces are also at play and could be pulling the strings.
---
All that said, it would be interesting to see if there was some miscalculation by the Shiites here. The people who live in Basra in particular are enjoying the new security situation and freedom to be themselves. While Iran and other Shiite leaders are biding their time before we leave and they take power again, the citizens in those areas might go too far along with their newfound freedoms and be far more hostile to the mullahs aims.
---
The first Atlantic hurricane to truly threaten the United States is finally set to arrive, possibly making landfall on the Texas coast -- in late-July. Can't wait for someone to blame global warming.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Reason For Split Between Public/Economy
Sen. Phil Gramm was right, sort of, when he said recently that America was experiencing "a mental recession," but the qualifier leads us to some places where John McCain's chief economic adviser is certainly wrong.
There's absolutely a disconnect between the public's perception of the U.S. economy and overall economic performance as a whole. While things have obviously slipped, things are nowhere near what they've been in the past. I've been through several recessions and slowdowns, and what we're going through right now is pretty typical. Unemployment, for example, is just a tenth of a percent above the average since 1990.
However, consumer confidence is at it's lowest point since 1980 -- right before President Carter lost his re-election bid thanks to high rates of interest, inflation and unemployment. Yet, in macro-economic terms, we're nowhere near there.
Republicans such as ex-Sen. Gramm have failed for years to view economics from less than macro-economic terms, however. It's one reason why the GOP no longer controls Congress. At the family level, there's major issues no matter how well the national economy is faring. It's been going on for several years, too.
Very simple. EVERYBODY is stuck with higher food prices and higher gas prices. The half (I think) of us who invest our savings have been hit with lower stock values. Homeowners have seen the value of their property decrease. Some have suffered foreclosure. Rental costs are skyrocketing because of sudden demand. Some employees have lost their jobs and been forced out into a contracting job market.
So Gramm is idiotic to suggest that this is a "mental recession" because people are, at best, inconvenienced, and at worst, hurt severely. This is a sector-driven slowdown we're in, with financials and petroleum-based industries being hurt the worst. So we're not all here being wiped out. Those with the foresight to get their investments out of financials and into commodities a year or so ago are doing quite well. But those who are hurting were struck hard.
---
Who do you want to run our economy, Republicans or Democrats?
It turns out that despite the prodigious fundraising by Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee has less money on hand than its GOP counterpart because they've been spending like crazy. Sounds like Congress. The DNC and Obama combined have about $92 million in the bank, McCain and the RNC $95 million.
---
The Jesse Jackson controversy lately has been funny. Reaction ran from "he said what?" to "he's still around?"
---
Republicans have a huge opportunity on the energy policy. If gas is still over $4 most places in November, it could cause a political version of an earthquake. But only if the GOP is smart enough.
Drill, drill, drill isn't going to cut it with the public. You can only take new drilling for oil so far. If Republicans smartly couple it with the promotion of development of fuel cell technology and credits for wind and solar energy projects -- which work on individual projects -- then they might have a shot at reclaiming some lost seats.
---
The New Yorker magazine cover with Barack and Michelle Obama was right on point, once it was explained to everybody. If you have to explain your magazine cover, it didn't work.
There's absolutely a disconnect between the public's perception of the U.S. economy and overall economic performance as a whole. While things have obviously slipped, things are nowhere near what they've been in the past. I've been through several recessions and slowdowns, and what we're going through right now is pretty typical. Unemployment, for example, is just a tenth of a percent above the average since 1990.
However, consumer confidence is at it's lowest point since 1980 -- right before President Carter lost his re-election bid thanks to high rates of interest, inflation and unemployment. Yet, in macro-economic terms, we're nowhere near there.
Republicans such as ex-Sen. Gramm have failed for years to view economics from less than macro-economic terms, however. It's one reason why the GOP no longer controls Congress. At the family level, there's major issues no matter how well the national economy is faring. It's been going on for several years, too.
