The Political Hoedown: Advancing the Conversation

Is getting sick because of ObamaCare covered under ObamaCare?

2010-03-22T21:27:00.000-05:00

What a night!

I don't know if there's any time in US history where more Americans are talking about congressional procedure. With the passage of the senate-version of ObamaCare in the house, all that's left (small pun) is to tack on the house reconciliation bill in the upper house.

The final vote on the Health Care Reform bill (HCR) was 219 to 212, with the remaining 4 seats vacant. Amidst heated displays on both sides, arm-twisting, thin margins and a "Hail Mary" in the form of an executive order, one out of every seven dollars in the US economy just fell under gov't purview. Who cares about the substance of the bill - do you trust the gov't with that much capacity for economic turmoil? I don't think we've had more than a few presidents with enough wherewithal to handle that, and never has there been a congress (esp. a Dem one).

This morning you wont find ObamaCare commissars at your door asking for your excess bandages. It's doubtful the sound you hear is your piggy bank emptying into a MoveOn.org party fund. The world didn't end. In fact for some of you, long sought victory was finally achieved, a goal beyond reach since Russia started towards its own socialist revolution finally attained.

So what now?

Again, it's not the end of anything. Even if 14+% of the economy just found itself under a new slate of bureaucratic regulators, that still leaves the vast portion untouched. And most of you will retain your current health insurance coverage; others will switch of their own accord (when the mechanics go into effect). It's far too early to judge the impact either socially or economically.

Philosophically, however, we might see some dividends sooner. I caught part of an interview with the old Speaker of the House, retired Congressman Denny Hastert (R-IL), and it's his opinion, shaded by personal politics and a long career in DC, that November's elections will see a negative judgment from the electorate. Now, he didn't say "1994 Republican Revolution!" all over again; he's too smart and recognizes the different situations. I, for one, believe it's next to impossible for the Democrats to lose one house of Congress, much less all of it. The margins and "battleground states" are not quite as "in play" as pundits would have you believe.

But this marks the final countdown for any number of Congressmen. It's not that people don't want health care & insurance reform (I'd like it), but the way we cross the finish line is just as important as the goal itself. There's a big government pushback going on with these "tea party" demonstrations, and despite the media largely ignoring the size of the rallies, hundreds of thousands nationwide (probably several million all told) are ticked off. And those are the ones willing to take to the streets and march or attend bursting town halls. Nixon spoke of a silent majority, and while tea partiers are far from a majority, we can consider them more than a vocal few. It's a grassroots movement, and I think they'll hammer "big government" candidates come November.

No 1994 turnover. Sorry, my fellow GOPers. Our party hasn't so much inspired a changing of the guard as it has a quick flushing of the toilet. No one likes a mess, but you don't demo a bathroom to clear out last night's Taco Bell (pardon the crudity). Congress isn't going to suddenly shift back to the GOP because of the current equation: HCR + tea parties + incumbent disapproval. You'd need to multiply that by "Dodd Financial Regulation" or "High Unemployment Two Years After the 'Change' Election" to get some traction.

A few highlights:

*Childish "baby killer" heckle aimed at Stupak and his pained expression (what did this vote cost him mentally?)
*Boehner's fire-and-brimstone "And did you ever read it?!" tirade and the rising chorus of Democratic "Yeahs!!" each time he asked it, until he answered his own question with a booming "Hell no!"

*A bit of passion for a change
*Taking rhetoric to new heights and saccharine lows (didn't you want to slap the hang-dog expression off Steny Hoyer's face? I know I did.)

*The palpable (through C-SPAN's feed) tension as the numbers for and against both crested 200
*The "executive order" now has armchair legislatures rushing to Wikipedia to judge it's validity
*Ditto "reconciliation" as well as the Constitutionality of the bill.

Expect the next big story to come out of this to be the state lawsuits. Something like 37 state legislatures have pending motions to repeal the act or at least question whether it's the Federal government infringing on State powers, though many are no doubt in Democratic-held state houses. Virginia, South Carolina, Florida - potentially the first three. Is the law constitutional? Leftists, derided that question as you might, we had a Civil War a while back over related (states' rights) issues. I don't imagine something so divisive, sweeping and impactful won't receive a clamorous response from libertarians, small gov't "conservatives," the GOP, tea partiers, etc. etc., forever and ever Amen.

A parting thought: we can argue the ideology of what just happened, but I'd hazard a guess that most of you reading don’t wish active harm on your fellow man, and believe in helping the less-fortunate. Giving of your own free will is one thing. This charity-at-gunpoint another entirely. This is a medicine Obama and his party say we need to take, for better or worse. It'll make us better as a nation. We will take from the coffers, as largely filled by a small percentage of the country who are about to "give" even more, and distribute to those who do not Have. Progressive taxation has been entrenched in society, and flat taxes and the like don't get much traction save on book tours. Progressive health care, or an expansion of the welfare state, does - and not usually positive. The reason is not necessarily stinginess, but the desire to see our dollars judiciously directed. We give from pocket straight to a charity or a group that we know handles the funds properly. The federal government rarely fills that description, so far as the poor and underinsured are concerned.

I think there was a better way to get out of this insurance fiasco. While the end result would be, ideally, the same, the rollout could've been incremental - like feeding a infant first foods. You don't give a 5 month baby peas, apple sauce, rice cereal and haggis the first time out. You go one food at a time, seeing what works - and what causes fussiness, gas or the runs - and then proceed with that knowledge to the next food. "Progressive" and "hasty" need not be synonymous.

Let's hope that lesson isn't learned the hard way by our fair country.

Unreconciled,

-Erik

NPR or Administration: Who's flashing their bias?

2010-02-03T13:07:00.002-06:00

A little snippet. I was listening to NPR's All Things Considered the morning Obama announced his budget, including the tax hikes on the "wealthy" among us. What struck me most, however, was a curious turn of phrase when referring to everyone else: "working Americans."

Those who will have their taxes remain roughly the same, based on last year's tax adjustments/cuts/extensions, were referred to as "working Americans" by the correspondant, undercutting either a bias at NPR or a wording in Obama's announcement.

From what I read in Obama's speech, he referred to those getting tax "cuts" as "middle-class Americans" (which means 95% of America is middle class...what balls this man has) and the rest as "oil companies, investment fund managers, and those making over $250,000 a year."

So I guess this means NPR views those at the top as non-working Americans, since the rest are obviously working (or unemployed, imprisoned, vagrant, etc.) and probably hard for all those dollars. Never mind the doctors or entrepreneurs who make over $250k a year. Lazy slacker fat cats!

I love how even the staid, boring NPR can get a dig in every now and again.

-Erik

Monopoly Money

2010-02-02T12:55:00.005-06:00

Obama announced formally his plans to use $30bn of TARP repayment funds to support small business loans. There's only one big problem: the money isn't real.

We (US Citizens, through our gov't) loaned this money out on our own credit - not from some magical Scrooge McDuck vault of golden coins - pulling value from thin air as is our wont. So we extend credit, a loan, and then get that loan repaid (in some cases with interest). So dollar for dollar goes into the loan, and there might be some leftover, but it's again we should not consider it real because we still have outstanding red ink on our books and projects already approved without funding.

We're borrowing heavily (Keyensian economics; deficit spending; "spending like drunken Democrats") as a part of Obama's agenda, so any excess funds we receive from pre-existing projects should go to paying down said deficit before we splurge again on another binge of "stimulus" spending. Right?

Not exactly. This money - again, interest on credit - is being pushed right back out the door in another ill-though adventure in vote getting, I mean job building. We have nearly 2/3rds of the original "stimulus" bill still outstanding, but we can't draw from that pot, as it's tied up in to-be-determined pork projects in states where the DNC needs voter support.

No, we need to make a statement about punishing financial institutions - banks, brokerage houses, etc. We need to say "Here's *their* money, America, in *your* pocket!"

But it's a sham. We're just further draining the red ink wells on our collective desk and adding project after project to a "plan" of attacking unemployment that has so far seen job loss increase 2% more over the last year.

Ah well. Only so much damage can be done before the November 2012 correction. Markets have them; why not government?

-Erik

SOTU for you!

2010-01-28T22:25:00.000-06:00

(Two in one week? There must be something in the water....)

Did you folks catch any State of the Union-ness (SOTU) last night? Like Justice Alito mouthing "not true" when Obama butchered a recent ruling while also lambasting it? That's fun stuff.

I only caught portions of it and the transcript of the GOP rebuttal. The latter was downright gooey for a Republican response, as Gov. McDonnell of VA (who won back in Nov., despite Obama carrying the state by 18 points or some ridiculous number) had a lot of open-arm comments and mentioned at least once "I agree with the President on...." A good speech that touched on a number of salient points and wasn't folksy or "country-slo" as Gov. Bobby Jindal's 2009 speech rebuttal was (the horror!).

Not as much of that in the SOTU, which had a slight crackling quality, like a brushfire about to explode in conflagration. Obama has faced a few weeks (months? Since inauguration?) of setback in his policies, despite the supermajorities, and the populist rhetoric is starting to take over. It's amazing how quickly we've forgotten health care (health what? Of that thing. I didn't like that anyway) or that there are still hundreds of billions left in the first stimulus unspent (as we gear up for another major stimulus package + jobs bill).

By the by, if anyone can tell me what a jobs bill is, they get a shiny quarter. I didn't think you could write legislation that created employment from nothing in the private sector, as the vast vast vast vast majority of stimulus dollar jobs have been state/gov't-paid positions (and not just all for Michelle O's personal staff!). Historically, legislation aimed at creating jobs in periods of economic hardship tend to be for gov't projects, like bridges, ditches and murals. A "jobs bill" would then be just more targeted spending aimed at weak Democratic districts, intended to shore up the crumbling dykes until November.

Or am I reading that wrong? I might be, my glasses are a little dirty.

A few other things that jumped out:

* He repeated that he hated the bank bailout (that Bush signed) despite his ardent support at the time. A small thing, more of that "populist rhetoric" the pundits talk about. Still a little hollow, considering his opinion back in the fall of 2008.

*Following on that, all but one (if I remember correctly) of the big banks that received money have paid back those funds - with interest. Why are we now seeking a fee on those banks again? It's not just because they're easy targets...is it? I'd hazard a guess he needs money for special projects in the pipe or for health care. In fact, that's genius! He can punish the banks while telling the people he's fining them to pay for their sound bodies! The stoopid plebes will buy that, right Barry?

*Speaking of special projects, the freeze on "discretionary spending" begins in 2011. So that's really awesome and great. I'm glad McCain playbook is being used (didn't know who you elected, did you America?). What I'm not so keen on is the year until this goes live, giving Dems and their majorities plenty of time to pass pork and pet projects without recourse.

*He mentioned small-business tax cuts and stopping capital gains taxation on "small-business investment." Could...we end the cap gains tax for all investment for a year or two? Or just cut it in half? More than just small businesses could use that break, especially since he's looking to nearly double cap gains, according to campaign promises, during his term.

*Why does Tampa get a freakin' high speed rail line? What the hell's in Tampa that deserves that, save some middle-of-the-road voters electing a Senator this year (oh yeah...)? Why not put a high speed rail line where it'll do some good, like in the east coast corridor, across the Great Plains with his hometown, Chicago, as a hub between Denver and Pennsylvania, or from anywhere to not-Tampa? Tampa?! C'mon!

*I liked how he didn't want economic expansion like we had in the previous "lost decade," built on housing speculation and whatnot. So, does that mean you want it based on the 90s' econ-expansion - the internet bubble, whose popping created a massive backslide in the markets?

*I want a SOTU address that doesn't use the word "fight" at all. Combative language plays great to town halls, but is just silly in adult debate like this. "I will fight for you! We must win this fight!" RAH RAH RAH! Silly.

*All the education talk: go back to Bush's last two or three SOTUs. Same stuff. SAME ****ING STUFF. It's frustrating that the ideas you support are only lauded when there's a (D) next to the speaker's name.

*I loved how he said that Congress acts like every day is Election Day, and that we can't afford to run a "perpetual campaign." Wait, isn't "Organizing for America," what his campaign machine became, exactly that? Hm....

*Big fan of how he reminded Democrats of their huge majorities, the unsaid being "Why the hell haven't you passed by stuff yet?!"

SOTU addresses are notable for their magnificent proposals that get forgotten in the next news cycle. Very little Obama spoke about will become law or even get out of sub-sub-sub-committee wrangling. Bush had a good four years of sold majority support in Congress and look at the nothing that was done regarding his wildly ambitious domestic agenda (remember his domestic agenda? What he ran on in 2000? Yeah, in print it's actually pretty sharp, and I rack my brain to figure out what derailed it).

So don't expect to suddenly see unemployment cut in half by a miracle bill, or pride parades on military bases. I don't envision a health care bill will pass that looks anything like what went through the House. And such stringent rules for lobbyists? That war begins at home; clean up your own house, Barack.

In the end, then, this was a pretty standard SOTU: so much through against the wall, with little sticking.

And for Obama, it was just another campaign speech in the election that never seems to end.

Until the primaries,

-Erik

Presidentin'

2010-01-27T12:00:00.001-06:00

(Yes, I have returned.)

Thought to ponder: why should a president be scrambling to preserve/redo his party's political strategy after he's gotten into the White House and not in a Presidential election year? Wouldn't it make more sense to propose legislation? Pass executive orders? Do other presidential…things?

I find it off-putting that Obama has brought his 2008 Presidential campaign strategist (David Plouffe) back to his side to essentially help plan the 2010 mid-terms, as though that action is befitting a president's time. He can't be concerned with running his party's races for them. And there can't be legislative/agenda issues at stake, because if his proposed policies can't pass muster with Dem supermajorities, no amount of stopgap campaigning or spin over the next ten months will magically bring left-of-center dream bills to his desk.

Back in the day (before Nov. 4, 2008) it was popular to bash any hint of politicizing of the White House. Everything Bush did was partisan and to advance the Republican right-wing agenda, right? Evil Karl Rove and Dick Cheney plotting to force unwed pregnant teen lesbians to have babies, marry men and register with the NRA. What's the big difference now? Are we so wrapped up in a cult of personality* that we can't see the spin?

Obama's first year as president, arguably, has not been stellar. Moreso than that, the third year of complete Democratic Congressional control (and the first of supermajorities) was nothing short of disaster. The situation can be summed up in two words: sore winners. Now that power had been firmly deposited in one party's greasy hands, and with margins that haven't been seen in quite some years, it was assumed Obama would get his wish list passed one item after the other. Bills would be rammed through GOP whining for the time was NOW! for the Democratic Liberal Ascendancy!

Not the case. Some Dems, it turns out, favor the middle of the spectrum. And those Republicans who have liberal leanings aren't about to exercise them to support legislation that their wounded party is rallying against (what's the point of being an opposition party if you don't stand firm against the other side…am I right, Democrats circa 2002-2006?). The votes were there…but they weren't. Moderates wouldn't go along with the nah-nah-nah proposed leftist agenda that completely left them and right-of-centers out of the loop. Bargains were tried, compromises, backroom chicanery (and all this amidst the "Transparent Administration"). Failure!

Now, after Mass., NJ and VA gave the Republicans amazing headwinds with strong recent victories where Obama won with double-digits only a year prior, the White House has decided to circle the wagons to redefine the partisan message for the year. Not the American message, nor the strategy for the whole country. But the Democratic Party's agenda. Because that's good presidentin'. That heals the wounds, brings John Edwards' "two Americas" together, or somesuch.

How am I to have faith that President Obama will keep my, a Republican's, best interests at heart when he is shutting out my party from the conversation? And what if I were a Conservative, Libertarian, Constitutional or etc. Party member from the middle/middle-right? Why is the White House trying to energize only one segment of the electorate this year? And it's a segment that, according to most recent polls, is diminishing with each month. (Less consider themselves Dems now than did a year ago, and more consider themselves Conservative than Liberal.)

I know, it's the mid-terms, and it's been done before. During his tenure with GWBush, you know that Karl Rove was involved in many national campaigns. But to me, this looks worse. It looks like a President stepping up his party's game for the sole reason of winning elections and not to enact meaningful legislation. Hiring a consultant to rattle sabers and rah-rah-rah your whimpering candidates is a job for the DNC, not the President of the United States.

This past year has been tough for Obama, and he's had many backed-in-the-corner moments. I don't blame him for the ills of the world any more than I blamed Bush. But what's he's doing now, the overt politicizing…it's disappointing to see. It's Italian politics, and you don't get much lower than that in the Western world.

-Erik

-----

*(Well, that cult of personality has been disappearing rapidly over the last seven months. Obama's had a 15+ overall approval swing down, below 50%, the worst first year showing for a President since these things have been tracked. Kudos for breaking another barrier!)

Interpreting Mass.

2010-01-21T13:10:00.002-06:00

Let's dust off the Hoedown for a minute.

Tuesday saw "the impossible" happen: the Kennedy Senate seat in Massachusettes, Democractic for 57 years, went Republican. Scott Brown (R) pulled out a clear victory over Martha Coakley (D).

Pundits froth at the implications. Democrats wail and moan; Republicans strut and preen. The surface interpretation is that voters are fed up with Democratic Washington and have fired a shot at the bow letting the Administration know. Republicans are in then, right? Their agenda is preferred?

Not exactly. Tuesday's win was a big upset for the Democrats (Coakley was leading several weeks ago, or at least reasonably competitive), but not the sea change folks are making it out to be. To continue using nautical metaphors, it was a rogue wave, not the leading edge of a hurricane that will scour Congress of Democrats come November.

Voters are angry and fed up, but much of Tuesday's vote had to do with state politics. There were tax and corruption issues at play, and Brown was a charismatic alternative. Likewise, they can see nationally the failures of the Democratic leadership in DC as indication that maybe a supermajority in the Senate isn't a good idea. But that was second fiddle to local issues and personal magnetism. This is a storm in a bottle for Mass. Dems predominantly.

Republicans desperately want to think that their NJ and VA gubernatorial wins last fall and this big win mean great things come November. To be honest, Brown should not have won in Mass., no matter what your Democrat friends say about Coakley. It's a (D) state - almost more than any other in the Union - and a Republican win does indicate a lack of confidence in the "same old thing" - Democratic state shenanigans.

And after four years of Congressional control and a year of a Democratic White House to boot, the "same old thing" exists in more than just one state.

But anger can trump ideology, and Brown benefited from extreme voter anger and dissatisfaction over bungled, backroom health care chicanery, ballooning deficit spending, expanding debt limits, bailouts handed out like fliers on a street corner - big government, in two words. Voters did say no to that.

Does this reaction mean Obama's agenda is in trouble, that his "base" is rebelling? Eh, not really. If you see his base as the liberal side of the Democratic party, they are still quite loyal. Unhappy that there's no single-payer system yet, but still loyal. Moderate Democrats and independent voters are streaming away, as indicated in not only the three major Republican wins these last few months, but most major polls since mid-summer 2009.

All that aside, this means "epic fail" for Health Care Reform, and you don't have Republicans to blame. House and Senate Dems were too stubborn or cautious or ambitions (depending on your read) to use their SUPER MAJORITIES to just pass legislation, too divided over what should be in, too afraid of filibuster (like Dems can't frame that in the national media to make Republicans look cowardly and small).

Obama has moved the conversation already. Now it's the banks that are the culprits, and he will fight them until his knuckles bleed and the heavens crack...or until the news cycle moves on to immigration reform, green energy, entitlements, hobbits in the workplace....

-Erik

Hope this finds everyone well.

2009-11-16T21:53:00.001-06:00

The Den/Political Hoedown is on a bit of a break while it digests the double barrel blasts of childbirth and health care "reform." What, it's only a sixth of the economy. Let's tinker with it during a recession, see what happens. Sure it won't kick in for a few years, but we like pushing debt beyond the horizon. It's fun! And morally, it feels okay because we say we're helping people and saving them money...but not exactly, because we're enlarging yet again the welfare aspect of the state by essentially providing care $$$ vs. insurance $$$ (which is different), adding a further burden to the privately insured (personal or company plans) who will get no benefit. Unless the benefit is a lighter wallet, which I guess could help with the obesity problem.

Hmm....

-Erik

Getting Fixed

2009-08-11T14:06:00.003-05:00

Cross-posted at The Exchange.

Much is being made of Health Care/Insurance reform of late. Look on any major news site, op-ed page or political blog and you’ll run into several pieces posted just this week covering the breaking news! over Blue Dog Dems dealing or Obama pushing or Republicans pushing back, not to mention the pontificating on both sides of the aisle over what “reform” really means for health care in America, co-op vs. public option…and the shouting at Town Halls! It’s more than part of the news cycle – it’s a key argument about our future.

It’s the first major legislative battle Obama has had to fight, and for the Democratic Party, it’s a chance to reverse a fifteen-year-old loss. More than these, it is a new theatre of war in the battle for our civil liberties.

The Bush Administration is still fresh in our minds. How many readers have lamented that since 9/11 (or afterwards, when the Patriot Act was passed), our civil liberties have been trampled on/infringed upon/lost? It’s a common topic that talks of the individual freedoms we hold valuable in our country.

(Less directly, those voicing dissent were also realizing a harsh reality: that these “truths we hold to be self-evident” and divinely-granted exist only due to the government’s benevolent, diverse structure and state.)

The thinking is this: we have a measure of control (freedoms) over our personal lives (and by extension, choices) that cannot be impugned by any governmental body. The most common freedom referenced is that of Speech, tying into the freedom to disagree with the government and its members.

So were our freedoms infringed upon over the last seven and change years? And how does this factor into health care?!

Short answer: 1) no, and 2) health care reform as exists in draft form (ObamaCare) is a direct interference in our lives, a diluting of our personal liberties.

Not-as-short answer, we’ll talk first about Bush (yay, that hasn’t been done a lot!).

Aside from the flag-draped coffins arriving in cargo planes, the biggest uniquely “American” tragedy of the recent Bush years is the “loss” of civil liberties/personal freedoms. But let’s take a look further. Yes, the TSA interrupted our travel, causing frustration. We were also limited in the quantity of cosmetics we could bring on planes (still no guns). Regarding dissent – freedom of speech in general – if anything, Bush’s time in office saw a flowering of free speech. Having worked in a book store, I witnessed firsthand the number of anti-Administration books that were published – harsh tomes that didn’t hold their punches and outright derided, accused and insulted most of the top officials. Few were spared. One novel, by Nicholson Baker, had its main character fantasizing about killing Bush (though he was talked out of it).

In the theatres, we saw the scathing documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, which took aim at the Administration’s run-up to and early execution of the War in Iraq (as well as the handling of 9/11 itself). “Critical” is an understatement. And how many times did we tune in to a left-leaning pundit, talk show host or guest lambasting Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld as evil, fascist, corrupt, or at the least questionable in their morality?

Is this provocative newsmaking? Strict journalism? No, much of what was published, printed, screened or screamed by the cable punditry was personal opinion, heavily biased and often filled with fervent desire to see those in power toppled like an Iraqi statue, i.e., brought low by impeachment. While this never happened, “administration change” was a stated policy goal of many armchair politicians.

So freedom of speech. Freedom to (angrily) travel. Abortion and gay-related issues existed at the end of term where they were at the beginning, from a national perspective. Your taxes went down (yes, for all of you; a new lower bracket was even created). Your incomes may also have gone down, or your home values or 401(k)’s; insurance premiums did rise. But those aren’t “freedoms,” but rather a part of living in a capitalist, largely market-driven society.

More importantly, during this time your freedom of choice wasn’t altered. Choice to drink or smoke, to have a hamburger, to drive an SUV.

To not be insured.

We require our drivers to get car insurance, mainly to pay for repairs when that other guy hits you while turning left out of a Taco Bell parking lot. It’s a safety net for those responsible in traffic accidents, so they don’t go broke when their ’89 Civic rear-ends a Bentley. There are multiple parties involved.

Health insurance is a different beast. It’s about you and your body. It’s a choice you make about protecting that body and your pocketbook in case of injury or serious illness. We don’t cover ourselves to pay for cold medicine; as John Stossel said recently, insurance isn’t welfare, but instead coverage for a potential catastrophic incident. It secures against the potential maladies that can’t be solved by a trip to CVS or Walgreens, those things that cost a lot to fix.

But we still – as of this writing, and since insurance was invented – have a choice whether or not to buy it.

Our employers might cover us. They certainly don’t need to provide insurance. Tying your health care to where you work has shackled many to careers they’d rather not have. But we expect it, don’t we? It’s taken for granted that if you work for a major corporation, “benefits” will be included – benefits being medical coverage, dental, vision, emergency room service, etc. When it’s not offered, many throw their hands up and moan. What am I going to do? they cry.

In the case you don’t have employer-provided coverage, you can buy insurance (as the company is doing for its employees) from a provider, paying semi-annually to maintain the safety net against grievous injury or sickness.

But, again, you don’t have to; there is no requirement. If we’re not careful, however, there could be.

For lack of a better term, I’ll call what’s coming out of the Democratic Caucuses “ObamaCare,” and in its purest form it approaches a single-payer (that payer being the gov’t) system that many in America don’t understand, but also recoil from when it’s mentioned. As is being drafted currently, ObamaCare would include a requirement – punishable, if violated – for all employers to buy their employees health care and for all individuals to somehow have coverage, buying it if is not provided otherwise. A mandate.

So be healthy, or pay a fine. Or another way to look at it, Dear Leader says buy our healthcare.

It’s just a matter of time, if ObamaCare is passed, before the single-payer option is introduced in some pilot phase. We have a debate now between a government insurance program (the “public” option; run & owned by the gov’t and funded with your tax dollars) and the co-op (a member-owned group that uses their purchasing power to get lower costs collectively than alone).

(I’m more for the latter, predominantly because I think small businesses should have the option – should they choose – of collective bargaining that we think only unionistas are entitled.)

Public or co-op, under ObamaCare one way has to be in the bill to ensure “lower” cost insurance options, as we would all need to have something under pain of high fines. And here’s where the freedom of choice goes away.

We should not be forced by a governmental body to buy health insurance, something that affects solely the individual (if I punch you, and you need dental work, no health care plan of mine in the capitalist world would pay your bill). It’s our choice.

Many of those that are uninsured are post-college adults who either don’t have the job that supplies insurance or choose not to be covered, as they are young and healthy. Catastrophic risk is low for them, as relates to illness (we all can fall victim to accidents & injuries).

Why are we seeing a party that champions individual choice (we can cut to the quick with one word: abortion) refusing to allow the same regarding health care coverage?

This is a step toward a nanny state, and what do nannies do but take away the choices of the child.

If we are soon mandated to have health insurance, how long before fast food joints are fined for serving real beef burgers (too fatty!) instead of veggie burgers? Or bread producers (and their supporting farmers) ordered to make only gluten-free products, as some claim our bodies aren’t supposed to handle the stuff? Or regular pop – or pop in general, as diet might possibly in an alternate world lead to cancer! It’s all unhealthy, right? We shouldn’t consume these products, as they’d raise the potential for future maladies (and jack up costs)…right, Dear Leader?

What about the “legalize” movement, predominantly supported by the same left-leaning people who voted Obama into office? It’ll be a cold day before pot is legalized; in fact, it’s more likely that cigarettes face a 100% national tax – punishing smokers, isolating them, even more – on their way to an eventual banning.

And then there’s that can of beer you drink while watching a game. Prohibition was a failure, and it was the result of a religious-backed temperance movement that saw it pass. Well, “health care reform” advocates want your body to be insured and in tip-top shape; liquor doesn’t factor into that equation. Look for higher sales taxes, more restrictions on purchases by individuals and establishments, neighborhood bar & grill closures.

Because you have to be as healthy as the government says. There is no more room for personal choice when it comes to our bodies, right? That’s what I’m hearing with ObamaCare. Health care reform is no longer an issue of children being without insurance or the homeless being denied care. We’re not talking about lowering costs so the woman working two jobs can afford coverage to combat her returned cancer.

No, we’re skipping the true “need” aspect of health care (that being low, market-driven costs with state restrictions eliminated, co-op pools for small businesses, et al) for the ideological stance of a small group of policy makers too enamored with the concept of “universal coverage” to realize the dread cost to the end-consumer or the country as a whole.

The potential for failure to reform health care – to make it affordable for all – is high. No one likes to hear the tragic stories where if they had coverage Bobby would be alive, or little Susie’s heart valve defect would’ve been detected in utero, avoiding frantic emergency surgery, or Ted wouldn’t have gone bankrupt paying for his wife’s caner medication and treatment. Those stories will compound if nothing is done.

But the right action isn’t necessarily the one presented, and I’m not saying it’s 100% the Grumbling Opposition Party’s way either. What I do fervently believe is that we need to be mindful of the individual’s right to choose – and the related personal freedoms that could be endangered should we lose that right.

Our civil liberties come in many forms. A woman’s right to choose is not the only heath care choice we have the “right” to make. If we want to create a society that lets the person and not the government make the choice in the vast majority of cases, we cannot allow ourselves to turn a deaf ear when protest is raised on a topic we feel strongly about.

Take a few steps back. Slow down the process. Reform the health care system, but don’t devolve our rights in the process.

-Hooper

TPH Returns - "Fiscally Conservative, Socially Realistic"

2009-07-14T16:13:00.008-05:00

The Political Hoedown returns, now with no foolhardy attempt at regularity.

*Is there room in the US for a moderate party? Can self-styled "progressive" or reform Republicans (think Teddy Roosevelt or *gasp* Barry Goldwater?!) and, in their own way, "Blue Dog" Democrats (who're fighting DNC leaders about the Health Care reform bill as currently drafted) find a common slogan to rally behind?

*Palin-tology: the future of our maverick-y sled dog.

*Today's polls mean little for next year's mid-term. No big expansion on that point; just don't trust them. …okay, I'll expand a little.

***
I don't mean to alarm you, but there's a lot of partisanship these days. The situation isn't as bad as 2006; that was a bitter election year, especially with Iraq still in "quagmire" territory. Both sides emerged calcified and eager for a full-fledged electoral tussle in '08.

Now that we've had that brutal fight, with the GOP emerging battered and the "conservative" agenda at risk of fracturing amidst regionalization, you'd think the winners would be magnanimous. Not so, dear friends.

Legislation is veering sharply Left - for good or bad, as it veered Right during Bush's first term - and one sees the image of a steamroller driven by a donkey chasing an elephant. For nearly all bills can now be passed without a single Republican vote, and it's not healing the wounds of the last eight years to go about business as though 40% of the government doesn't exist.

And by ignoring the opposition, diminished as it greatly is, one also ignores its agenda items. Not every piece of conservative/Right/Republican policy calls for prayer in school while Gay heavy metal CDs are melted in a bonfire lit by Jerry Falwell's ghost.

So some Democrats are coming to remember.

They are called "Blue Dog" Democrats, and they represent the fiscally conservative, if socially liberal (or middle-left), wing of the DNC. There are currently 52 Blue Dogs between House and Senate: 16.6% of the total Dems in Congress, no small number. Currently they're up in arms about the Democrat-drafted health care reform bill and their objections are those of fiscal conservatives - traditionally the Republican stance.

In the Republican camp, there's been a war brewing for three years (or maybe since Teddy Roosevelt broke ranks in 1912) between those who place social conservatism ahead of economic conservatism and vice versa. Is this a time when a "Blue Dog" type Republican might emerge - moderate socially, economically Conservative? I, of course, refer to these as "Reform" or "Progressive Republicans," as these moderates have a forward view on science & technology, and the private lives of US citizens.

And if this other caucus-within-a-caucus is born, will our great Union witness another?

A national third party is the dream of pundits, basically a massive monkey wrench in the gears of "politics as normal." There are two possible breakaways* that could be formed: the above mentioned "Fiscally Conservative, Socially Realistic" (moderate, in other words) party, similarly to Libertarians; and the "Moral Right," which is the Palin wing of the GOP along with a few "Christian Democrats," those who are part of the Religious Right but have a (D) after their name.

The Republican Party is in shambles, leaderless and objectiveless. Their only collective, coherent thought is to block Obama if at all possible. But as the Democrats found out in 2004, when they ran on an "Anything is Better than Bush" platform, hate doesn't drive success. Ideas (and Roveian campaigning) do.

*(of course, really four if you count the Independence movements in Alaska and Texas, stronger than they have been in years.)

***

Palinpalooza!

By now, we all know that Sarah Palin has announced 1) she's not running for reelection as Governor of Alaska and that 2) she will resign July 26th, handing the reins over to her Lt. Gov Sean Parnell. There's still well over a year of her term left.

What's shocking is that there are some out there who think she still has a chance at the 2012 Republican nomination. In fact, they say this move will help her chances. I hope I can pop this little bubble of electoral hope: she's finished.

Arguably more of a lightning rod during the last election than even Obama, Palin entered the national political stage in a whirlwind of pit bulls and hockey sticks and knocked-up teens. She would go on to win the hearts of a chunk of Americans and the scorn of many more. In a nutshell, she's divisive, seen as flighty and in no ways a candidate that can capture a national majority.

So she's done, effectively. While there will be people who rally to whatever cause she takes up, and as we gear up for the 2012 primaries, listen to her, the citizenry as a whole do not endorse a political future for this woman. Who she eventually supports will turn into the early frontrunner (I don't buy her as a kingmaker, but she will bring publicity), though that person will take on all the negative connotations of "Sarah Palin's Pick."

The resignation is good for all parties: she gets to reevaluate her life, spend time with family and maybe salvage her image. The DNC gets fodder for the mid-terms ("Why elect member of the party that chose a QUITTER for their VP?!") and media drones. The GOP clears an ugly debit off its books and can really go about reforming and reorganizing the party.

She's headed off to write a book, and after that stump for those candidates who share her views on certain issues (Democrat of Republican). How many times do you think she'll hear "Oh, I'm sorry, I can't make it" ?

***

Right, those polls. Rasmussen has Obama's "strongly disapprove" rating higher than his "strongly approve" (though his overall number is still greater than 50%); they also show (R)s leading (D)s in eight of ten key issues, with the gap closing on the remainder. This is a two-week running affair, the GOP getting the upper hand on issues, but it means next to nil.

We are a year from serious mid-term campaigning and two and a half years until the 2012 primary season. A lot can change. Look at the political landscape last year. Few could map that twisted path from Obama's Iowa blowout to the reversal in New Hampshire, McCain's gradual rise, the most drawn out Democratic presidential primary in recent memory, Sarah Palin, the economic disaster. There was no crystal ball for those events.

we need to remember that going forward. Follow the legislation that's been introduced since Election Day, the Obama-backed stuff. He'll sink or swim on the last eight months' worth of policy from his proxies and party. Health Care can get reformed, Iraq solved but if the economy is in ruin in early 2012 (or late 2011), he'll face stiff GOP opposition (with the winds of anger at their back) or potential insurrection in the DNC.

Democrats haven't had a dynastic period in the White House since FDR got in. Republicans have won all but three elections since 1968. They want to win, and Obama might pull a "I've accomplished all I set out to do" speech if the stimulus packages and spending choices (blunders) fall flat.

***

Next time...who knows?

-Hooper

AIG executives are a sore substitute for real justice...

2009-03-24T14:25:00.000-05:00

(A guest piece!)

The persecution of corporations for exorbitant executive compensation (with or without government funds) is shortsighted and may in the long run hurt the movement for economic justice. While I am angry that executives are rewarding themselves for their foolishness, I recognize that retribution plays to my basest instincts. People interested in furthering their economic freedom have a better chance to get a stable economy by channeling their anger into a campaign around regulating financial derivatives and other unsound financial practices.

Indifferent government (yes, we're talking Democrats here too) enabled Chairman Greenspan and financial service and other corporate interest groups to thwart regulation of financial derivatives. Advocates have a prime opportunity to redirect public outrage away from executive compensation to the urgency of clipping the wings of executives greed: unregulated, unsound financial practices.

Corporate apologists who claim that regulation inhibits economic growth need no further shaming than to be shown the previous week's deflation of the asset-price bubble. These corporate apologists confused overcapacity with growth, for whose mistake you and I are taking a hit in the pocketbook. Let your Congressperson know you're mad.

-Matthew H Griffin

Mixed Signals

2009-03-23T16:00:00.001-05:00

A few thoughts regarding the proposed Illinois crosswalk/pedestrian law that would require cars to stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk:

To be clear, I have no issue with a law on our books stating that for the crosswalk going with the flow of traffic, the pedestrians should have right-of-way vs. turning cars. That's common sense.

However, entering into law the notion that a driver would be legally responsible to stop (therefore in the wrong, in case of an accident) when a pedestrian uses the crosswalk that runs against the flow of traffic is more than just bad legislation. It's dangerous.

We have walk/don't walk signals at all stop-light controlled intersections. This lets pedestrians know when it is safe to freely cross (walk), when discretion is required (don't walk-flashing) or when it is unsafe and then can't/shouldn't walk (don't walk-solid). When traffic is flowing, say, east-west, the north-south crosswalk signals show a "don't walk" sign, the equivalent of a pedestrian's "red light." They know not to cross, as they would be going against the flow of traffic and, as such, in the wrong for any accident. It all has to do with respecting those with whom you share the road - cars, pedestrians, bicyclists, rickshaw drivers (Chinatown), etc.

If the law, as proposed, is passed, that "don't walk" signal becomes meaningless. Now, pedestrians no longer have any legal obligation (only mortal) to not cross against traffic. Why should they? The law says they are in the right and cars must yield to them. It's hazardous for their lives and the motorists and is bad form when held against the rules of the road and all the safety skills we had drilled into us at Safety Village.