Very simple. EVERYBODY is stuck with higher food prices and higher gas prices. The half (I think) of us who invest our savings have been hit with lower stock values. Homeowners have seen the value of their property decrease. Some have suffered foreclosure. Rental costs are skyrocketing because of sudden demand. Some employees have lost their jobs and been forced out into a contracting job market.
So Gramm is idiotic to suggest that this is a "mental recession" because people are, at best, inconvenienced, and at worst, hurt severely. This is a sector-driven slowdown we're in, with financials and petroleum-based industries being hurt the worst. So we're not all here being wiped out. Those with the foresight to get their investments out of financials and into commodities a year or so ago are doing quite well. But those who are hurting were struck hard.
---
Who do you want to run our economy, Republicans or Democrats?
It turns out that despite the prodigious fundraising by Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee has less money on hand than its GOP counterpart because they've been spending like crazy. Sounds like Congress. The DNC and Obama combined have about $92 million in the bank, McCain and the RNC $95 million.
---
The Jesse Jackson controversy lately has been funny. Reaction ran from "he said what?" to "he's still around?"
---
Republicans have a huge opportunity on the energy policy. If gas is still over $4 most places in November, it could cause a political version of an earthquake. But only if the GOP is smart enough.
Drill, drill, drill isn't going to cut it with the public. You can only take new drilling for oil so far. If Republicans smartly couple it with the promotion of development of fuel cell technology and credits for wind and solar energy projects -- which work on individual projects -- then they might have a shot at reclaiming some lost seats.
---
The New Yorker magazine cover with Barack and Michelle Obama was right on point, once it was explained to everybody. If you have to explain your magazine cover, it didn't work.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Niall Ferguson's "Tainted Victory" a Tainted Show
I e-mailed the following to Michael Getler, the ombudsman of the Public Broadcasting System:
Michael:
I cannot believe that PBS allowed to Niall Ferguson to broadcast the clear historical error in "A Tainted Victory" that aired here Wednesday night that suggested that the Japanese fought the way they did because Americans executed prisoners. That's not just a point-of-view issue. That's just plain incorrect.
Was there some brutality on the part of Americans in World War II? No doubt. However, the Japanese let it be known from the beginning how they would conduct the war, and when we started our offensives at Guadalcanal and Tarawa, it was clear they were going to fight to the last man. By the time the Marines got to Peleliu, they had worries from experience that wounded Japanese would clutch hand grenades and detonate them as Americans neared. They had to shoot wounded Japanese to make sure they were dead. I'm sure many of those cases were unjustified, but the brutal nature of the war was determined earlier by the Japanese, not the Americans.
To suggest that the Japanese on Saipan and Okinawa all killed themselves because of Marine brutality on Peleliu is totally wrong. Saipan happened before Peleliu for one. Second, my father was a Marine at Saipan and Okinawa, and he said his fellow Leathernecks were absolutely stupefied by what took place at the end of the Saipan battle and would have stopped it if they could.
I have no problem with a program on the brutality it took on our part to win the war, but to have such an obvious factual error to smear the Marines is very poor on the part of Niall Ferguson and should have been caught by PBS before the program aired. Again, no censoring of opinion, but factual errors like this should be below the standards of our Public Broadcasting System.
Thank you very much,
James R. Riffel
This program was so far below the standards of PBS it's not even funny. Agree with their points of view or not, their documentaries often break some new ground. The history presented by Ferguson, a professor of history at HARVARD, for goodness sakes, was so basic that I actually changed the channel for a while to see what else was on. It was only that I found nothing else on that I went back to it in time for the controversial point that I mentioned in my e-mail. Taking that one piece of film and mis-stating history to slam the Marines really makes the guy look bad.
Michael:
I cannot believe that PBS allowed to Niall Ferguson to broadcast the clear historical error in "A Tainted Victory" that aired here Wednesday night that suggested that the Japanese fought the way they did because Americans executed prisoners. That's not just a point-of-view issue. That's just plain incorrect.