In a perfect metropolis, the only big vehicles on the roads would electric street cars, with bike lanes and better sidewalks. But we don't live in this semi-science fiction world. We have cars, and must deal with their presence not with hostility but respect, as we want them to respect us, the pedestrians. Violating the crosswalk signals places us in mortal danger, as it does those cars headed towards us.

A new law on the books would also add undue mental distress to motorists who would face not only the physical and mental damage of hitting a dumb guy who saunters across the road in clear ignorance of the "don't walk" solid signal, but also new legal woes. Moving forward with what is presented, we're treating motorists as health advocates treat smokers - not deserving of equal treatment.

I'd urge you to push for a change to this crosswalk law, to contact your state congressmen and senators and see some positive amendments put in place. If not that, I would implore you to think through the ramifications of this law in all their forms.

More information can be obtained by talking to the Active Transportation Alliance, a great non-profit promoting "better biking, walking and transit."

-Hooper

"...and you smell like one, too."

2009-02-24T10:15:00.005-06:00

A brief aside, before the main event:

Tolerance is a nasty word and a bad habit. Tolerate someone, we are taught, but that doesn't mean like them. Instead of trying to understand a person or an action, we are asked simply to tolerate its existence. This, in turn, will lead to a more harmonious society.

But tolerance, as defined, is not acceptance. Accept someone, and you embrace the idea that they are different from you - or their actions are - and can rationalize their worldview with your own. Shouldn't we be preaching acceptance, which would lead to the artificial barriers of color being toppled? Isn't that the next step in this ongoing discussion of racism?

I only bring this up in light of the recent backlash against a New York Post cartoon that some are saying is of a racist nature.

So to the point. Sean Delonas drew a cartoon that has drawn a lot of heat and carried several news cycles, roping in some pretty big names along the way. Here it is:

Now, both paper and illustrator point out that the cartoon references two recent news events: the stimulus bill passage and the killing of a rampaging chimp in suburban Connecticut. Most people living in the CT/NY/NJ region of the country have been inundated with stories about the savage beating a woman received at the hands of a once-docile, 200 lb. pet chimp. Likewise, we all know about the stimulus bill and its struggle in Congress. The message, they say, is to reflect that the bill was written so poorly, a monkey 1) could've written it/or better or 2) would've written the next one, as the first was pretty inadequate. The death of the monkey means someone else will need to write the bill. Clear on the intent? It plays with the phrase "so easy a monkey could do it."

So the cartoonist makes the assumption that we have knowledge of 1) the chimp story, to get the shooting; 2) the stimulus bill, it's hang-ups, troubles, etc; 3) that "so easy a monkey could do it" phrase/idea.

Obviously, the cartoonist overestimated our intelligence.

Instead, the negative criticism, started in the black community and carried further by PC fanatics, is that the monkey is Obama. So that means one of two things: 1) Obama is as dumb as a monkey, as the bill is a pile of crap; 2) Obama is a "monkey," in the most racially denigrating slang usage of the word. Is this grasping at straws? Making a story out of nothing?

The monkey has no sign around its neck, claiming it to be someone or some group, nor does it look like anything other than a dead chimp. This is not a caricature of actual people.

I will give the critics one small grace, that the cartoonist should've been smart enough to think - for just a second - that people would make the similar link between a black man as President and the racially-charged slang usage of "monkey" indicating black people. Really, Mr. Delonas, you should've thought of that.

But more to the point of intent, what we should be looking at - Sean Delonas did not set out to make a racist cartoon. He made, technically, three cultural references (perhaps erroneously together) that were aimed at underlying the stimulus bill, claiming it to be no better than the work of a monkey.

That's not terrible. It's humorous. Were Bush in office, or Clinton or Reagan, there would be no story. (Case in point, GW Bush was repeatedly drawn as a monkey to demean or show his true his intelligence; can't we do the same with Obama?) The Link is made, however, and Delonas is tarred and feathered as a narrow-minded, Obama-hating racist. Should we view this criticism as fair or the overreaction of a segment of society that has, in the past, been treating shamefully?

What I see in all of this is the spectre of racism, but not foisted by Delonas. It's the Al Sharptons of the country, the Jesse Jacksons and Eric Holders (the new Attorney General; black) who decide to make race an issue and throw up barriers between people based solely on skin color. That's racism. It's promoting racism and division. In a way, letting them start a discussion on race relations based on the criticism of this cartoon is re-segregating society.

You white person cannot draw this cartoon, as there is an association with black people and monkeys. This is artistic expression closed to you, irregardless of your intent. Why? You are not black.

I stand by the argument that, while there are some racist individuals in the country, most racism comes from the group that feels derided and victimized. It's not the other guys. Anything can be made about race, if you look hard enough. When neither side makes the effort to accept the other and view their actions through a monochromal lens we just end up with more reactions like we had last week. It's a self-fulfillnig prophecy - you want me to step on your toes - think I already am - so you wait until I'm not looking and slip your foot under mine.

Delonas isn't a villain in all of this. Maybe he didn't think through the ramifications of the image, the links that can be made where people are desparate for them to exist. The fight for civil rights was won, decades ago, and though there are bigoted holdovers that exist across the country, not every set of sheets in a white guy's house has a dual purpose. The assumption by Al Sharpton, Eric Holder and others that every action is or could be racist demeans their fellow citizens and their own intelligence.

Race relations are in a different, better place now than the (19- or 18-) '60s. The best sign of progress is a white guy drawing a cartoon featuring a monkey that lightly criticizes a black man's actions and doesn't take a shot at race.

-Hooper

Bits & Pieces + The Obamacorps

2009-01-14T12:00:00.001-06:00

So how much money does it cost to follow Bernie Madoff around via helicopter as he moves between home and court? While it isn't close to what he lost his investors, it's a shame that we waste so much money publicizing his celebrity. Principle, people!

***

Bill Richardson withdrew as Commerce Secretary nominee, which is probably the last nail in the coffin for his national political career resurgence. It's a shame. Far more than any other Democratic presidential hopeful, he actually had experience across all areas of government (well...save judicial). Sure, he wasn't as inspiring in his words as Obama or as well known as Hillary. No one will call him a pretty boy; tubby with a few chins to spare, his was the antithesis of the modern (Democratic) political image.

So goodbye, Billy and enjoy New Mexico, the last stop of your political life.

***

Obama 2.0 (or the Obamacorps, as I shall call it) is the new beast all Democratic (and later, Republican) politicians need to fear:

Obama's team would use the [existing campaign] network in part to pressure lawmakers -- particularly wavering Democrats -- to help him pass complex legislation on the economy, healthcare and energy.

What does this mean for you, the average voter?

If you contributed to Obama and provided his campaign with your contact info, expect phone calls, e-mails or hard copy documents to descend whenever a political issue arises where Obama stands on one side and your local Congressman (or Senator) is on the other. Maybe a touch of hyperbole, but the gist is the same.

Now, this "perpetual campaign" - founded in 21st Century technology, staffed by the vibrant young, able to reach literally millions - will exist to always bring issues to the fore in a professional, organized method. It's Grassroots Inc, essentially, the perfect melding of politics (lobbying) + business (Inc.) + idealism (Hope). Anonymous sources say it will run inside the DNC proper, yet who thinks it will answer to the chair? It's ultimate directives will come from the Oval Office, the weekly YouTube briefings, the slightest offhand comment by Barry O.

To say it is unprecedented really underestimates the long-term effect of this sort of organization on US soil. It's another vast political body that will try to force an opinion on you (the lawmaker) or you (the unconvinced citizen). This Obamacorps cannot be a good turn for Democracy. While yes, it brings grassroots politics (populist-level politics) to the state- and national-level spotlight through a coherent (D) group, the aims are partisan. It pushes on us the Party's thoughts, the Leader's view of What Is Right and How Things Should Be.

I'm no radical independent that's against political parties or parties organizing effectively. But I do not like to see this sort of an organization (that feels so much like something from a fascist or communist country) take such prominence in the greater political discussion. I'm for PACs and lobbying organizations (separate from the parties), but this consolidation of political heft that has the potential to browbeat free-thinking Governors and Congressmen and Senators and us, the citizens...well, that dog don't hunt.

Appreciation? F**k that!

2008-12-17T14:50:00.003-06:00

Dec. 09, 2008 was a day like any other in Illinois. The wind blew steadily through the city. Crisp weather proved unable to deter Christmas shoppers. The FBI was arresting the governor.

If you've lived in Illinois for only a few months, maybe a year, you don't know the great history you're missing. We've sent five of our last fifteen governors to defend their honor in court, with the sixth, Gov. Rod Blagojevich going through this standard process as we speak.

I'd like to say these have all been cases of political infighting, false charges levied for partisan reasons. Truthfully, there is no way to come close to saying that. Illinois - Chicago particularly - has been awash in corruption and scandal, but this go around is special. It involves not only the same old sick crew, but now the creeping vines are growing through the cracks of Obama's transition team - a presidential-level tie to our state's tradition of corruption.

Allegations that Obama would bring our homegrown bent for graft and deviant behavior to Washington are, in my opinion, partisan and unfounded. He's too shrewd of a politician to know, overtly, what is going on behind the scenes in Chicago and Illinois, especially within his own party, supported as it is by one of the last great political machines in the country. In the back of his mind, I have little doubt the man understands the political garbage dump he climbed out of smelling like roses, washed clean in his historic win. Was there any question that during his rise he participated, if only through ignorance, in "Chicago"-style politics? No, but there is little to the argument that he actively participated.

There: exoneration.

But there's none of that for Rod.

He knowingly abused his office, and for any one of a number of charges, he should be stripped of his 1) job, 2) pension and 3) freedom, through imprisonment. The actions he took, or tried to take, did not result in the loss of life like George Ryan's foolhardy driver's license scandal, but the damage done is vaster in scope and long-term impact.

The casualty of his actions is the credibility of government and its officials. We've seen scandals come and go, usually circling around some sexual proclivities or other debauchery, often linked to monetary greed. This is all the latter, and to the nth degree.

He's shaking down organizations and people for campaign contributions to secure state funding.

He's pressuring the free press to censure itself - to fire employees - because they have been critical of him.

He is quite literally selling a seat in our nation's government.

Nothing he's done in his six years in office have made me think he's a decent governor. A great politician? Yeah, of course. To get to where he is, to win numerous popular elections, you've got to be a crafty pol. But he has time and again alienated the state house and the people, pitted factions against each other and sought, wherever possible, to further hoist his own star above everyone else's. He's, in a word, shameless.

The evidence Patrick Fitzgerald has amassed is, hopefully, enough to seal Blago's coffin. The volume of recorded conversations alone, those profanity-laced tirades that even go after Obama and feature Illinois' salty-mouthed First Lady Patti Blagojevich, prove illuminating and entertaining. A little sad, too. There's a smallness in these people at the pinnacle of Illinois' mountain of dirt. We know they wanted so much more from their lives than to go down as scoundrels selling government for crass personal gain.

As this scandal unfolds, and more start to fall with Blagojevich (Jesse Jackson, Jr., Rahm Emanuel, perhaps even Sec. of Education nom Arne Duncan, etc.), I'll see what I can whip together to keep things straight and let you know just how great we have it here in the Land of Lincoln.

-Hooper

It took long enough.

2008-12-09T11:58:00.004-06:00

Operation: Board Games? Is that the name of the plan that placed IL Governor Rod Blagojevich in the hoosegow?

It was a long time coming, but any straight-thinking Illinoisan knew the man was filthier than a hooker's sheets. The big question now is how far-reaching is this corruption? Does it affect our President-elect, Barack Obama?

Probably not. I think Obama is too smart to get entangled in Rod's dirt.

We'll follow the story as it unfolds.

-Hooper
Posted from my G1

A Forest Fire: Reform & the UN

2008-11-30T22:40:00.000-06:00

The United Nations: highlighted when GWBush appointed John Bolton the US Ambassador to the UN (in a sneaky and brilliant move), the antipathy of the US towards the UN hasn't been mentioned much recently, nor will it under an internationalist administration.

As a governing body, the UN is terribly run and anything but democratic. It is governed by a collective of nations that declared themselves the most important and powerful some sixty years ago, ignores military crises unless they happen on the civilized world's backdoor (Balkans) and is propped up by the one nation it is growing to balance.

It is not in the nation's best interest to remain a part of the UN, as it is currently structured. Purely looking at the UN's military history, it has underperformed at best, relying on the US for the bulk of its armed forces (it has no neutral military of its own, soldiers dedicated solely to the UN and no other flag). The supposed nature of this body is mediation, bringing countries to the table before bloodshed, or after it first breaks out, to avoid a larger theatre of war. One could argue that under its watch, much of Africa has become a theatre of war, with petty dictators and racially-, culturally- or ethnically-charged militias terrorizing millions across the continent. And what is done? Where is the justice for those in Rwanda or Darfur or the Congo or Somalia?

Inside its own walls, the UN is as corrupt as the worst Chicago wards bossed by the local Democratic machine. There is little personal accountability in this "august" body, leaving it a squabbling band of diplomats out still for their own good, ignoring the greater good. Because of the corruption and deadlock, rogue nations can do what they want with no fear or consequence. It's what got us into Iraq, with the US playing police where they shouldn't have (at least alone). We could discuss the oil-for-food fiasco or how Russia, quickly becoming autocratic again, is facing no sanctions or recriminations for its actions against its own citizens. Nevermind China!

John Bolton dislikes the UN and what it currently stands for. He was a risky appointment that, as we know, didn't pass muster when his executive appointment was up. But it's that voice that needs to be heard. Reform! No one seriously talks about reform within the UN anymore, as though it's hopeless to expect change there. What I'd like to see from Obama is a US Ambassador to the UN who actively hates that organization and wants to see it torn down and rebuilt, closer to the original intent.

Obama has announced Susan Rice as his nominee for Ambassador to the UN, making it also a cabinet post. Though admirably resolute, Ms. Rice is a proponent of the UN and, in the past, served as President Clinton's Asst. Secretary of State for African Affairs. Her intellectual vigor cannot be doubted, but as many critics will point out with (fellow Stanford alum) Condoleezza Rice, a terrific mind doesn't make up for practical experience and real accomplishment. I do not believe this appointment will advance the idea of radical change within the UN.

And isn't that what this boils down to - change? So concerned are we with ousting anything smelling of Bush that we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Few good things are remaining, and the intangible stance, the controversial but correct idea that the UN needs a good forest fire to fertilize the ground for fresh growth, is being lost. Much as the tree of liberty requires the blood of patriots from time to time, so too does the forest need to be razed so it can grow taller, else you have old growth smothering new.

It is a fallacy to believe that because other countries support something that we or Bush doesn't, it's automatically right. Admitting other countries can make errors in judgement is the first step in reforming the UN.

Ten bucks says in four years the UN is the same as now or worse, more corrupt and disjointed, more confused in the face of crisis.

-Hooper

Bleeding Detroit

2008-11-10T13:47:00.002-06:00

Do we need to bail out the auto industry...again?

I know, the last major bailout was nearly thirty years ago, but the situation in Detroit isn't really any better. US car manufacturers have been losing market share and money - hemorrhaging might be a better term - amidst a market changing from oil-centric to eco-friendly.

Back in September, $25B was approved for a bailout, but that money is gone, or close to it. The plan Obama supports, along with Congressional Democrats, calls for part of the $700B financial industry rescue package to be applied to the automakers, essentially giving the US government (and by extension, taxpayers) a share of those companies.

Is that really the best course?

We know our auto industry has been flagging over the last few decades in the face of increased global competition and car line-ups that do little to address the public's growing clamor for alternative-fuel cars (electric, fuel cell, bio-diesel). Hybrid cars are purchased as fast as they can be produced, but Detroit is stuck with lots full of SUVs due to at-one-time great demand that has just collapsed over the last eighteen months (high gas prices, cheaper options, no or few hybrid options). Now they have to convert those SUV plants over to Something New.

So should we just give them money to do that, subsidizing their R&D and day-to-day operations? What's to stop them from seeking more and more every few months? GM and Ford have both burned through billions in the last quarter, coming perilously close to running out of cash (Ford's cash supply might only last until April, if things continue as they have). I'm sure the desire to profit is there, but what evidence do we have?

I would propose a different approach.

1) Eliminate their corporate taxes for fiscal years 2008-9, refunding anything already paid. Corporate taxes increase the cost of their goods, making the end product on the showroom floor all the less desirable by the consumer. This lowers '09, '10 and probably '11 model-year price tags, making them more competitive in the traditional fuel market.

2) As part of Obama's NuEnergy push, provided he can get it passed, set aside a chunk for R&D credits for companies that show marked improvement towards utilizing green tech now, in the short term, not five or ten years from now. It's another way to funnel smaller amounts of cash to targeted areas of the company. We want to promote profit, not just slow the descent into oblivion. The way to do that is to help Detroit capture more of the green market in the mid- and long-term (5 and 10 years out).

3) Perhaps some union busting is in order. If Obama is going to lower taxes, those union workers (Joe the Car Maker) will be getting more scratch from their paycheck at the end of the month. Constant renegotiation for higher wages and health care coverage could be frozen to keep costs down, and they could allow qualified, non-union workers to be hired at various parts of the process. I guess this is a dream of mine, to offer jobs to people who need them for wages that are respectable rather than keep them out because they don't pay union dues. Free labor, right?

I don't doubt there are better ways still to make Detroit work again. Bottom line: they need abandon, by force, their old models (car, economic, labor) to prosper in this economy. Better availability of private-sector health insurance will help Detroit cut even more. Maybe the unions should use their clout to cut a good Blue Cross/Blue Shield deal outside of Gm, Chrysler and Ford. There's a better model out there, a more efficient way to run this industry while still rewarding the workers that make it great.

What the Democrats want to do is simply take money and try to stuff it in the cracks, hoping it'll keep the industry together. The problems (and I'll be saying this for the next four years) cannot be solved just with money but with corporate realignment.

It might almost be better to let one car company go into bankruptcy to prove that change isn't just needed in our legislative and executive bodies, but our economic and manufacturing ones as well.

-Hooper

Can we get a little help here?

2008-11-06T21:34:00.003-06:00

Step One: Lay the Groundwork

CNN (^^) had a story on its front page that I can't help but think is there way of starting a long-term project, one that from a journalistic & narrative perspective, is pure gold.

George W Bush isn't very well regarded right now. His Presidency and Administration are seen as among the worst America has ever had. The economy is a mess, near collapse. We have to open-ended ground conflicts, one way and the other an exercise in (futile?) nation-building. On top of that is the existential War on Terror, fought between ideologies and by soldiers and diplomats on one side, exploding combatants on the other. Our freedoms are being oppressed, I have been told not to say. Hurricane Katrina wrecked a city that still smells three years later. Bad news.

So can the dialogue be turned?

The article cites Harry Truman, and I'd also mention JFK and Carter. The latter two Presidents, as Presidents, weren't very good. While positive steps were taken in both, Carter's rightfully led to economic halt and foreign policy neutering; JKF's unfinished term was marked by a terrible first year and not much to show after that. History remembers JFK well because he died well, and his legacy inspired LBJ's Great Society and the Civil Rights Act, among other landmark social legislation. Carter introduced a sort of ground-level liberalism that has taken hold in any number of ways, chief being groups like Habitat for Humanity, and he for better or worse made Energy such an issue that it deserved a cabinet-level position (expansion of government that, in the long run, was a good idea).

And GWBush?

No Child Left Behind can be fixed.

Iraq can be salvaged, or, we can hope it becomes a stable, self-supporting democracy.

Afghanistan can grow at least tobacco instead of opium (ho ho!), maybe other agro-goods. Surely they can stop stoning women.

The economy will recover, people will remember the highest the DJIA ("The Dow") ever reached was under his Administration. They will also remember that the mortgage crisis preceded his two terms, in its nascent stages.

Hurricane response will never be so slow. Not a mark out of his negative column, but a good lesson difficultly learned.

Technically, our freedoms are freer than ever. Have you ever heard of a country that could let a major author publish a book calling for the sitting president to be prosecuted for 4,000+ murders, much less a book that was distributed to all the chains, indy stores and the magical world of cyberspace? There is no censorship.

The story could go on, but much hinges on a number of varied factors beyond not only Bush's but all our our control. I don't disagree that many of you think he doesn't deserve redemption in the eyes of history. "Torture," Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Cheney - these are things he unleashed on us that many of you cannot forgive.

But can your children?

-Hooper

Victory And Its Cost

2008-11-05T14:30:00.004-06:00

It wasn't a bad Election Night for America, I can tell you that.

In fact, Republican and McCain voter that I am, I am only disappointed that McCain lost - not that Obama won. As an opponent, he was exceptional; as a candidate, a unifier; as a person, relentless. None of these qualities are negatives in our President. But enough ticking off my fellow conservatives.

Now the post mortem.

***

Change

Nov. 4th, the Democrats regained the White House after eight years out. Garnering 52% of the vote (vs McCain's 46%) and 349 Electoral College votes (to McCain's 163...so far), Barack Obama became the 44th US President and, making history, the first black President.

The Democrats also increased their majorities in the Senate (56 vs 40; 4 races outstanding) and House (254 vs 173; 8 races outstanding), making this the most powerful Democratic administration-elect since Carter won the White House in 1976 after the Watergate debacle.

There will surely be change in Washington, though the true extent will remain unknown until the cabinet is fleshed out and we get a sense of how the head of the government will think. Obama moved toward the center in public during the campaign, opening up the possibility that he'll appoint Republicans and work - truly strive - for bi-partisan support. He claims he'll be a post-partisan in the White House, beyond the divide that's gripped Washington since there was a Washington.

One only has to listen to Obama's speech to know that he's publicly tied to reaching across the aisle. In the past, he's cited Teddy Roosevelt (McCain's champion even more than Reagan) as a President he'll hope to emulate, seeking progress beyond party politics. The uplift felt from Chicago to Berlin to Wasilla, AK, last night as he made history with each minute he was President-Elect was palpable for anyone paying marginal attention. No one can deny him his moment.

What we look to now is legislation, and what he'll enact first.

I doubt we'll see tax reform for at least a year, if only because diminishing federal revenues at this stage (recession) isn't the smartest plan; I'm sure McCain would've waited as well. The rallying cry come January '09 will be two-fold: Energy & Iraq.

On the latter, Obama can work with Bush over the next two months and change to fix a timetable for withdrawal far quicker than 2011 (the current deadline for removal or renewal of commitment). While his foreign policy wonks are divided on the 18-month plan, as it clearly defines the hour of departure, he wants the troops gone. If he wavers, he faces intense pressure from the anti-Iraq War wing of both parties that provided him much support. How he goes forward depends on the first decision of importance: the defense secretary selection. Should he choose Gates, it might give credence to the idea he's keeping the troops there and initiating, say, benchmarks for the Iraqi government above and beyond what we have now. If Chuck Hagel, the anti-Iraq War Senator from Nebraska, is tapped, expect withdrawal plans to be drawn up. Personally, I don't see him holding to the 18-month plan; it's too specific for him, and may anger the military. He absolutely has to get off to a great start with the armed forces who, it must be noted, preferred Sen. McCain at the polls.

Looking to the price at the pump: Energy. Will Al Gore be tapped for this post? Sarah Palin (it's not as impossible as it sounds)? T. Boone Pickens?! The ten-year, $150 billion Green Initiative Obama has planned requires more immediate action than anything else he wants to do. To create the infrastructure to support next-gen cars and energy, you can't wait or close down sources, like Clinton did. Nor can you underfund, like Bush is guilty of doing. I disagree with his price-point for this venture and the way he'd spend it, but the thought is there, the overall idea of that we have to move forward with energy, even if we flounder in public a while (this is what we (R)s have to do, find the silver lining, the last root to cling to as we fall over the cliff to irrelevance).

Being mindful of the stock markets, Obama now has to look at the energy sector, the companies involved and the damage potential to a wild gesture to the green movement. It's all well and good to hate Big Oil and their profits (remember: their profit margins are actually slimmer than in many other industries), quite another thing to punish them with huge windfall taxes to fund their own demise. Working with energy firms, including those that qualify as Big Oil, you dirty hippies, you can better reward them for investing in green/alternative (renewable) fuel tech (tax breaks) now that they'd be funneling so much of their profits to new revenue sources. Get the automakers in there and the energy storage/distribution manufacturers while we're brainstorming. Reward (it's a great concept) private sector achievement by adopting McCain's idea of starting a contest to develop the best tech related to the NuEnergy (so stylish!) initiative; you harness the entrepreneurial spirit of our (armchair) engineers and scientists without a massive outlay of funds.

Moving on more than Energy and Iraq requires support that, right now, Obama just doesn't have. There are still any number of conservative Democrats that will buck the party line to oppose firearm restrictions and gov't subsidized health care, regardless of the party platform; their constituents would gut them in 2010. Likewise, tax reform takes care, time and broad support to work out. His tax-the-top, slash-the-rest idea (more on that in a few weeks) sounded great on his infomercial last week, but Big & Small Business give to more than just Republicans. The very people that lifted Obama up threaten him through their support of Congress. One thinks back two and fourteen years ago to the reversals of fortune of the ruling parties.

***

Mandate or Protest?

The biggest question facing Obama (and the Democrats by extension) is a head-scratcher: did he get a mandate?

Yes, he received a majority of the popular vote, the best percentage for a Democrat since LBJ in 1964 (Carter just squeaked by over 50% and Clinton never moved beyond 49%). His Electoral College victory is pretty significant, though as we know, 50.1% in most states can give you a major Electoral College win. So the E.C. doesn't provide evidence of a mandate, just a well-run campaign.

I've said before that Obama would get at least 3.5% more of the popular vote than McCain, regardless of if he won the E.C. He looks to be getting around 6% more, and with more absentee ballots and provisionals, I'm sure the number will tick up a few tenths of a percent before the final count is done. He could even hit a solid 53%, giving him between six and seven points up on McCain. That's in the middle when it comes to recent results: more than GWBush's margin (or Gore's...), less than Clinton's (both times) and decidedly less than GHWBush & Reagan's strong showings. One thing he has on Bubba is the true majority win, not a simple plurality. So does it make a mandate?

An argument for would be that he convinced a majority of the population (difficult to do since 1988), his lead is greater than a few percent (three times Bush's 2004 margin), and his E.C. gap is significant.

The counterweight to that joviality would be the E.C. can be won without the popular vote, or a bare majority, his popular margin is no approaching the same level as any of the living memory's landslides (and therefore, mandated Presidencies) and while 52% voted for him, 48% voted against him. One can also say this was a referendum election against Bush and the Republicans, a perfect storm for them that generated the "righteous winds" carrying Obama to the Oval Office.

I'd like to take a middle road. I discount E.C. margins; history doesn't prove a big majority there equals a mandate (Nixon vs. JFK comes to mind). What I do look at is the popular vote set against the background of the last four years' history. GWBush gets reelected with a ~2.5% margin over Kerry, passing the 50% barrier. He claimed, but did not really get, a mandate. What he got was the bare minimum of majority support for a second term. Two years later, he suffered a round defeat and reversal of fortune when Democrats overturned the Republican majorities won in 2004.

Obama has more going for him than that Bush did with either win, but he owes much of his White House victory to the current occupant. If Bush had 40% approval ratings, I think Obama might have lost. With only 1 in 4 saying he was doing a good job, Bush gave McCain little to work with while providing Obama and the DNC with perpetual sunshine for their hay-making. Sure, Obama had a plan and stayed consistent, if non descriptive, over the last eighteen months. That helped, But his win rests on a pile of negativity that can just as easily swallow him, too.

So I say no mandate, but no squeaker win. The public is outraged and would've voted most Democrats in over a Republican candidate. The opportunity this provides Obama is not to push through his agenda as is, but to refine it with the Republicans and diffuse the negativity that would slap him around should his plans fail. Everyone likes to award people that nebulous mandate, as though any win greater than .5% is titanic in scope. The Democrats did not get 30+ House seats, 60 seats in the Senate or a ten-point popular vote Presidential win. Voters, of course upset, didn't want to give the reins of government that fully to just one party.

So the message is still bi-partisanship and shared government. Amidst all the editorials harping about "mandate" and great change, Obama should remember that.

One more tidbit: in '76, Carter had the most equivalent White House and Congress to Obama's, riding high on discontent over Watergate and the divisions in the Republican Party. It was a decidedly left-of-center Administration. We all know how well that turned out in '80, '84, '88...well, until Tuesday night. Liberalism was trumped by Conservatism at best, moderation at least, and the trend continued - moving towards the center-right - for nearly three decades.

Keep history in mind at all times. We might not repeat it word-for-word, but we do recall certain scenes and themes.

***

GOPetered Out

It's going to take a lot of thought and writing to figure out what exactly faces the Republican Party. Have they become the Whigs, destined for the history books? This country could see it fracture and give us the seeds of the next major coalition party, as the Republicans were 150 years ago.

They've had a great run, if that's the case. Since their first Presidential victory with Abe Lincoln in 1860, they've followed it with wins in 1864, 1868, 1872, 1876, 1880, 1888, 1896, 1900, 1904, 1908, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004. So over the last 148 years, the Republicans have won 60% of the time. Not too shabby. Maybe it's time to put them out to pasture, let them either come up with a refocused agenda or give another party the spotlight. They've never had a period in history where, like the Democrats in the 30s and the 60s people have flocked to their side. You usually get crossover voters, Reagan Democrats as an example. The Democrats are the majority party, per registration, while the Republicans only have about 1/3 of registered voters. The rest are either independents or with third parties.

I think, as I stated before, it was the adherence to the right-wing (socially) of the party that killed the Republicans. They were originally a progressive party and for more than a half-century, enjoyed that mantle. But now most see them as reflective of older times, reckless spending and little direction. The party itself is older, with little youth to fire it up, and don't even look at the demographics - they're as starkly white as the driven snow. 1/3 Hispanic support. 1/3 Asian support. 1/20 black support. Those are poor, poor numbers in our increasingly diverse country.

So let's ponder the future for this Grand Old Party, see how they react to their loss and the ascendance of an ideology and leader more dynamic than anything they've got going.

***

I titled this post "Victory And Its Cost," with the victory obvious. It's that cost we need to take into account. The country voted without much regard to the ideology behind the "change," selected its next leaders based in large part on the dislike of the previous guys and saw the ruin of a political party that has done a lot of good, though it's certainly faltered in the last six years (power corrupts...etc).

I think Obama's election was, in the scope of history, worth it. But we must remember what it took to get here, and what it may mean after he's gone.

***

The cabinet will be forming soon and with it, the direction of Obama's (first) term in office. How partisan will his choices be? Will he reward Chicago/Illinois politicians? It's not like they're going to be replaced with Republicans if they hike on over to D.C.

Very interesting times.

-Hooper

That Young, Hip Glory: A Brief Reflection

2008-11-04T22:09:00.007-06:00

So what happens now?

The county has elected Barack Obama 44th President of the United States of America. It's a moment to rejoice, to know that forty years after the death of Martin Luther King, Jr., we have elected a black man to the highest office there is. It is a testament to our ability to change as a people, to tackle big issues and move beyond the old ways of thinking.

So, again, what happens now?

Reckoning.

We'll get to the Democrats and Obama. The big news for them is "victory," so they can't focus on tomorrow yet, just the revel that is tonight.

***

The Republican Party was dealt a loss, but to a greater degree, the Bush Administration saw a stark denial of any progress it had made, any positive actions it had taken over the last eight years. Began in controversy and mired in simmering angst, George W Bush's two terms have been cast aside and the legacy forgotten. Remember that.

Back to the GOP: where does it go from here? Some say it becomes a regional party, stuck in Mountain and High Plains states, and in the Deep South. Look back at the electoral maps before the Civil Rights movement ending at the Civil War. The Republican Party had dominated, save for FDR & Truman's wins, much of the Yankee North, what we see as the Rust Belt and New England. That time ended with LBJ. Then, it inherited the social conservative Democrat strongholds in the Deep South, the populist West and the moderate Mid-West. This coalition brought in Nixon, Reagan and two Bushes (aided, it must be said, by terrible opposition candidates).

But new comers, they love "that young, hip glory" found in voting for Obama. Registering in droves, new voters cast more than 2/3 of their ballots for Obama, more than 2:1 against McCain, meaning the voter registration machine engineered by Obama during his community organizer days (Project Vote, ACORN) really worked. New registered voters cast ballots - 11% of the total electorate. The problem for Republicans is that, while in years past they've done an excellent job at get-out-the-vote drives and registration campaigns, they failed to connect this year. With new demographic maps - and about +10% more (D)s than (R)s - this means that post Election '64 map is dust. The states where (slender) conservative majorities brought Republican victories have seen their electorate expand and contort into a mysterious creature that doesn't do what it's supposed to.

Where do they go from here, that Grand Old Party? We'll tackle that later, in another piece (the Dems get one, too). Tomorrow, however, is that promised reckoning. Every conservative blogger, pundit, columnist and talking head will begin finding the scapegoats and sharpening knives for the resultant slaughter. There probably won't be a Contract With America II in 2010, because there'll be no Republican Party to write it. What we're left with tomorrow is more than a defeated party, but a defeated ideology. The Dems have been waiting for their Reagan since '64 and no one's come close. Republicans had their Reagan and lost their way from the principles that put him in power. Social conservatism trumped all rational economic and foreign policy thought, handing a narrow victory to Obama. More than that, guttersniping ruined the image that the GOP hoped to restore this year - that it was above the muck and bile of the last eight years of politicking and elections (for this, Steve Schmidt will be outcast).

Conservatism killed itself this year, by not putting up an intellectually charged fight.

***

O, but ye victors remember: all glory is fleeting.

-Hooper

The Change is Upon Us Obama Wins! (Election Night Coverage!)

2008-11-04T16:47:00.004-06:00

I'm going to try periodic blogging tonight, so no promises.

9:20

The Political Hoedown is calling the race for Barack Obama, junior Senator from IL. He has beaten John McCain in the 2008 US Presidential contest. He becomes the first black US President, the first Hawaiian (...right?) and the first socialist (I kid!).

We would like to congratulate both candidates for a race well fought. In particular, we would like to single out Matthew Saniie of the Obama Campaign (Florida) for his dedication from Fall 2007 through now, working across the fields of Iowa, to the slots of Nevada and the endless expanse that is Texas. He has embodied every ounce of this campaign's energy and determination. We would have a better political culture were we all as focused on the positive political awareness as he is.

Once again...President-Elect Barack Obama.

Now we wait for the news that McCain has killed his senior campaign staff...

***

8:10

*With Pennsylvania called for Obama, that pretty much seals the deal. McCain would have to win every battleground state, sweeping the central corridor of the country, as well as...well, everything. It's too steep a hill to climb and, not for lack of trying, I don't think he can do it.

*Indiana and Virginia might go McCain, but a little, but they'll be consolation prizes. Florida and Ohio look poised to go for Obama...by far more than a nose.

*McCain is leading in many Republican counties, but he has underperformed vs. Bush' '04 numbers. This means narrow statewide votes and no big rural/country/small town margins to overcome urban (D) majorities.

*Expect Chicago to thrum with the cheering, to vibrate and shatter from the exaltation.

***

4:50 PM
*If Indiana and Virginia get called early for Obama, all hope is lost for McCain. These two states have been solid red going back to 1964, when they went for LBJ. So 44 years since they last helped a Democrat achieve the highest office in the land. These are must wins and, at the moment, teetering or falling entirely into Obama's column.

*If Pennsylvania, for some wild reason, actually goes for McCain, hold onto your butts.

The domino effect will be in full play if Virgina goes blue. That is my prediction. Expect half the battleground states to go Obama, the rest to be a pittance for McCain, the almost-had-it. We could hear of a concession call as early as 8PM Central. When was the last time that happened?

-Hooper

Today? Election. Tomorrow? Race war.

2008-11-04T12:05:00.000-06:00

(We can thank Buck for that one.)

The vote is in from Dixville Notch, NH, the first town in America to provide election results.

Obama: 15
McCain: 6
Nader: 0

Certainly a better start than Obama might've been expecting in this more center-right town, and not the most auspicious for Sen. McCain. But the day is young. I'm sure McCain will at least double his votes by this time tomorrow.

***

We've also polled Neville, the Hoedown's resident basset hound, about his voting preference.

When asked "High five, Obama?" and "High five, McCain?", Neville choose to high five for Obama more than McCain. Then he proceeded to bite the pollster and the pollster's wife.

He licked each candidate's campaign buttons an equal number of times. Take from this what you will.

-Hooper

Advantage: Obama

2008-11-03T15:01:00.003-06:00

*His ground campaign is excellent. Books will be written about how he turned a speech into a campaign into a movement, but much of the work has been done by a dedicated group of (predominantly) young organizers. McCain just doesn't have this level of support, though he does have a lot. No, Obama's ground game is the best we've ever seen in modern history. One only has to follow anecdotal evidence, people saying Obama's campaign contacted him (phone, e-mail, mail, door-to-door) many more times than McCain. Because of his initial 50-state strategy (49, in reality; Alaska got the shaft), he had small organizations present everywhere waiting to explode into full-fledged campaigns-in-microcosm. Clinton lost to his ground game in the primaries, and McCain and the GOP lost the registration battle for the same reason.