Was there some brutality on the part of Americans in World War II? No doubt. However, the Japanese let it be known from the beginning how they would conduct the war, and when we started our offensives at Guadalcanal and Tarawa, it was clear they were going to fight to the last man. By the time the Marines got to Peleliu, they had worries from experience that wounded Japanese would clutch hand grenades and detonate them as Americans neared. They had to shoot wounded Japanese to make sure they were dead. I'm sure many of those cases were unjustified, but the brutal nature of the war was determined earlier by the Japanese, not the Americans.
To suggest that the Japanese on Saipan and Okinawa all killed themselves because of Marine brutality on Peleliu is totally wrong. Saipan happened before Peleliu for one. Second, my father was a Marine at Saipan and Okinawa, and he said his fellow Leathernecks were absolutely stupefied by what took place at the end of the Saipan battle and would have stopped it if they could.
I have no problem with a program on the brutality it took on our part to win the war, but to have such an obvious factual error to smear the Marines is very poor on the part of Niall Ferguson and should have been caught by PBS before the program aired. Again, no censoring of opinion, but factual errors like this should be below the standards of our Public Broadcasting System.
Thank you very much,
James R. Riffel
This program was so far below the standards of PBS it's not even funny. Agree with their points of view or not, their documentaries often break some new ground. The history presented by Ferguson, a professor of history at HARVARD, for goodness sakes, was so basic that I actually changed the channel for a while to see what else was on. It was only that I found nothing else on that I went back to it in time for the controversial point that I mentioned in my e-mail. Taking that one piece of film and mis-stating history to slam the Marines really makes the guy look bad.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Obama's Flip-flops, Israel and Iran, Windmills
Democratic presidential nominee-to-be Barack Obama is no flip-flopper, he's worse.
To be a flip-flopper, you'd have to actually hold a real position on some issue, and the unflattering picture emerging of the Illinois senator is that he has no solid positions other than personal advancement and a kind of general loyalty to far-left ideology. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democrat nominee, was a flip-flopper. He voted for the war in Iraq before he was against it.
What we've received from Obama in recent weeks regarding our armed forces in Iraq is completely different. He turns to Middle America and says he will go to Iraq and listen to what Gen. David Petraeus has to say and adjust his policy accordingly. Then he returns to his base supporters and says he's sticking to his original proposal to immediately order a withdrawal from Iraq to be completed within 16 months.
That's not flip-flopping, that's trying to have it both ways. Trying to have your cake and eat it, too. That's something that won't work in election politics, circa 2008.
The reason why Obama and John McCain won their nominations in the first place is they embraced change while most of the other candidates, except Mike Huckabee, stood around dribbling in their shoes. The "hope" and "change" mantra is brought out every four years, but in 2008 it's a tangible thing that voters crave.
The one thing Obama can't afford in the next couple of months is to come off like a typical politician. In the last third of the Democratic primary season, that's exactly what he appeared to be, and as a result he barely held off a late charge by Hillary Clinton. He's now being re-introduced to an entirely different class of voters, and if they peg him as just another politician trying to win an office, scruples or ideology or platforms be-damned, he'll lose. As it is, in the latest Rasmussen Reports tracking poll, Obama's national lead over McCain has slipped from 7 points to 4 points in the past week. Not a good trend at a time when he should have been building his early advantage.
So how should he handle the Iraq issue? There's an easy way to play both sides. He can go to Baghdad and meet Petraeus and come back and say that conditions have improved to such an extent that withdrawal is going to be possible in the near-future no matter the extent of your support for the war. Petraeus' successor can have his troops and Obama can revisit the subject after his inauguration. It might worry his base, but his base won't be voting for McCain in any event.
Plus, the Iraqi government has given Obama a huge lift with its new demand for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. It gives him cover, whether he ends up ordering a withdrawal immediately upon assuming office or shortly thereafter. Even McCain said that if Iraq wants us out, we're out. On the other hand, current statements from the Maliki government might be sops to Muqtada al-Sadr and his Iranian backers. A new government formed after the October elections, in which the Sunni population will fully participate, could have an entirely different plan for U.S. troops.