*Campaign finance reform, in the bitterest blow to McCain, is dead. Obama has raised well over $600 million, a total that just boggles the mind. And we still don't have his final numbers in yet! This gives him king-of-the-hill status with regards to TV and radio ads, print campaigns, apparel/gear (buttons, shirts, pins, key chains, etc), personal advertising (signs, bumper stickers, banners, rally signs, etc.) and personnel. He can spread his message easier, not having to trim back to meet a strict budget. With such deep coffers, he can expand the ground game through prime office space and well-funded local teams. His rallies get the best locations and the supporters a ton of swag. It's the blockbuster action movie methodology - everything and the kitchen sink and the neighbor's shed to boot. You don't have to spare a dime when the return is nigh inevitable.

*His Grandma (maternal) just died. I know, the sympathy vote is overrated, but it's the humanizing factor that, provided we see a picture of grief, will seal the deal with many women and those who think he's cold-hearted.

*Obamamentum: i.e., the righteous winds of change at his back, also called the "enthusiasm gap." This is the culmination of all aspects of his campaign and organization, the intangible result where everything clicks to form not just another political organization, but a movement. The fundraising. The registration drive. The ground game. "The transforming power of change," better known as "anything but what we've got."

I mentioned previously that McCain is polling far better than he should because Obama hadn't sealed the deal, but rounding the last curve in this horse race, it is clear who has the speed, the drive, the energy to cross the finish line. What will be said of McCain's campaign is simple: it compromised it's principle.

Looking over the near-victorious junior Senator from IL's two-year trek to the White House, we can only see how instead of the opposite, Obama defined his campaign, setting the course from the start.

Tomorrow will be a rough day for Republicans....

-Hooper

Rebuild

2008-11-03T14:45:00.006-06:00

The Case for John McCain by Nashville Sticks

First and foremost, outside of self-employment, where can you go take a job and in 143 days become the CEO, President, or Supervising Manager? Nowhere! This is the most powerful country in the world, people work their entire lives to have a promotion, and an unbelievable amount of folks in this country are allowing someone to come in with little to NO experience and give them the golden key to the world.

It goes right in line with the system Barack Obama is proposing to the "middle class" - don’t do any work, have more children, live off the nation just a little more and you will be rewarded. As for the rest of you who are working, try to live the "American Dream" and bring success to you and your family, and you will be taxed higher than ever before. It is a socialist/Marxist system.

McCain is the guy who is going to take care of business and rebuild this country. While McCain was not my first initial choice during the primaries, he is one who has always stood strong. While kicking his "Maverick" status a bit much, he has the experience and he is not a follower of the Bush Agenda as Obama has accused. As McCain stated best in the last debate, "If you want to run against Bush, you should have done it four years ago."

I am voting for McCain because he has not backed down from the start. McCain stands strong for his beliefs, this country, and most of all the prosperity for all Americans. He does not make class distinctions! McCain has not gone back and tried to degrade Joe the Plumber and seek to destroy him like one other campaign.

I am voting for McCain because of his tax policy and the fact that he does not want to spread the wealth. Support someone who is going to support ALL Americans. Why back someone who is going to do what Bush's predecessor Bill Clinton did - run on a tax cut for votes and once elected, RAISE TAXES!

I am also voting for McCain because he understands that the small businesses that make up a huge portion of our economy are making over 250K and taxing them would put unemployment up, drive these small businesses to closing, and hurt the economy as a whole. He has not constantly redefined the middle class: from $250k - $150k or back to $200k or down again. There is substance to McCain.

Barack Obama has substance to him. As an individual who honestly looked into becoming a Secret Service Agent, it would be disheartening to put all that work in only to find out the man you are guarding could not even qualify for the job because of the people who helped start his political career, he has associated with and taken handouts from while decrying special interests. Guilt by association is unfortunate, but he has yet to clear the air regarding SEVERAL of his associations with political radicals, Islamic extremists, and a preacher who gave sermons damning America (and in 20 years Obama never heard those sermons just once? Come on!).

In defense of Barack, he is a great speaker; he lights up a room, but when the smoke clears and the mirrors are gone what will be left? Someone without the proper experience and, if he is elected President, a country relying on the government for everything that used to come from free enterprise and capitalism. We turn right into a Socialist and welfare country.

I am voting for McCain because he will not punish those that believe in the right to bare arms. McCain is the right man for the job, he has experience, he has put in his time, and he knows how to run this country, keep us safe, and build out economy.

The USA is a land of opportunity, not of handing out everything to those that come here illegally or citizens who live off the government because they can. The real change we need is a leader who is not afraid to chop it down to bare minimum and rebuild. A leader like John McCain.

-Nashville Sticks
Harbor Entertainment

Based On Merit

2008-11-03T14:38:00.003-06:00

Originally posted at The Leftist Right on Oct. 15, 2008

The Case for Barack Obama by Townser

Your esteemed moderator at this fine blog asked me to make a reasoned case for the election of Barack Obama. He gave me no guidelines other than a rough word limit. Therefore, I decided to set a rule for myself. I am going to make my arguments on Obama's merits, not McCain and Palin's perceived deficiencies, because in my mind that would be akin to shooting fish in a barrel (Ok, I just had to get off one shot…).

While I understand that for the most part, the American electorate seems to care very little about actual policy and would much rather concern itself with Inside Edition-like gossipy crap I feel that this election is far too important to get into the kind of worthless discourse that includes race baiting, religious intolerance, class discrimination, and a tremendous amount of outright lies spread through vicious internet based smear campaigns..

I would be tremendously off base if I did not address the economy and taxes right off the bat as these two subjects seem to be at the forefront of everyone's mind right now with nearly 77% of the population unhappy with the economic direction of our country. I feel that Obama's plan to increase taxes on corporate earnings is on base. However, I have little faith that this would actually increase revenue due to the tremendous number of loopholes in the tax code. It's interesting to note that McCain has the exact opposite philosophy as the plan he announced yesterday to assist the bailout would extend more tax credits to corporations. I strongly disagree with that course. I am more heartened by Obama's plan to cut taxes to over 100 million families (those earning less than $250k). I would also like to see him follow through on his promise to revoke Bush's tax cuts that we all agree benefit the ultra-wealthy and were the first of their kind during a time of war. Neither candidate in my mind does enough to curb spending; although McCain seems way off base in his idea to make the aforementioned tax cuts permanent when the country is mired in tremendous debt.

The words leadership and experience are tossed about everyday by the punditocracy as if they have a firm definition of either of those concepts. In other words, one person's idea of leadership might be nearly the exact opposite of another's definition. As we have seen over the course of the past 8 years, neither word seems to mean what the majority of the US electorate would hope! I firmly believe that Barack Obama has plenty of experience to handle the office of the Presidency. Moreover; I have full confidence that as a leader he would surround himself with the best and the brightest available. After all, isn't that the mark of a good leader - the ability to recognize one's own deficiencies and put people in place who can handle the situation more effectively?

We have seen during the Bush presidency what cronyism and the ability to ignore history and not attempt to learn from mistakes will lead to. Honestly, since when is being thoughtful and open to ideas a bad thing? I trust Obama to make reasoned decisions and not rule from his gut. Additionally, I believe that an Obama presidency would instantly transform our world standing. It should be abundantly apparent that we are all in this together and we need someone that can unite the world behind us, not cut a fiery swath ala General Sherman or President Bush. I do not trust McCain to be that leader. His world view is too closely aligned with the failed policies of the Neo-Con brain trust (I use that term very loosely).

Closely tied to our standing in the world are the two wars we are currently mired in which are bleeding precious funds from our country and more importantly taking precious lives. Obama pledges to begin an orderly withdrawal from Iraq and to refocus our efforts in Afghanistan. I feel this is the absolute best case scenario short of pulling out of both countries (sorry as a bleeding heart, I find war to be absolutely abhorrent, especially unnecessary ones). Setting aside our reasons for being in Iraq, I think we can all agree that the ages old sectarian differences renewed by our proverbial bat to the beehive are not going to be settled by American interlopers, no matter how long we stay there. Let's cut our losses. Meanwhile, the most recent NIE sees things beginning to spiral out of control in the true central front for the war on terror in Afghanistan and to a large extent Pakistan. Obama pledges to refocus our efforts there and also to track bin Laden into Pakistan if necessary. I agree lets keep our eye on the ball.

Due to space restrictions, I will not be able to delve into healthcare as deeply as I would like, but let it be known that I do not want my benefits taxed as McCain suggests and I would much rather find affordable, accessible healthcare available to all.

I would also be remiss if I did not mention education. This is the one area where I will break the rule I stated earlier. Can anyone explain to me McCain's position on this all-important subject? Does he even understand the importance of this issue and that our population continues to lag behind other countries? If we want to be the best and the brightest, we need to educate our children in such a fashion, not ignore our deficiencies. I feel that Obama is so far out in front of McCain on this issue that it does not really merit a discussion.

Thanks for the opportunity,

-Townser

He Ain't No Maverick

2008-11-03T14:15:00.003-06:00

The Case Against John McCain by Jim Jubilee

In the year 2000, I loved John McCain. I’m no republican by any means, but this man had so much appeal to me. A republican that shot straight from the hip. He didn’t seem be weighed down by pandering to one side or the other, and above all he was funny. The facts have changed along with his age, and now I wouldn’t trust him in the White House for anything. Let's look at why.

He ain’t no Maverick
Did he used to be? Maybe. But these days he has to pander so hard to the right that I’m pretty sure he doesn’t even know what to believe anymore. Despite what he’ll tell you, he’s a republican on the issues that make a republican a republican.

His Health
If my dad were 72 with cancer and god-only-knows how many other ailments, I’d be worried sick about him every day if he were still working. Let alone if he were working in a stressful job such as serving as the CEO of a large corporation. But, if he were the president of the United States, working 20 hour days with the weight of the entire country on his shoulders, I would be quaking in my boots. Not only for my dad, but for the entire country. McCain is a heart attack waiting to happen. This man won’t last four years.

Palin
Okay, of course every VP choice in the history of VP choices has at least a little political motivation, but this is the cream of the crop. He chose a gun-toting, think-completely-inside-the-right-wing-box, ignorant governor from a state that has nothing in common with the states that you and I live in. Despite her appeal to hockey moms and the right side everywhere, you can’t convince me that this wasn’t a terrible decision for our country for purely selfish benefit to McCain. Not to mention that she’ll be putting herself in a "damned if she do, damned if you don't" situation with how she cares for her family, especially her special needs son.

War
I’ve heard countless arguments that the surge didn’t in fact make any difference and that there were many other variables at play. Regardless, the surge wasn’t Bush’s idea; it was the idea a commander's, someone who knows war. McCain was in a war a long time ago; that certainly doesn’t make him an expert on modern warfare. To top it off, he stubbornly thinks that we can WIN this war. There’s no way to win, just a way to make a successful exit strategy that gets our troops out of harms way, won’t leave them jobless, and saves us a ridiculous amount of money. And no timeline - how is that possible??? Anyone reading this that is employed knows exactly what happens to large projects that don’t have milestones and deadlines. They never end and they cost a fortune. I’m not asking for a blind evacuation in 18 months, but a solid plan to successfully get the hell out of dodge. Okay, so we research, and if 18 months isn’t enough time, let’s make it 24, but dammit we simply MUST have a goal in mind or nothing will ever change.

Economics
Now here is where I come the closest to agreeing with republicans. Our tax system screws the rich. It isn’t really that fair. BUT, Obama’s tax “raises” are mostly just lifting the cuts that Bush put into affect. The capital gains raise still takes us to 5% lower than it was in the Clinton era and I don’t remember any recessions back then. Yes, McCain makes some good points about top down tax cuts and invigorating our economy by creating more jobs, but have you noticed that it is the very same method Bush has been using for 8 years to no avail, resulting in more jobs overseas and a recession. Time for a change.

Roe vs. Wade
Okay, okay, abortion is murder. You’ve got me. But the moment it’s illegal you’ll be gripped by the realization that abortions are still happening, but now they are happening illegally on the black market by untrustworthy sources. The result: now the babies are dying and so are their mothers. I vote for leaving it the way it is and letting peoples’ conscience and religion dictate their decisions.

Thick-headedness
If you think Bush is stubborn, you just wait. I want a president that realizes his weaknesses and fortifies those areas with the best of the best. Uses all of the resources available to him to make the very best decision possible. McCain scares me with his rage; when that passion clouds your judgment and closes your mind to others, it becomes dangerous. That’s what I see in John McCain.

Our Reputation
I know we shouldn’t vote for president based on a popularity contest, but based on the current state of our national security and the value of our dollar, it certainly wouldn’t hurt for us to improve our worldly impression a bit. I recently travelled to Istanbul and had intimate discussions with families from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, The Netherlands, and more. There was one common theme: every single one of them was truly IMPRESSED with the United States, that Obama had made it this far, changing their negative impression of us. There is hope! McCain doesn’t portray a country of vitality and hope, but rather a country of deteriorating health and judgment.

Inspiration
For better or worse, our president has never and will never follow through with everything s/he promises at the time of election. The affect of hope and inspiration can change things, arguably more so than a tax increase or decrease. The one thing that very few presidents can do is inspire and motivate the masses. McCain is not that guy. McCain does not invoke a feeling of hope or inspiration. If he is elected president, it will prove once again to the country and the world that the US has no capacity for abstract thought and will never take a chance on something new to dig ourselves out of this hole.

That is why I ask you to consider Barack Obama on November 4th.

-Jim Jubilee

For the full, unedited-for-length Case, click through.

***

The Case Against John McCain by Jim Jubilee (unedited)

In the year 2000, I loved John McCain. I’m no republican by any means, but this man had so much appeal to me. A republican that shot straight from the hip. He didn’t seem be weighed down by pandering to one side or the other, and above all he was funny. The facts have changed along with his age, and now I wouldn’t trust him in the White House for anything. Without going into the details of why I think Obama is a better pick, here are the reasons why I think McCain is a bad one.

He ain’t no Maverick
Did he used to be? Maybe. But these days he has to pander so hard to the right that I’m pretty sure he doesn’t even know what to believe anymore. Despite what he’ll tell you, he’s a republican on the issues that make a republican a republican.

His Health
If my dad were 72 with cancer and god-only-knows how many other ailments, I’d be worried sick about him every day if he were still working. Let alone if he were working in a stressful job such as serving as the CEO of a large corporation. But, if he were the president of the United States, working 20 hour days with the weight of the entire country on his shoulders, I would be quaking in my boots. Not only for my dad, but for the entire country. McCain is a heart attack waiting to happen. I’d have to imagine that four years in the oval office is the equivalent of working 20 hours in my quaint little window office overlooking the Wisconsin rolling hills. Do the math. This man won’t last four years.

Palin
Okay, of course every VP choice in the history of VP choices has at least a little political motivation, but this is the cream of the crop. He chose a gun-toting, think-completely-inside-the-republican-box, ignorant governor from a state that I wasn’t even realize was a part of the United States until earlier this year. Despite her appeal to hockey moms the right side everywhere, you can’t convince me that this wasn’t a terrible decision for our country. If she were to end up in the President’s shoes (which she likely will, see above) she would quickly turn our country into a disaster. Not to mention that she’ll be putting herself in a damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t situation with her family. As a father, I can tell you that even if you’re the president, your mind will wander to your family, to your young son with special needs. Say it’s sexist if you want, but when I watch my son’s mother with him, there’s no doubt in my mind that he is the center of her world and she would quickly throw me aside to save him in a time of need, and I would do the same to her. Children rule your world, especially if you’re a mother.

War
I’ve heard countless arguments that the surge didn’t in fact make any difference and that there were many other variables at play. Regardless, the surge wasn’t Bush’s idea, it was the idea of a commander. Someone who knows wars. The president will need to be in 1000 places at any given time, I sure hope that both Obama and McCain will delegate the real decisions to the people that are able to know what the hell they are talking about. McCain was in a war a long time ago…that certainly doesn’t make him an expert on modern warfare. To top it off, he stubbornly thinks that we can WIN this war. There’s no way to win, just a way to make a successful exit strategy that won’t leave all of our troops jobless, while also getting them out of harms way and saving us a ridiculous amount of money. With no timeline??? How is that possible. Anyone reading this that is employed knows exactly what happens to large projects that don’t have milestones and deadlines. They never end and they cost a fortune. I’m not asking for a blind evacuation in 18 months, I’m asking for a solid plan to make it successful and get the hell out of dodge. Okay, so we research it and 18 months isn’t enough time, let’s make it 24, but dammit we simply MUST have a goal in mind or nothing will ever change.

Economics
Now here is where I come the closest to agreeing with republicans. Our tax system screws the rich. It isn’t really that fair. BUT, Obama’s tax “raises” are mostly just lifting the cuts that Bush put into affect. The capital gains raise still takes us to 5% lower than it was in the Clinton era and I don’t remember any recessions back then. There are so many loopholes in our tax system that are leveraged by business owners and the rich, that they aren’t honestly paying the rates they are quoted anyhow. Eliminate the loopholes and I might be on board with a republican economic policy. Yes, McCain makes some good points about top down tax cuts and invigorating our economy by creating more jobs, but have you noticed that it is the very same method Bush has been using for 8 years to no avail. Top down has resulted in more jobs overseas and a recession. Time for a change.

Roe vs. Wade
Okay, okay, abortion is murder. You’ve got me. But think of this. The moment it’s illegal you’ll be gripped by the realization that abortions are still happening, but now they are happening illegally on the black market by untrustworthy sources. The result: now the babies are dying and so are their mothers. To top it all off, in about 14 years, you’ll see the crime rates skyrocket due to the increase in unwanted children on the streets. So now protecting an unborn child has cost the lives of mothers and the innocent. What is worse? To top it all off, you have the cases where a woman is raped by her father and is prohibited by law to get an abortion. I’m sure that will be a happy family. I vote for leaving it the way it is and letting peoples’ conscience and religion dictate their decisions.

POW
He served our country. He was a POW. I get it. He’s a die-hard American and will always act with our national security and best interests in mind. Or will he??? I’m not sure about you, but I’m pretty sure I’d be pretty screwed up in the head if I’d spent as much time as this guy being tortured and tucked away in a small room. Not to mention, I might hold a grudge. And I might have rage issues. And I might be a little stubborn when it comes to making war-related decisions because “I was there! I know what it’s like!”

Experience
If you can knock Obama for having too little experience, you can knock McCain for having too much. You don’t spend that much time in the Senate without owing a lot of people favors. Who are those people? Lobbyists, oil companies, use your imagination. He has surrounded himself with lobbyists as advisors and friends. Too close for my comfort. No matter what you say, if someone gives you a lot of money, you’ll return the favor somehow someday. I don’t want that day to be when he’s our president and it’s a big decision. Also, with this much experience, does he really have the capacity to think outside the US political system box?

Thick-headedness
If you think Bush is stubborn, you just wait. I haven’t seen one bit of evidence to convince me that McCain is willing to listen to other people’s thoughts and ideas and actually implement them. I want a president that realizes his weaknesses and fortifies those areas with the best of the best. Uses all of the resources available to him to make the very best decision possible. McCain has become an old, narrow-minded coot. The man scares me with his rage. Yes, he should have some passion, but when that passion clouds your judgment and closes your mind to others, it becomes dangerous. That’s what I see in John McCain.

Our Reputation
I know we shouldn’t vote for president based on a popularity contest, but based on the current state of our national security and the value of our dollar, it certainly wouldn’t hurt for us to improve our worldly impression a bit. I recently travelled to Istanbul and had intimate discussions with families from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, The Netherlands, and more. There was one common theme…every single one of them couldn’t stop ranting about how truly IMPRESSED they were with the United States that Obama had made it this far and that this had changed their negative impression of us. There is hope! Not to mention that McCain has the creepiest smile I’ve ever seen and looks like he’s going to keel over at any given moment. He doesn’t portray a country of vitality and hope, but rather a country of deteriorating health and judgment.

Inspiration
For better or worse, our president has never and will never follow through with everything s/he promises at the time of election. The one thing that very few can do is to truly inspire and motivate the masses. The affect of hope and inspiration can change things immensely, arguably more so than a tax increase or decrease. Our country needs hope now more than ever. We need someone that not only says different, but feels different. McCain is not that guy. McCain does not invoke a feeling of hope or inspiration. He’s the easy way out. He’s America settling for the average. If he is elected president, it will prove once again to the country and the world that the US has no capacity for abstract thought and we’ll never take a chance on something new to dig ourselves out of this hole.

That is why I ask you to consider Barack Obama on November 4th.

-Jim Jubilee

November Surprises?

2008-11-03T00:57:00.004-06:00

I don't know what to believe when I look at the polls. Here is the last batch of Mason-Dixon polls, with the last calls done on the 29th (or so I've read):

Colorado: Obama 49, McCain 44, Undecided 4
Florida: Obama 47, McCain 45, Undecided 7
Nevada: Obama 47, McCain 43, Undecided 8
Pennsylvania: 47, McCain 43, Undecided 9
Virginia: Obama 47, McCain 44, Undecided 9
Ohio: McCain 47, Obama 45, Undecided 6
Missouri: McCain 47, Obama 46, Undecided 5
North Carolina: McCain 49, Obama 46, Undecided 5

What does that mean?

I see strong Obama support, but not majority support. McCain is polling better than he has a right to, and undecideds, the punditry agrees, will probably break in his favor more than 60%. Not that that would give him winning percentages, but did anyone expect such close numbers?

Obama is running a brilliant campaign, with money out the wazoo (what happens to it once the race ends?) and an opposition party reviled by half the country, led by a President with the lowest approval ratings since Watergate. How can he lose? Some call it the impossible, yet he hasn't sealed the deal.

I'll say it again: he has not sealed the deal.

Honestly? Between you and me, lone reader, Obama has it by 3.5%+ nationally come final numbers Wednesday morning, and 100+ electoral votes. It's this last dash for the finish, though, that threatens everything. McCain is gaining McMentum, the Mac is back and all that, and Obama has to contend with Reverend Wright ads popping up and two new bits of audio that damage him with blue collar America: one talks about "bankrupting" new coal plants with environmental red tape, while in the other he says Rev. Wright is the best the "Black Church" has to offer.

Synche up the last with the "God Damn America!" tirade of Wright's and the latter with soundbites about clean coal ("He's a hypocrite, who says different things to different people. That's not straight talk....").

I need sleep.

-Hooper

Fight Against the Middle

2008-11-01T12:15:00.000-05:00

Does anyone else think that this year's election cycle is a refutation of moderate politics? McCain is running a center/right campaign, with a right/right VP choice and many diehard economic and foreign policy strategies borrowed from the Republican playbook. And Barack Obama...there is little down-the-middle in his proposal for change; it's an intellectual liberal's dream.

So what becomes of the argument, discussed in numerous articles for months, that the country is center-right and to win, most candidates have to come off middle-of-the-road?

It's an election full of new political maps and boundaries, where traditional "red" states are fair play (though, anyone with access to historical polling data will see that few of the solid red states were really Republican states going back to the very beginning) and the Democrats are surging to heights unseen in nearly eighty years.

Because of the dissatisfaction with George Bush, the Iraq War and the current economic quagmire, voters are looking at the Republicans with skepticism, to say the least. When people want change, they can look for a little different (Kerry in 04) or radically different (Obama vs. McCain). What is the middle of the road this year? There is "the same," i.e. McCain-as-proxy-for-Bush: that is seen as far right politics that lead us to "this mess." On the other hand is Change you can believe in, intellectual liberalism duded up in populist clothing. And there's still a strong contingent looking to push back against that.

No one's crying out for bi-partisan cooperation and a coming together of ideas, but a stark path either way - and by no one, I mean the voters.

McCain would have Democrats in his cabinet and has a good working relationship with (D)s in Congress. Obama came up through a (D)-controlled county and state, but for part of his state political career, the Republicans held the governor's mansion, if not always the state house. Neither is close-minded to the other side, even if they side with their own most of the time. It's a fair assumption that Obama doesn't want to alienate Republicans (he does want to win this year and four years hence). Likewise, McCain would listen intently to his Democratic friends, but ultimately rule from center-right.

And that's not going to fly. It's why his campaign moved right in the primaries and stayed there. It is exemplified in the choice of Sarah Palin. While both are progressive, her to a lesser extent, the campaign would convince you otherwise, if their ad campaigns in red-districts are to be believed.

Coming from a liberal bastion, Obama has had to soften his rhetoric, but there is a lot of gloss over some decidedly un-centric ideas. Not that what he proposes is bad or evil or close to it, but it's radical to the right and even the punditry consider it "left-leaning." Compare him to Kerry, who really differed in small ways from Bush and was actually agreed with him on certain issues, and you see he represents the left wing of the Dems.

And this is what voters want, a clear path. The middle always seems weak and compromised, but people love to stand on either side and shout their ideas. Eighty percent of the country, by the classic model (40 Dem, 40 Rep, 20 Indy), are ideologues, choosing a definite set of ideas. This election is as much an analysis of the strength of the Republican brand as it is an embracing of its opposite.

That's why Obama will win. McCain campaigns from the right, but refuses to be that guy, the right-winger, pro-lifer, anti-science, creationist, gay-marriage-leads-to-animal-spouses Republican the media portray the party faithful as. He votes with the (R)s a lot, but breaks enough on key issues that they question his dedication to the Cause.

Obama has never wavered from the left, rarely opens himself to moderation and enjoys historic support because of it. The only question is, will he call his plan "The New Society" or "The Great Deal?" I'll always call it Obamarama.

-Hooper

An Open Letter to Sen. Obama

2008-10-30T22:51:00.004-05:00

Click on through for an open letter to Senator Obama by a small businessman from Texas. No, this isn't a trick post, but an honest-to-God missive discovered in an investment newsletter just the other day. You might disagree with his points, think he misunderstands Obama's tax policies or just plain dislike him because he's from the Lone Star State. It's essential reading, regardless.

I haven't edited it or formatted it any differently than I found it. It could be in crayon, on the backs of kids' menus, and that wouldn't diminish the power of Mr. Miller's conviction and outrage.

-Hooper

Mr. Obama,

Given the uproar about the simple question asked you by Joe the plumber, and the persecution that has been heaped on him because he dared to question you, I find myself motivated to say a few things to you myself. While Joe aspires to start a business someday, I already have started not one, but 4 businesses. But first, let me introduce myself. You can call me "Cory the well driller". I am a 54 year old high school graduate. I didn't go to college like you, I was too ready to go "conquer the world" when I finished high school.

25 years ago at age 29, I started my own water well drilling business at a time when the economy here in East Texas was in a tailspin from the crash of the early 80's oil boom. I didn't get any help from the government, nor did I look for any. I borrowed what I could from my sister, my uncle, and even the pawn shop and managed to scrape together a homemade drill rig and a few tools to do my first job. My businesses did not start as a result of privilege. They are the result of my personal drive, personal ambition, self discipline, self reliance, and a determination to treat my customers fairly. From the very start my business provided one other (than myself) East Texan a full time job. I couldn't afford a backhoe the first few years (something every well drilling business had), so I and my helper had to dig the mud pits that are necessary for each and every job with hand shovels. I had to use my 10 year old, 1/2 ton pickup truck for my water tank truck (normally a job for at least a 2 ton truck). A year and a half after I started the business, I scraped together a 20% down payment to get a modest bank loan and bought a (28 year) old, worn out, slightly bigger drilling rig to allow me to drill the deeper water wells in my area. I spent the next few years drilling wells with the rig while simultaneously rebuilding it between jobs. Through these years I never knew from one month to the next if I would have any work or be able to pay the bills. I got behind on my income taxes one year, and spent the next two years paying that back (with penalty and interest) while keeping up with ongoing taxes. I got behind on my water well supply bill 2 different years (way behind the second time... $80,000.00), and spent over a year paying it back (each time) while continuing to pay for ongoing supplies C.O.D.. Of course, the personal stress endured through these experiences and years is hard to measure. I do have a stent in my heart now to memorialize it all. I spent the next 10 years developing the reputation for being the most competent and most honest water well driller in East Texas. 2 years along the way, I hired another full time employee for the drilling business so that we could provide full time water well pump service as well as the well drilling. Also, 3 years along the path, I bought a water well screen service machine from a friend, starting business # 2. 5 years later I made a business loan for $100,000.00 to build a new, higher production, computer controlled screen service machine. I had designed the machine myself, and it didn't work out for 3 years so I had to make the loan payments without the benefit of any added income from the new machine. No government program was there to help me with the payments, or to help me sleep at night as I lay awake wondering how I would solve my machine problems or pay my bills. Finally, after 3 years, I got the screen machine working properly, and that provided another full time job for an East Texan in the screen service business.

2 years after that, I made another business loan, this time for $250,000.00, to buy another used drilling rig and all the support equipment needed to run another, larger, drill rig. This provided another 2 full time jobs for East Texans. Again, I spent a couple of years not knowing if I had made a smart move, or a move that would bankrupt me. For the third time in 13 years, I had placed everything I owned on the line, risking everything, in order to build a business.

A couple of years into this, I came up with a bright idea for a new kind of mud pump, a fundamentally necessary pump used on water well drill rigs. I spent my entire life savings to date (just $30,000.00), building a prototype of the pump and took it to the national water well convention to show it off. Customers immediately started coming out of the woodworks to buy the pumps, but there was a problem. I had depleted my assets making the prototype, and nobody would make me a business loan to start production of the new pumps. With several deposits for pump orders in hand, and nowhere to go, I finally started applying for as many credit card as I could find and took cash withdrawals on these cards to the tune of over $150,000.00 (including modest loans from my dear sister and brother), to get this 3rd business going.

Yes, once again, I had everything hanging over the line in an effort to start another business. I had never manufactured anything, and I had to design and bring into production a complex hydraulic machine from an untested prototype to a reliable production model (in six months). How many nights I lay awake wondering if I had just made the paramount mistake of my life I cannot tell you, but there were plenty. I managed to get the pumps into production, which immediately created another 2 full time jobs in East Texas. Some of the models in the first year suffered from quality issues due to the poor workmanship of one of my key suppliers, so I and an employee (another East Texan employed) had to drive across the country to repair customers' pumps, practically from coast to coast. I stood behind the product, and made payments to all the credit cards that had financed me (and my brother and sister). I spent the next 5 years improving and refining the product, building a reputation for the pump and the company, working to get the pump into drill rig manufacturers' product lines, and paying back credit cards. During all this time I continued to manage a growing water well business that was now operating 3 drill rig crews, and 2 well service crews. Also, the screen service business continued to grow. No government programs were there to help me, Mr. Obama, but that's ok, I didn't expect any, nor did I want any. I was too busy fighting to make success happen to sit around waiting for the government to help me.

Now, after manufacturing the mud pumps for 7 years, my combined businesses employ 32 full time employees, and distribute $5,000,000.00 annually through the local economy. Now, just 4 months ago I borrowed $1,254,000.00, purchasing computer controlled machining equipment to start my 4th business, a production machine shop. The machine shop will serve the mud pump company so that we can better manufacture our pumps that are being shipped worldwide. Of course, the machine shop will also do work for outside companies as well. This has already produced 2 more full time jobs, and 2 more should develop out of it in the next few months. This should work out, but if it doesn't it will be because you, and the other professional politicians like yourself, will have destroyed our country's' (and the world) economy with your meddling with mortgage loan programs through your liberal manipulation and intimidation of loaning institutions to make sure that unqualified borrowers could get mortgages. You see, at the very time when I couldn't get a business loan to get my mud pumps into production, you were working with Acorn and the Community Reinvestment Act programs to make sure that unqualified borrowers could buy homes with no down payment, and even no credit or worse yet, bad credit. Even the infamous, liberal, Ninja loans (No Income, No Job or Assets). While these unqualified borrowers were enjoying unrealistically low interest rates, I was paying 22% to 24% interest on the credit cards that I had used to provide me the funds for the mud pump business that has created jobs for more East Texans. It's funny, because after 25 years of turning almost every dime of extra money back into my businesses to grow them, it has been only in the last two years that I have finally made enough money to be able to put a little away for retirement, and now the value of that has dropped 40% because of the policies you and your ilk have perpetrated on our country.

You see, Mr. Obama, I'm the guy you intend to raise taxes on. I'm the guy who has spent 25 years toiling and sweating, fretting and fighting, stressing and risking, to build a business and get ahead. I'm the guy who has been on the very edge of bankruptcy more than a dozen times over the last 25 years, and all the while creating more and more jobs for East Texans who didn't want to take a risk, and would not demand from themselves what I have demanded from myself. I'm the guy you characterize as "the Americans who can afford it the most" that you believe should be taxed more to provide income redistribution "to spread the wealth" to those who have never toiled, sweated, fretted, fought, stressed, or risked anything. You want to characterize me as someone who has enjoyed a life of privilege and who needs to pay a higher percentage of my income than those who have bought into your entitlement culture. I resent you, Mr. Obama, as I resent all who want to use class warfare as a tool to advance their political career. What's worse, each year more Americans buy into your liberal entitlement culture, and turn to the government for their hope of a better life instead of themselves. Liberals are succeeding through more than 40 years of collaborative effort between the predominant liberal media, and liberal indoctrination programs in the public school systems across our land.

What is so terribly sad about this is this. America was made great by people who embraced the one-time American culture of self reliance, self motivation, self determination, self discipline, personal betterment, hard work, risk taking. A culture built around the concept that success was in reach of every able bodied American who would strive for it. Each year that less Americans embrace that culture, we all descend together. We descend down the socialist path that has brought country after country ultimately to bitter and unremarkable states. If you and your liberal comrades in the media and school systems would spend half as much effort cultivating a culture of can-do across America as you do cultivating your entitlement culture, we could see Americans at large embracing the conviction that they can elevate themselves through personal betterment, personal achievement, and self reliance. You see, when people embrace such ideals, they act on them. When people act on such ideals, they succeed. All of America could find herself elevating instead of deteriorating. But that would eliminate the need for liberal politicians, wouldn't it, Mr. Obama? The country would not need you if the country was convinced that problem solving was best left with individuals instead of the government. You and all your liberal comrades have got a vested interested in creating a dependent class in our country. It is the very business of liberals to create an ever expanding dependence on government. What's remarkable is that you, who have never produced a job in your life, are going to tax me to take more of my money and give it to people who wouldn't need my money if they would get off their entitlement mentality asses and apply themselves at work, demand more from themselves, and quit looking to liberal politicians to raise their station in life.

You see, I know because I've had them work for me before. Hundreds of them over these 25 years. People who simply will not show up to work on time. People who just will not work 5 days in a week, much less, 6 days. People always looking for a way to put less effort out. People who actually tell me that they would do more if I just would first pay them more. People who take off work to sit in government offices to apply to get free government handouts (gee, I wonder how things would have turned out for them if they had spent that time earning money and pleasing their employer?). You see, all of this comes from your entitlement mentality culture.

Oh, I know you will say I am uncompassionate. Sorry, Mr. Obama, wrong again. You see, I've seen what the average percentage of your income has been given to charities over the years of 2000 to 2004 (ignoring the years you started running for office - can you pronounce "politically motivated"), you averaged less than 1% annually. And your running mate, Joe Biden, averaged less than ¼% of his annual income in charitable contributions over the last 10 years. Like so many liberals, the two of you want to give to the needy, just as long as it is someone else's money you are giving to them. I won't say what I have given to charities over the last 25 years, but the percentage is several times more than you and Joe Biden. combined (don't you just hate Google?). Tell me again how you feel my pain.

In short, Mr. Obama, your political philosophies represent everything that is wrong with our country. You represent the culture of government dependence instead of self reliance; Entitlement mentality instead of personal achievement; Penalization of the successful to reward the unmotivated; Political correctness instead of open mindedness and open debate. If you are successful, you may preside over the final transformation of America from being the greatest and most self-reliant culture on earth, to just another country of whiners and wimps, who sit around looking to the government to solve their problems. Like all of western Europe. All countries on the decline. All countries that, because of liberal socialistic mentalities, have a little less to offer mankind every year.

God help us...

Cory Miller

just a ordinary, extraordinary American, the way a lot of Americans used to be.

P.S. Yes, Mr. Obama, I am a real American...

www.cmillerdrilling.com

"The Body" Factor

2008-10-30T14:54:00.003-05:00

Yesterday, we talked about the polls, and how we've no real idea what the demographics of the country will hash out to be until after the last bubble is filled in and chad punched. Briefly, let's look at the Jesse Ventura factor.

Ventura ("The Body") ran for Governor in Minnesota as the Reform Party candidate in 1998, winning by 3% over Norm Coleman (R) and 9% over Hubert Humphrey III. How did he do it? He brought the disenfranchised and un-polled voters out of the woodwork, the people that hung up or were (ignorantly) lumped in with other demographic groups.

How does that equate to this election? Three ways.

1) Racists. They probably aren't polling or counting the racist factor as much as they're talking about it (and the "Bradley Effect"). Some people just don't want to see a black guy in charge and, ignorant as they are, will vote against Obama, though at what level nationwide remains to be seen. It could be a one percentage point boost for McCain or third-party candidates or a five point jump. How many people say "Obama" on the phone by in the heart (and the voting booth) select "McCain"?

2) The Youth. Voter apathy in America knows no better face than the college age population of America, the idiots who can vote and make a difference but choose to sit on their duffs playing Halo 3 and Madden '09 (or boozing it up). Imagine if all the theories of this segment of society rising up for Obama and voting are true. In 2004, the gulf between Kerry and Bush with this demographic was in the double-digits, but not by much. It supported the trend that a majority of college-age students are more liberal than conservative, and will vote Democratic. This year, however, might be entirely different. People are factoring in various numbers for the student population, and I'd wager the assumption among pollsters is no greater than a 60% turnout. With high voter registration this year in more than just Democratic neighborhoods, there is a distinct possibility that kids may come out and vote in force, ruining our supposition that they're all a bunch of lazy couch potatoes.