---
All you need to know about Iran's test-firing of nine Shihab missiles capable of striking Israel can be found in the price of a barrel of oil. Prices had dropped dramatically this week on word that demand was slackening and world supply was therefore increasing. As soon as the missile tests were announced, crude oil futures zoomed up more than $2 per barrel over worries of Israel's reaction and a possible move by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which much Middle East oil passes. Prices settled later because of those pesky supply numbers.
These missiles have been test-fired before. Israel has been within range of Iranian weapons for several years now and nothing has happened. I suspect that will remain the case, though Tehran loves to be provocative.
In normal circumstances, I would say that Israel will take care of the Iranian problem when Israel is good and ready. However, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert strikes me as being a different and lesser sort of Israeli leader who might respond to public pressure by ordering an attack on Iran, whether the military is truly ready or not. We'll see.
For an attack to truly be successful, Israel or a combination Israeli-US force will have to take out all of Iran's missile capability first, including the longer-range Shihabs and the surface-to-ship missiles that threaten commercial shipping. Hezbollah in Lebanon and Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip will also have to be neutralized. Only then can they bomb and take out the nuclear facilities.
Finally, it will all be for naught if the Iranian leadership is not removed. Not just President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but the mullahs in Qom who really rule the country. That's a lot to put together, but Israeli and U.S. officials might find it necessary soon.
---
I see where billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens is suggesting establishing a windfarm through the Midwest from West Texas up north to break America's dependence on foreign oil. Hmm? He might be investing in metal commodities which will go up if we decide to build and install millions of wind machines?
Someone needs to pluck Pickens out of his fantasyland -- and any other supporter of wind energy on a mass scale -- and take him to the Cabazon Pass northwest of Palm Springs to see just how ugly 4,000 windmills is. The biggest are 150-feet tall and have blades that span half a football field. They cost $300,000 each. That right there is an investment of $1.2 billion just to provide energy for Palm Springs and nearby towns.
It's just not going to fly. Like solar, wind energy will end up working best as small-scale supplements for existing energy supplies. Small towns, farms, rural communities. Sure. A remedy for America's dependence on foreign oil, no way.
The article can be found at Opinion Journal.
To be a flip-flopper, you'd have to actually hold a real position on some issue, and the unflattering picture emerging of the Illinois senator is that he has no solid positions other than personal advancement and a kind of general loyalty to far-left ideology. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democrat nominee, was a flip-flopper. He voted for the war in Iraq before he was against it.
What we've received from Obama in recent weeks regarding our armed forces in Iraq is completely different. He turns to Middle America and says he will go to Iraq and listen to what Gen. David Petraeus has to say and adjust his policy accordingly. Then he returns to his base supporters and says he's sticking to his original proposal to immediately order a withdrawal from Iraq to be completed within 16 months.
That's not flip-flopping, that's trying to have it both ways. Trying to have your cake and eat it, too. That's something that won't work in election politics, circa 2008.
The reason why Obama and John McCain won their nominations in the first place is they embraced change while most of the other candidates, except Mike Huckabee, stood around dribbling in their shoes. The "hope" and "change" mantra is brought out every four years, but in 2008 it's a tangible thing that voters crave.
The one thing Obama can't afford in the next couple of months is to come off like a typical politician. In the last third of the Democratic primary season, that's exactly what he appeared to be, and as a result he barely held off a late charge by Hillary Clinton. He's now being re-introduced to an entirely different class of voters, and if they peg him as just another politician trying to win an office, scruples or ideology or platforms be-damned, he'll lose. As it is, in the latest Rasmussen Reports tracking poll, Obama's national lead over McCain has slipped from 7 points to 4 points in the past week. Not a good trend at a time when he should have been building his early advantage.
So how should he handle the Iraq issue? There's an easy way to play both sides. He can go to Baghdad and meet Petraeus and come back and say that conditions have improved to such an extent that withdrawal is going to be possible in the near-future no matter the extent of your support for the war. Petraeus' successor can have his troops and Obama can revisit the subject after his inauguration. It might worry his base, but his base won't be voting for McCain in any event.
Plus, the Iraqi government has given Obama a huge lift with its new demand for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. It gives him cover, whether he ends up ordering a withdrawal immediately upon assuming office or shortly thereafter. Even McCain said that if Iraq wants us out, we're out. On the other hand, current statements from the Maliki government might be sops to Muqtada al-Sadr and his Iranian backers. A new government formed after the October elections, in which the Sunni population will fully participate, could have an entirely different plan for U.S. troops.
---
All you need to know about Iran's test-firing of nine Shihab missiles capable of striking Israel can be found in the price of a barrel of oil. Prices had dropped dramatically this week on word that demand was slackening and world supply was therefore increasing. As soon as the missile tests were announced, crude oil futures zoomed up more than $2 per barrel over worries of Israel's reaction and a possible move by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which much Middle East oil passes. Prices settled later because of those pesky supply numbers.
These missiles have been test-fired before. Israel has been within range of Iranian weapons for several years now and nothing has happened. I suspect that will remain the case, though Tehran loves to be provocative.
In normal circumstances, I would say that Israel will take care of the Iranian problem when Israel is good and ready. However, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert strikes me as being a different and lesser sort of Israeli leader who might respond to public pressure by ordering an attack on Iran, whether the military is truly ready or not. We'll see.
For an attack to truly be successful, Israel or a combination Israeli-US force will have to take out all of Iran's missile capability first, including the longer-range Shihabs and the surface-to-ship missiles that threaten commercial shipping. Hezbollah in Lebanon and Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip will also have to be neutralized. Only then can they bomb and take out the nuclear facilities.
Finally, it will all be for naught if the Iranian leadership is not removed. Not just President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but the mullahs in Qom who really rule the country. That's a lot to put together, but Israeli and U.S. officials might find it necessary soon.
---
I see where billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens is suggesting establishing a windfarm through the Midwest from West Texas up north to break America's dependence on foreign oil. Hmm? He might be investing in metal commodities which will go up if we decide to build and install millions of wind machines?
Someone needs to pluck Pickens out of his fantasyland -- and any other supporter of wind energy on a mass scale -- and take him to the Cabazon Pass northwest of Palm Springs to see just how ugly 4,000 windmills is. The biggest are 150-feet tall and have blades that span half a football field. They cost $300,000 each. That right there is an investment of $1.2 billion just to provide energy for Palm Springs and nearby towns.
It's just not going to fly. Like solar, wind energy will end up working best as small-scale supplements for existing energy supplies. Small towns, farms, rural communities. Sure. A remedy for America's dependence on foreign oil, no way.
The article can be found at Opinion Journal.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
McCain's Do Nothing Campaign
I've seen some opinion articles lately that run along a certain theme, that is that a purely anti-Barack Obama campaign by the Republicans won't get John McCain elected president.
From the liberal perspective, it's a warning against "smears" or "swiftboating." Any criticism of Obama is seen by the left as a smear. Any pointing out of the Democratic nominee-to-be's flaws is swiftboating, of course. They're not, and neither is criticism of McCain.
While the Democrats obviously want to short-circuit any damage that can be done to their highly vulnerable candidate, there's a larger point here that Republicans -- especially McCain's handlers -- will ignore at their own peril. McCain and the GOP need to come out with their own positive vision of what they will do in office. Merely calling Obama inexperienced, soft on national defense and too radical will not save Republican fortunes this year.
McCain needs to come out with a clear five-point plan that regular people can rally around. Elect me and this is what I will do. Obama is going around promising all kinds of things to all sorts of people. Don't tell me what your opponent can't do, tell me what you WILL do. McCain, other than saying I'll be tough against our enemies, really hasn't done this.