3) The Un-Polled. What percentage of the voting-age population isn't factored in to major polls? It's not a rhetorical question. I honestly don't know. What demographic combinations are left out, or what people aren't contacted? This is the Ventura factor at its most viable, and impactful: potentially millions of Americans who aren't included due to lack of response. I have heard a few talking heads mention this wild card come Nov. 4. It's Rumsfeld's famous "unknown unknowns." We don't know how many people are hidden out there with every intent to vote, but haven't been tracked at all by the polls. Who are they? How many are there? This election cycle has every indication of shaking America upside down by the ankles and seeing the voters drop out that we never considered viable before. The registration drives by both parties prove the desire to vote exists in communities where disenfranchisement might beat down want to cast a ballot.

Again, I'm not posting very scientific, hard data here. You can see many ways next Tuesday might play out for these unknown unknowns on the voting rolls. Ask yourself who you might know that falls into one of these categories and if this election will see them cast a vote, much less a controversial or unexpected one.

-Hooper

The Video and The Unknown

2008-10-29T14:15:00.002-05:00

The L.A. Times has in its possession a video of some embarrassment to Barack Obama. In it, he has a number of fond words for Palestinian lobbyist Rashid Khalidi, whose strident anti-Israel stance angers many American Jews. Khalidi was also a professor at University of Chicago (with Bill Ayers! Hey, buddy!) and a "neighbor" of the Obamas. The tape isn't inflammatory to the general public but does give a fuller picture of the people Obama considers friends or at least good acquaintances. His words, not really groundbreaking, provide a further expedition into the unknown of his private thoughts.

The story on the 2003 banquet ran a while ago at the L.A. Times, and now McCain (and others) want the tape released. The L.A. Times refuses. Why? What is the point? I'll try to explain.

The Times claims it's because the source that leaked the tape did so with the understanding that it wouldn't be released to the public. It's not like Obama calls for jihad in Israel; he has kind words for a (politically charged) friend.

We have an ideal when it comes to our society: free and open. This extends to the media. I don't watch Fox News, but I accept it as a counterweight to MSNBC. I prefer CNN, which strives for some degree of neutrality. Our media, this election cycle, has drifted perilously close to self-censorship or accepting the unwritten Obama mandate to not report on his potentially explosive (or potentially mundane) past.

Again, why?

Consider this one more voice for the repeal of the censoring of this video tape. We have, if not a right, a pretty darn big privilege to know all we can about those we vote into high office, even if it's boring or controversial.

***

The Washington Post has a story up today about the validity of this year's polls. Give it a read and come back.

Okay. What do we make of this? RealClearPolitics did a histogram piece on the raw data from the polls showing how this year, we're not seeing a smooth pattern in the results. Look at many national polls and while there are trends apparent (a gradual narrowing in the last week), you still get the wild outside results like the Pew poll's 14-point PrObama blowout released the other day, released after another poll had a 1-point spread. The divergence in findings is causing many pundits to scratch their heads and wonder which model - if any - is the right one.

I took a look at RCP's poll lists going back to the beginning of their tracking, over a year ago, and following certain major polls, you can see that each one has a model separate from the other, giving a different outlook. Some are more likely to show a close race, others a blowout (usually for Obama). They all want to be the ones, next Wednesday, to whip out their eighteen month chart and say how right they were, how their version of the population in microcosm used to gather the polling data best reflected not only the intentions but the voting actions of the country. Zogby and Investor's Business Daily make that claim currently, that their 2004 and 2006 presidential polling was the closest to reality when the final election day results came in.

It boils down the a great unknown: demographic make-up. 10% blacks voting this year, or 20% (see Florida early voting records for '08); how many youths; Hispanics...how big will their numbers be in the west and southwest? What about "Clinton" voters or Evangelicals or or or?

The little groups the country is divided into per pollsters are supposed to reflect us, but what if they have no clue what we look like as a country? They end up holding a mirror to a masked face. And we wonder why polls look so schizophrenic.

Regardless of the look of the country, it's clear in most every poll that Obama is at worst tied, at best running away with one of the largest popular vote wins in over forty years. From an electoral college perspective, the only perspective that really matters after the polls close, he has a commanding lead that perhaps only an act of God (or al Qaeda) can diminish.

-Hooper.

A Blatant Misrepresentation (w/ scans)

2008-10-28T14:52:00.005-05:00

**Updated with scans**

A letter to the editor of the Financial Times:

The Oct. 28 issue of the Financial Times had a cover story titled "Veteran Republican convicted of lying about gifts" (written by Andrew Ward, Harvey Morris and Daniel Dombey about the conviction of Alaskan Sen. Ted Stevens. Accompanying the article wasn't a picture of Stevens or the giver of his gifts, nor was there a shot of his house or even a picture of Alaska. No, the 3 3/8"x 8 1/2" picture imbedded with the article was of John McCain smiling and gesturing to a crowd at a rally in Dayton, OH.

Let's look at this a moment. The headlines is "Veteran Republican convicted of lying about gifts," not indicating which Republican Senator is found guilty of wrong-doing, just that a "Veteran Republican" Senator was. We look to the right of the headline and there is a large, prominent color picture of veteran Senator John McCain (R, AZ) smiling and having a high old time. If that's not complete and blatant misrepresentation of both the image and the content of the article, I don't know what is.

How does something like this get past the editor's desk? It makes one think there's an agenda here, a smear campaign to tie John McCain, who along with Gov. Palin (Sen. Stevens own governor) has called for Sen. Stevens to step down as Senator and not run for reelection, to the impropriety and illegality of another Republican. By omission, the headline and picture make a clear argument that the two are connected - that the latter visually represents the former's targeted politician. And the headline and picture are above-the-fold on the front page, the most prominent part of the front page of a newspaper, with a snap-judgment made before any word of the article is even read.

Is it too much to ask for a retraction or an apology, or a sense of journalistic integrity in a paper that has been, throughout this election, far more analytical and to-the-point than most? At this stage in the campaign, with biases making themselves known daily in the way stories are structured, framed (as with this) or ignored, we can only shake our heads at the deterioration of journalists, the one-time neutral observers and distributors of fact.

Editorial commentary can find its way onto the front page without a by-line or an "opinion" tag beneath it or a few hundred words of haranguing. The visual language of a newspaper's layout makes it very easy to pass on an implied message without carrying the risk of appearing slanted. But it comes as a sad day when a paper with such a solid history uses those tabloid tactics to pass commentary as truth.

-Erik M. Held

The Limitless American Dream

2008-10-28T14:50:00.002-05:00

The Case for John McCain by Erik M. Held

As others have stated in their cases for someone, I find no need to derided the opposition to boost my choice. If you want an Obama-bash, read "The Case Against Barack Obama." This is about optimism.

I am voting for John McCain, Republican Senator from Arizona, on Nov. 4. It is my fervent hope that you will consider voting for him, as well. I won't be nearly as longwinded as I've been in the past. Choosing McCain isn't something I do because of his service and imprisonment in Vietnam, though that helped shape him. I do not vote for him because I just follow the party line as a registered Republican; straight-ticket voting is as ignorant as pulling the lever because you like someone's hair style or clothing. There's no thought involved.

I'm casting my ballot for John McCain because I believe in a lean, limited American government and the limitless American dream. We dream big for ourselves, not for Congress. To remove the flowery talk, it's all about spending. McCain has a history of finding and cutting out waste, of opposing it where possible and not seeking to squander taxpayers' dollars.

His idea of a spending freeze has met with some criticism, but it's a necessary step, especially given the massive budget overruns of the last few decades, not just the last few years. We incurred deficit spending during the last gasps of the Cold War, an economic battle that to be succinct won us the war. But that sort of military spending isn't needed now, not in the same way. Who has pledged direct military spending cuts numerous times?

And our social programs - our welfare-related programs were created for a different time and need to be revised. Reform, in this case, does not mean spending more. It is a fallacy to think that throwing money at a problem is the best solution. There are enough money pits in the federal budget without creating more. We need a progressive hand guiding spending on social and entitlement programs. A lean budget doesn't mean skimpy services; it can mean we spent wisely and saved.

But the big two issues regarding spending (and where the money comes from) are clear: health care and tax reform.

On the former, the consumer comes out ahead no matter how you try to frame the corporate benefit tax, the removal of the interstate compete blocks, or the $5,000 tax credit. Independent groups have run the numbers, and of the 40 million uninsured, 27M would potentially gain coverage, vs. 20M under Sen. Obama's plan.

Looking at taxes, what most don't realize is the cuts McCain is making are on top of Bush's cuts - he's leaving them in place - and further slashing capital gains, estate and corporate tax levels to foster capital formation and job creation. It's true that oil companies will not send as much to the government every year; neither will companies that make baby food or toys or clothing or paper clips or cell phones etc etc etc. It's an across-the-board corporate tax cut. While Obama can talk about cutting 95% of Americans' taxes, over 35% don't pay taxes now. How do you cut zero? You don't; you write a check, calling it a tax credit, pay for it with corporate and "top 5%" tax hikes and hope people don't remember the tenants of socialism.

We're a capitalist country, and we need to bolster that idea in every citizen's mind and heart. You don't dig your way out of a deep recession or depression by the sort of TVA/WPA/CCC New Deal methods; it didn't work then (unemployment still stood at over 15% and we entered a severe recession in mid 1937 that lasted until the war began a boom) and it won't work now.

John McCain understands that complicated economic situations require tiered approaches that seek to free up capital on all levels. He understands that to get a budget in line you don't raise taxes to reach the black, but cut ridiculous spending on programs that failed years ago.

From a foreign policy perspective, McCain wants to win wars, not negotiate withdrawals. He's not secretive about how he'd commit troops, saying he'd draw down deployment in one country only to shuffle those same soldiers to another front. The battles in Iraq and Afghanistan are complicated, tied as much to lofty ideology as to ground-level societal bonds, tribal links and conflicts we have to work with not blast through. Bringing our troops out victoriously, leaving a peace behind we know will last more than a few months, is essential, and I believe John McCain has a better chance of doing that - regardless of thoughts about the legitimacy of the war. What's the difference between a pregnant lady and a light bulb? You can unscrew a light bulb. We're in Iraq, so we'd better do our damnedest to win and preserve the sacrifice of our dead.

There are many more issue to delve into, and I could go negative, but this isn't the place. John McCain has the decades of experience that we need right now. It's probable he'd only serve one term, so unencumbered by reelection campaigning in 2011/12, he can focus on fixing the country.

And that's what we need. The times require a President who can whip the fat government into shape and fashion a lean federal body that has the best ideological, fiscal and security interests of the country at heart.

John McCain is that man.

-Erik M. Held

Serving Democracy

2008-10-28T14:44:00.003-05:00

The Case For Barack Obama by The Carolinian

Do you like ice cream? I do. Sweet and creamy, it satisfies some primitive urge to gather in as many calories as possible. Nutrition aside, kids and adults seem to agree it is the perfect dessert. Or meal! Still, if someone tied me up and force-fed me a gallon of my favorite flavor, I wouldn’t appreciate it. That’s why Baskin Robbins doesn't do that - poor customer relations.

I think we've been force-feeding some folks in other countries our sweet democracy. We know its delicious, everyone should try it!

On October 2, 2002, then-Illinois State Senator Barack Obama stated quite clearly he didn't think going to war in Iraq was a good idea. A good judgment, and not popular at the time.

A good judgment, despite even less experience then than he has now. And a judgment call which many with much more experience failed to make.

The President's judgment is called upon every day. At a, nay THE crucial judgment call of recent times, Barack Obama made the correct decision. Subsequently he has appointed a staff that has run a disciplined, well organized campaign, and he has demonstrated presidential comportment, grace under fire, call it what you will. I think this further speaks well to his decision making and leadership qualities.

He seems to be inclined to scoop the ice cream into bowls or cones and let the rest of the world try our democratic ice cream as they see fit. I think that will be better for all concerned. I happen to think he'll make somewhat better ice cream too. Hence my vote for Barack Obama.

Although most of you may have read it, I post a link to the Oct 2, 2002 speech. Pretty straightforward, pretty prescient.

-The Carolinian

Spelling Disaster

2008-10-28T14:31:00.005-05:00

The Case Against Barack Obama by L.O.G.

B - Buying votes and buying the election: the American people are smart enough to see through this.

A - an Abortion stance leaves an unanswered question regarding partial birth abortions. At what point can medical staff intervene? When do the rights of a baby, a human being, begin? He has only deflected questions and refused to provide his personal opinion. He remains a cipher on this issue.

R - Record of voting is considered the most liberal in the Senate; this is scary.

A - Afghanistan: he does not have a plan which will keep our troops out of harms way, nor commands the respect of our military. He has no military experience in any capacity.

C - Campaign Funds are questionable. Why is he not disclosing the donors? How many are foreign donors?

K - Key to Obama's campaign to give 95% of Americans a tax cut ends up being a hand out and income distribution. The promises he makes are enticing but he cannot feasibly keep them. It is financially impossible and will deepen and prolong our economic downturn.

O - One million dollars per day (based on his working days a as Senator) was the average amount of pork barrel spending which he requested and voted for.

B - Backtracks on words he said, 'clinging to their guns', 'he was a guy in my neighborhood', 'spread the wealth around', then attacking the messenger and claiming the statements are not true.

A - American values: he questions them and doesn't seem to believe in the same values as McCain. While he speaks well, his actions are inconsistent with his words.

M - Major media is blatantly bias and liberal, unfairly reporting only the Democratic viewpoint, distorting facts and covering up issues, including any exploration of Obama's personal views and controversial past.

A - ACORN & Ayers. He represented ACORN in court, worked for an affiliated organization (Project Vote), gave over $800k through his campaign for set design and funded them through his position at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge; William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist, was a close associate of Obama's, launched Obama's political career in his living room and ran a foundation which focused on 'radicalizing political views' of students, and not a penny of foundation funds went to math or science programs, instead going to...ACORN!. Obama denied this association in the third debate with the simple statement of "it's not true".

Look at the facts and make the right choice: vote for John McCain.

-"Little Oriental Girl"

Unscientific Battleground Analysis

2008-10-27T23:37:00.005-05:00

Talking over the race today with my favorite Obama staffer, I batted back and forth my opinion on McCain's chances in several of the battleground states. There is no hard data to back it up, but we can look at historical trends and the general culture of the states to get some idea of what's what.

I want to also just say that, despite my idea that McCain can win in some of these states, I'd not put much cash on any on of them. It's so late in the game and he's stagnant in most state polls, indicating a static position for the next week until Election Day.

***

Colorado & New Mexico: some say the (mountain) West is Republican country. Rugged, rural, full of the frontiersman ideal on the outside, culturally, it's a shifting environment. Many of the universities in these states (and some others, like in Montana) have a libertarian bent at least, and a more traditional student liberalism in general. With students choosing to stay in the states post-graduation or registering their for the duration of their education, this provides a net bonus to the Democrats.

Both have strong Senatorial races, featuring members of the Udall clan (Mark in Colorado and cousin Tom in New Mexico) acting as proxies for Obama's energy and Iraq initiatives. Both have strong chances of winning and can only help the overall Democratic position. I can't see McCain, the Arizonan and neighbor of these two states, winning New Mexico in at all, but Colorado is a 2-3 point game come election night. Odds on Obama.

Pennsylvania: This one's really unscientific. Numbers all around say Obama has it by five or more. I don't buy it. With the non-urban population slapping Barack firmly in the mouth for his bitter comment by submitting him to a 10-point loss to Hillary in the primaries, I can see a number of them switching to the old Reagan Democratic tradition. It's an election where people are looking for a reason to vote one way or the other. If McCain can convince people his economic proposals are the best long-term and short-term for these hurt Rust Belt denizens, expect an upset. Pennsylvania hasn't voted for a Republican in twenty years and before then it was a toss-up.

Florida: data or no, I just don't see McCain losing. Obama will come close due to an excellent registration drive, but my money is on McCain.

Virginia: Obama to the max. He has pushed this state as far as anyone can to the left, to the blue - so many new voters, a smashing victory in the primaries, lots of visits and he doesn't claim part of the state isn't "real." McCain might have history on this side, but that's exactly what Obama is hoping to break - and make - next week.

Ohio: I visit here all the time with my wife (and basset hound). I know the economically depressed areas, and I've seen the cities. In recent tourings, I've paid attention to the political signs in yards, on corners and on cars. Country/rural/small town Ohio is red without fail. The question for McCain is did Obama register enough new voters in the Democratic strongholds to narrow Kerry's loss in '04? And did he expand to swing counties, as we've heard a bit about?

In 2006, Ohio booted Republicans from the statehouse after a number of years, but they did so by voting against a black Republican. Will the matter, either way you slant it? I call Ohio for McCain, tentatively, by a point or so. It'll be a Pyrrhic victory unless you see Pennsylvania trending red early on. Then it could be yet another domino.

***

The polls we see show Obama maintaining a lead of about six percent nationally, with four to ten percent leads, though not always over 50%, in the above battleground states. It's almost a foregone conclusion that McCain faces a near-impossible victory and therefore, odds favor Obama. But fortune favors the bold, and if he's been nothing else in his life, that certainly defines John McCain.

-Hooper

Lagging Behind? Open the Cabinet.

2008-10-22T14:32:00.007-05:00

What is McCain to do? He's behind in funds, his rallies are losing size and his temporary uptick in the polls appears to be just that. It's too late for any major campaign change, even too late to make a one-term pledge. What will it matter that he won't campaign during the last eighteen months of his presidency? It might win him a few headlines, another point or two in the national polls (though it's state polls that hold his fate right now). So what is his strategy?

Open the Cabinet. A Rasmussen poll released this morning said 53% want to know who's going to be in the incoming President's Cabinet, or at least who they want to select. Both have given coy responses about their choices, with Obama looking at Paul Volcker and Warren Buffett as potential Treasury Secretaries, even if they only held the post for a short time. McCain has always been keen on Lieberman as either Secretary of State or Defense.

What if next week, giving the media enough time to run with the story but not providing ample room for Obama to respond and be picked up by the media, McCain said "I want these ten people in my government..." and he rattled off a near-even split of Republicans and Democrats, confirming a coalition cabinet or sorts. What if Obama were among those named? Or Hillary or Gore? It's not a game changer; that sort of event is purely external right now, and will come from either an economic or terrorist front (major crash, bankruptcy, refrozen credit; bombing, video tape, etc). Naming his Cabinet provides McCain with a story that proves his credentials (bucking the party line) and energizes the one category of the electorate that he's forgetting: Independents.

Those pesky (I)s are breaking hard for Obama at the moment, though many are still undecided (at least 7% nationwide are undecided of all voters). McCain has always won big with the non-affiliated voters of America, and he cannot win without them. He needs to pull a national New Hampshire, getting the 11th hour support of those in the middle by proving he'll legislate far from the extreme right.