Let's go to energy, an issue that's being demagogued by both political parties. People smell that stuff out in a second now. They don't like the Democratic controlled Congress going after the "windfall profits" of oil companies nor their knee-jerk opposition to offshore drilling. Yet, Republican promises to drill our way out of the energy crisis doesn't score any points, either.
So let's get to a real plan. Drill, sure. Well off-shore. But you have to couple it with other things, such as an end to the disastrous corn-for-ethanol subsidy and re-regulation of the oil futures markets. Add tax incentives for continued efforts to develop fuel cell technology and figure out how to revive nuclear energy. We need everything on the table in order to build our energy supply back to where it should be and remove speculators from the market.
A good starting point that is apparently going to waste was publicized by Robert Novak in a column that you'll find on Monday's list of articles on Realclearpolitics.com. The reform plan by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin has been dismissed by GOP House leaders and ignored by McCain campaign staffers, according to Novak. Not a good idea. Republicans need all the help they can get if they're going to win any elections at all in November.
While the campaign remains in its early stages, the spread between Obama and McCain in the polls has hardly budged the past two weeks. McCain needs a push. If he doesn't get one, Obama is going to trounce him and Democrats will dominate Congress.
From the liberal perspective, it's a warning against "smears" or "swiftboating." Any criticism of Obama is seen by the left as a smear. Any pointing out of the Democratic nominee-to-be's flaws is swiftboating, of course. They're not, and neither is criticism of McCain.
While the Democrats obviously want to short-circuit any damage that can be done to their highly vulnerable candidate, there's a larger point here that Republicans -- especially McCain's handlers -- will ignore at their own peril. McCain and the GOP need to come out with their own positive vision of what they will do in office. Merely calling Obama inexperienced, soft on national defense and too radical will not save Republican fortunes this year.
McCain needs to come out with a clear five-point plan that regular people can rally around. Elect me and this is what I will do. Obama is going around promising all kinds of things to all sorts of people. Don't tell me what your opponent can't do, tell me what you WILL do. McCain, other than saying I'll be tough against our enemies, really hasn't done this.
Let's go to energy, an issue that's being demagogued by both political parties. People smell that stuff out in a second now. They don't like the Democratic controlled Congress going after the "windfall profits" of oil companies nor their knee-jerk opposition to offshore drilling. Yet, Republican promises to drill our way out of the energy crisis doesn't score any points, either.
So let's get to a real plan. Drill, sure. Well off-shore. But you have to couple it with other things, such as an end to the disastrous corn-for-ethanol subsidy and re-regulation of the oil futures markets. Add tax incentives for continued efforts to develop fuel cell technology and figure out how to revive nuclear energy. We need everything on the table in order to build our energy supply back to where it should be and remove speculators from the market.
A good starting point that is apparently going to waste was publicized by Robert Novak in a column that you'll find on Monday's list of articles on Realclearpolitics.com. The reform plan by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin has been dismissed by GOP House leaders and ignored by McCain campaign staffers, according to Novak. Not a good idea. Republicans need all the help they can get if they're going to win any elections at all in November.
While the campaign remains in its early stages, the spread between Obama and McCain in the polls has hardly budged the past two weeks. McCain needs a push. If he doesn't get one, Obama is going to trounce him and Democrats will dominate Congress.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Curious Opening to Calif. Same-Sex Marriages
My California county today began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in response to the state Supreme Court decision that overturned a voter-approved ban on such ceremonies. I covered the morning activities for my employer and found some things to be rather interesting.
1. I asked two just-married men, after they told me they'd had a commitment ceremony five years ago, why they felt being married was so important on top of the commitment they'd already made to each other. The one who answered actually said "Hmmm" and paused for several seconds before answering. One would think that since they wanted to take advantage of what they called a historic day, they'd have a good reason at the top of their minds. Uh, no. He finally said that now they get to be equal with everyone else. However, as someone else pointed out, with civil union laws, they already were equal.
2. A coalition of groups that support traditional marriage held a rally at the county building where most of the same-sex marriage licenses were being handed out. The people who rallied were outnumbered by the media. Add the gay curious who happened to walk around to the other side of the building where the rally was being held, the participants were far outnumbered. One television camera crew interviewed a gay couple in the middle of the rally. Considering that the overturned ban gained support of 62 percent of the voters, there really wasn't much opposition shown today.
Some other observations:
-- I had a discussion with an intelligent young woman who thinks that the large majority that supported the gay marriage ban in 2002 will be whittled down by young voters who have no qualms with same-sex couples, maybe to the point that a similar ballot initiative in November, that would overturn the Supreme Court decision, will fail. In a state that in recent years voted to allow children to have abortions without telling their parents, she might be right. There's no doubt that change is afoot in this election season in a number of ways.
-- For all the hoopla, only about 200 same-sex couples were expected to obtain marriage licenses on the first day, an amazingly small number for a county of more than 2 million people. San Diego has a lively LGBT scene (which produced Andrew Cunanan, sorry), so you would expect more of a rush and a much bigger number, but it didn't happen. There was never much of a wait in the clerk's office. County officials eased the process by taking appointments, but walk-ins were also welcome.
-- I still think any such couples who want to be married better do so before November.
---
How about we just keep the U.S. Open golf tournament in San Diego permanently, kind of like New York does for the U.S. Open tennis event.
---
With all the reaction to the death of NBC News personality Tim Russert, it was terribly sad how the death of retired sports announcer Charlie Jones was overlooked. The affable Jones also died last week of a heart attack. He was a good sports announcer and by all accounts a good human being who helped the careers of several people with whom I'm friendly. Jones should also be remembered, and recalled fondly.
1. I asked two just-married men, after they told me they'd had a commitment ceremony five years ago, why they felt being married was so important on top of the commitment they'd already made to each other. The one who answered actually said "Hmmm" and paused for several seconds before answering. One would think that since they wanted to take advantage of what they called a historic day, they'd have a good reason at the top of their minds. Uh, no. He finally said that now they get to be equal with everyone else. However, as someone else pointed out, with civil union laws, they already were equal.
2. A coalition of groups that support traditional marriage held a rally at the county building where most of the same-sex marriage licenses were being handed out. The people who rallied were outnumbered by the media. Add the gay curious who happened to walk around to the other side of the building where the rally was being held, the participants were far outnumbered. One television camera crew interviewed a gay couple in the middle of the rally. Considering that the overturned ban gained support of 62 percent of the voters, there really wasn't much opposition shown today.
Some other observations:
-- I had a discussion with an intelligent young woman who thinks that the large majority that supported the gay marriage ban in 2002 will be whittled down by young voters who have no qualms with same-sex couples, maybe to the point that a similar ballot initiative in November, that would overturn the Supreme Court decision, will fail. In a state that in recent years voted to allow children to have abortions without telling their parents, she might be right. There's no doubt that change is afoot in this election season in a number of ways.
-- For all the hoopla, only about 200 same-sex couples were expected to obtain marriage licenses on the first day, an amazingly small number for a county of more than 2 million people. San Diego has a lively LGBT scene (which produced Andrew Cunanan, sorry), so you would expect more of a rush and a much bigger number, but it didn't happen. There was never much of a wait in the clerk's office. County officials eased the process by taking appointments, but walk-ins were also welcome.
-- I still think any such couples who want to be married better do so before November.
---
How about we just keep the U.S. Open golf tournament in San Diego permanently, kind of like New York does for the U.S. Open tennis event.
---
With all the reaction to the death of NBC News personality Tim Russert, it was terribly sad how the death of retired sports announcer Charlie Jones was overlooked. The affable Jones also died last week of a heart attack. He was a good sports announcer and by all accounts a good human being who helped the careers of several people with whom I'm friendly. Jones should also be remembered, and recalled fondly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)