Of course, what better way to neuter this bold move than if Obama named his Cabinet and had, say, Colin Powell as Sec of Defense or State, or included current Defense and Treasury Secretaries, Gates and Paulson, for a transition period. Obama faces a unified, single-party government for two years, barring a massive defection of "Blue Dog" Democrats to the (R) side of the aisle when faced with a second New Deal or Great Society (i.e., the Lurch to the Left). He needs to show a moderate temperament leading to November 4th, that he'll be as inclusive as we know McCain will be.

Picking a Cabinet is the most visible, initial move a new President can take to show how his term will proceed. Purely partisan? Token opposition presence? Even split? It's unlikely either candidate will choose the last, but that's the hope - the best people for the job, regardless of the bracketed letter after their name.

-Hooper

The Final Debate (Dun Dun Duuuuuun!!!)

2008-10-16T19:05:00.001-05:00

The Sit-Down Debate (#3)

Forced to share the a table, John McCain and Barack Obama faced off in an uncaged verbal death match last night at Hofstra University. Moderating was the elderly, but deft Bob Schieffer of CBS, probably the best moderator we've seen this political season. The questions cut to the quick on many issues, were not softballs and prompted intense back-and-forths unlike anything we've seen in the previous 2008 Presidential debates.

Not that it was really that exciting.

***

Obama still monotoned his way through most answers, sticking to the stump speech talking points, using the phrase "middle class" about as often as he could and, if the opportunity arose, getting in some quick jabs or "nuh uhs!" to block McCain's attacks. On the issues, he was able to give a broad, appealing answer for any Health Care questions without really getting into the nuts and bolts of the matter. It was probably his best response, but certainly he did not show a complete mastery of all domestic matters.

On education, a key issue for any parent or potential parent, he said nothing. Oh, he said a lot of words, but they boiled down to an ignorance of the underlying problems and a desire to increase funding at a federal level without holding states at all accountable for the money they currently spend from their own coffers, much less the federal dollars. When the talk turned to vouchers in District of Columbia public schools, he agreed with McCain that they worked, then said he wanted to move away from them because there weren't enough available.

If something works in a pilot program, you usually expand, rather than eliminate, the specifics of the program. That leap in logic, pretty small, eluded Obama and I'm sure McCain is hoping this resonates particularly with urban parents who see their schools deteriorating and want another option.

Taken overall, it was another bland performance, or as the punditry says, "reassuring." He might be black, in other words, but he's not gonna steal your Jeep's spare tire. Smooth move, media.

But this wasn't about Obama. The last two debates haven't been. He has proven that he can give reasoned answers to questions, regardless of their origin (read: stump speeches), and that he can "look" presidential. It is known he is a good speaker, able to portray his ideas in a way that most can understand, even if nuts-and-bolts workings aren't overtly discussed. He has done very well in these debates, because there wasn't a very high standard he had to reach. Provided he didn't ramble like Kerry or act peevish like Gore or wild-eyed and hostile like Hillary, he had it in the bag.

Could you sit for 90 minutes and act respectable? Exactly. Not a lot of pressure was placed on him to present specifics on all of his plans, how they differ from McCain's (they are both very close on education and energy with only a few, though key, differences), how bipartisan they are or can be. Nor was he really pressed about his past legislative experience. He had to show up, not look like a clown and, three even-if-unexciting debates later, no big shoes or red, honking nose.

***

For all he was expected to do, McCain both hit the mark and wildly missed it. His two biggest missteps were Health Care and Obama's associations. There are enough circumstantial links between ACORN, Ayers and Obama to keep the latter flummoxed and without enough time to answer everything, but McCain only scratched the surface, trying to keep things above board (as his was considered the more negative campaign going into the debate).

On Health Care, his plan looks more complicated, but below the surface turns out to be a savings for the regular consumer and a "hand up" type proposal; he did not let people know Obama's was more hand out than not, and that simple in appearance, it was a mess when you get into it (a little partisan, I apologize, but I'm very concerned about health care costs long-term). Another prime opportunity to back Obama against the wall and he didn't take it.

True, the format - only 90 minutes with supposedly only 10 minutes per topic - limits the sort of true back-and-forth we need on these issues. For a candidate coming from behind, they either need a stellar quip that rocks their opponent back on their heels, or a mini-speech that effectively outlines a proposal while showing its merits versus the other guy's. McCain constantly needed more time to make his case now that he's realized there are three weeks left, his campaign staff led him astray for months and if he wants to even lose with dignity, he needs to make up at least four points in the polls and about fifty electoral college votes.

Sounds pessimistic, but as I mentioned when talking about Obama, McCain scored big on education. In the past, he's talked about the Department of Education in less-than-fond terms, even supporting its elimination. Right now, states provide the bulk of education funding for their states, though the Federal Government also chips in. A lot of money is thrown at education, but it's inexpertly applied. We're lagging in worldwide education standing because we can't add up the numbers we're spending on it, to paraphrase a joke my wife told me. McCain made it clear that he would aggressively attack education funding to cut the wheat from the chaff, make schools accountable, increase charter schools (which work) and vouchers (which also work, but aren't out of test districts yet). It's classic conservative policy - lean, efficient funding that gets the job done right, instead of a bloated budget (to be increased more under Obama) so big it's bound to hit the right beat every now and again.

And that leads in to McCain's key - and potentially game-changing - victory for the night. Spending & the Government. He emphasized time and again that he was for reduced government spending, spending freezes coupled with a "scrubbing" of every department of government to rid them of waste and lower taxes for everyone. Saying the corporate tax should be lowered was a gamble, and an open invitation to Obama to bring up Exxon and other oil companies that would benefit (McCain never in the debates reminded Americans that more than oil companies are corporations and will benefit from such a cut, as will your pocketbook), but it got the idea out there and gave him another stump speech talking point. Obama repeatedly mentioned that we needed to invest in this or that program, code for increased government spending.

By reigniting, even at this stage, the idea of a tax-and-spend Democrat running deficits up and mortgaging our children's future, McCain can avoid character assassination as the driving strategy. Here, domestically, is where they differ. Can McCain drive that stake into the Obama's campaign and make it stick? That's the big question.

***

The line that sticks in everyone's mind? John McCain said, "I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago." It effectively stopped the "Bush III" or Bush/McCain bit Obama's been throwing around, and opened the door for McCain to attack Obama on never opposing his party (to which Barack failed utterly to present a time he did think for himself. The tort reform bill? 40% of Senate Democrats supported it. Hardly breaking with your party).

Does the winning sound bite mean he won? For that accurate hit that line landed, it did not make up for Obama's measured, cool, almost detached approach to answering questions. McCain was hopped up on crack for most of last night, full of energy, overflowing with talking points, righteous indignation and hope for victory. It, unfortunately, did not come through that way in the split screen, the big judge of debater's success, i.e. reaction shots.

So I can't say that McCain won based on his performance. Reading the transcript, I can't honestly say Obama won, since he repeated himself for the third time in a row. No change, no deviation, no off-the-cuff explanations of programs. Even McCain's answers seem run through with too much excitement, throwing him off track at times. He dominated for a third, went off the rails and missed opportunities, but then came back to finish strong. I think it was his best showing. Obama's best was last week, and here he appeared peevish, annoyed that he had to sit next to this old coot, and uninterested in really diving into the discussion. But he also appeared more focused for the balance of the night, and that might have won him the election right there.

***

Obama and McCain have been campaigning since early 2007 at this point. We know where they stand and the depth of their stances. By now, if you don't know a particular policy - unrelated to the bailout or economic correction/crisis/collapse - that's not the candidate's fault. Through writing, speeches, debates and surrogate interviews they have articulated exactly what they think about taxes, health care, Iraq, Iran, education, abortion, etc.

Last night's debate reminded us that for the first half of 2007 and 2008, John McCain led in national head-to-head polls. He's passionate, driven, focused on reform in government and changing course from what was promised in the Bush Administration to what we ended up with. Yesterday we also understood, yet again, why Barack Obama is a Democratic golden child, a leader and mouthpiece for his party, the true victor of the primaries and the driving force behind every political discussion in the latter half of the year.

Who is John McCain? Who is Barack Obama? What do they stand for and do I know more last night than I did yesterday morning?

I hope the debate came close to answering those questions. It was important, somewhat boring at times yet crackling with electricity at others.

***

We vote two weeks from next Tuesday. Not much time to make up your minds. We will be presenting cases for and against each candidates to help you if you're on the fence or give you talking points if you're not.

If you want to participate, send me an e-mail at denofmystery@gmail.com or, if you're on the distribution list, reply and let me know what you think.

A bit of humor: when interacting with the crowd at the end, McCain sort of waved his hands at one guy and did a little Gene Simmons' impression, over and done in a second. Well, someone had their camera ready:

God bless him, but that is not a flattering picture.

But Obama has looked...goofy, to say the least, including in this shot, at the first really featuring Joe Biden:

I don't know what to say that wouldn't be offensive. I...guess that means I'm going to hell.

-Hooper

Voter Fraud & Registration

2008-10-15T14:29:00.008-05:00

I'm going to let you know right now, the following isn't flashy, but still chock full of reassuring information regarding voter fraud.

***

A lot has been made in the last few months bout the massive voter registration effort the Democrats have been making, successfully, in many key battleground states. While Republicans are similarly registering new voters, their numbers are half or a quarter of what the Dems have.

Does this matter? Will it guarantee both an Obama victory and new Democratic popular majority unseen in decades?

Compounding the issue is ACORN and the illegal manner in which it registers many of these "new" voters. Obama has avoided being tarred and feathered for his long association with the group (as community organizer, as lawyer, as fundraiser), but the fact remains that they've gotten out the vote in unethical and illegal fashion.

So, voter fraud, right?

Not exactly. There is a big difference between voter fraud and voter registration fraud. The DNC might be seeing a host of new names on their rolls, and not nearly all have been gotten through illegal means. Many are real voters, not Mickey Mouse or 73-times registered Cleveland, OH teens. There will be a noticeable impact at the polls when these new voters show up, but for the ACORN-type fraudulent votes to be cast, it would require far more effort than I'd argue we're likely to see

It works like this. John Doe is cornered by ACORN to register to vote, and then again and again etc. He is now John Doe and Juan Doe and Ivan Doevski and Jay Dough et al, all registered to vote at different precincts. This is voter registration fraud. Were John Doe to vote under each of those (false) names at the various polling stations, it would be voter/voting fraud. But for that to happen, John Doe needs to be motivated.

So far, ACORN (I'm sure there are other groups out there flouting the rules, but none so visible) has not been compensating people all that much for their names on a clipboard - some cash here, some cigarettes or maybe a meal. They can be, and have been, charged with voter registration fraud. What they haven't done yet, except possibly in states voting early, is organize turnout of these multiple-registered voters on a broad scale.

Think about the difficulties in voting in different places across your geographic region. If you live in, say, Middletown, OH, a hilly, spread out city between Dayton and Cincinnati, and have registered numerous times, you'd have a day's worth of driving ahead of you to reach a half-dozen polling places in nearby towns. While it may be easier in a suburban area, simply because of the lack of distance between points A, B, C...M, N, etc, to actually make the effort to do so is more than can be asked the people who took a little cash or some smokes to sign a form.

The correlation, therefore, between voter registration fraud and voter fraud won't be as high as some (GOP enthusiasts) predict, though in the dedicated few it will be present. There's just not the enthusiasm present on the unlawful side to make a difference at the polls on Nov. 4.

Where is does happen will be in areas that don't require ID to vote. If you can hop from precinct to precinct willy-nilly, no ID, and vote using fake names registered months prior, then yes, voter fraud will occur. It's a fundamental mistake to not require everyone to present valid ID - preferably photo ID - when voting. If you can't sign a check in many stores without a photo ID, what makes you think you should be able to vote by just assuring them you are who you say you are?

We are a country of checks and balances. A sample case for divided government: "A federal appeals court has ordered Ohio's top elections official to set up a system by Friday to verify new voters' eligibility." OH Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, claiming she didn't have the time to establish such a system, was sued by state Republicans who claimed her inaction, coupled with Ohio's law allowing registering and voting on the same day, was a prime opportunity for electoral shenanigans.

We can't have that.

The law, if not by written by, was targeted at the sort of organizations like ACORN that specialize in unlawful voting & registering practice. Get your people to a facility, sign them up and vote. Pile back in the car, wash, rinse, repeat.

We have an apathetic voting populace, but thankfully we are not mandated to vote by some Big Brother edict. While Obama is surely to see a boost in his numbers due to the increase in Democratic rolls, don't expect to see an exact correlation between number of new registered voters (D) and number of votes for Obama/Biden.

-Hooper

Some Random Thoughts

2008-10-13T15:26:00.000-05:00

1. The story that William Ayers may have "polished" some of Obama's rhetoric in the latter's first memoir hasn't really taken hold. I think, if anything, this is proof-positive that the connection isn't resonating with people. We've seen in today's speeches that McCain's campaign has dropped "Ayers" from the list of buzzwords to include.

2. Obama had a big speech today. With a rising Dow at his back, Obama was able to spell out his economic recovery plan, injecting more confidence than economic logic into his speech. But it'll play well, that speech. Given every day for the next week, he'll see the polling trends solidify even more. It's not that anything great is mentioned (he even tries to take credit for McCain's kibosh on the RMD), but rather it's the words he uses to wrap around everything that mesmerize the audience.

3. The GOP is expecting defeat, both Congressionally and Presidentially. The third debate is the last fork in the road between victory and defeat, the last out. But Obama has such standing in the polls, it's hard to think he could pull a Reagan and beat the odds, coming back from a 7% gap to win. So victory...not so much. Therefore, the GOP is probably hoping to stage a return to leadership, at least in part of Congress , in the mid-term elections in 2010. It'll be like 1994 all over again, but with less Newt. The only flaw is they expect Obama's uni-party Congress to fail, when it might not. Think about that. If the GOP doesn't win back Congress in 2010, supposing that McCain lost, I predict will be the effectual end of the Republican Party.

4. Is Obama cheerleader Bill Clinton instilling such confidence in people that a landslide is imminent that he's subconsciously telling them they don't need to vote? He doesn't like Barry O. I could see it.

-Hooper

Welcome! Never leave.

2008-10-13T14:48:00.002-05:00

The Political Hoedown is a daily blog covering primarily national an Illinois politics. Currently, it is hosted over at The Den of Mystery, best damn website this side of the Mississip'!

We're moving, slowly but surely, to this address.

-Hooper

Meet the Press: January 22, 2006

2008-10-12T16:14:00.000-05:00

Tim Russert interviewed Barack Obama in January 2006, covering a variety of subjects including 2008 campaign possibilities.

***

MR. RUSSERT: But there seems to be an evolution in your thinking. This is what you told the Chicago Tribune last month: “Have you ruled out running for another office before your term is up?” Obama answer: “It’s not something I anticipate doing.” But when we talked back in November of ‘04 after your election I said, “There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?” Obama: “Absolutely.”

SEN. OBAMA: I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed.

MR. RUSSERT: So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?

SEN. OBAMA: I will not.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator, thank you very much for your candor and for joining us and sharing your views.

***

Read the full interview here.

-Hooper

Can I respond? Pleeeaase?!? [[Debate #2]]

2008-10-08T16:45:00.001-05:00

The Town Hall Presidential Debate

Wouldn't it have been neat if they could've actually done the town hall debate in a town hall instead of another cheaply built, blue felt stage? I think so.

I also think it's very hard to watch these two debate. McCain obviously dislikes Obama, finds him repellent on a number of issues and morally questionable. Obama, on the other hand, thinks McCain = Bush and that Bush = Misguided and Evil so....

Tom Brokaw moderated at Belmont University in Nashville, TN. Could've been worse, but it wasn't terrific, let me tell you.

Deep breath, people. Here we go. I promise to be quick.

***

The night started very well for John McCain, since Barack Obama didn't even thank him for being there, a standard courtesy. In their first economic go around, McCain had decidedly more "original" content in his answer than Obama's bland stump speech cannibalization. In fact, we were introduced to what could have been (and sort of was) a too-repeated Obama phrase, like McCain with maverick: middle class.

That's right, Obama let you know, America, then he believes there is such a thing as the "middle class." Class. McCain referred to this strata of citizens as "middle income," a key distinction. Republicans start culture wars, but Democrats thrive on class warfare. This set the tone for much of the economic and domestic back-and-forth. While McCain hammered down his various tax and health care policies (on the latter, not as effectively as he might've), Obama insisted it was all to benefit the upper class in the country, not you, the...middle class.

It doesn't matter than 2/3 of corporate tax cuts benefit the workers directly in bonus, incentive and wage increases, or that the last President to raise taxes on anyone during a recession-leading-to-depression was Herbert Hoover. But it's hard to say that (and McCain tried with the latter) without sounding angry and crotchety, and McCain already has enough issues with that. Obama had to rest on his laurels last night, his staid, tried and true method of cheerleading his tax policy, and that's tying the cuts under the Bush Administration to McCain (though he voted against them).

***

Let's be quick about Tom Brokaw. He wasn't a bad moderator, and would've been decent for a standard debate, but he put too many of his own questions in the mix. What he was good at was slapping Obama down each time he ran over his limit or tried to get the last word in after good McCain jabs. It was inappropriate for Obama to, acting like a brat, interrupt Brokaw or McCain (Can I respond? Can I? I need to!) just because he felt he'd gotten the bad end of a question.

!!Commentary!! The media won't pick up on it or criticize him for this, because it'd show he isn't cool under pressure, can't practice proper decorum and just doesn't look presidential at all times. !!Commentary!!

***

*Bush + McCain = Answer for Obama
*Obama's Inexperience + My Record = McCain's Responses
*Fannie Mae + Obama = McCain Attack Strategy
*Deregulation + McCain = Obama's Sharp Retorts

There are many formulas like those, used broadly over the last and this debate. Obama really went after every economic turn by McCain as an attack on the middle class by dint of being pro-business and pro-across-the-board tax cuts. On foreign policy, McCain is hammering the line that Obama doesn't have the wherewithal to be commander-in-chief, the experience, the judgement. Their attacks against the other weren't as pointed as their VPs made in their debate, as the mood of the country has turned from that thinking and what's less hostility and more solutions.

The one spot where McCain came out clearly ahead and didn't lose even after Obama spoke was on energy and climate change. He made the case that he stood against Bush, that he toured the world seeing the effects of global warming and that he had a solution - which he spelled out - for what to do. Obama agreed with McCain and restated McCain's solution in his own words, to sound different, added a few canned points as an afterthought. In a time-tested method, Obama used bigger numbers (5 million new jobs with green tech, he said, vs. McCain's hundreds of thousands) to try and seem like his version of the same was shinier, better. But it was the same answer.

To be perfectly fair, the biggest score for Obama came when he brought up the "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" jingle McCain sang with a group of vet buddies (to the tune of the Beach Boys' Barbara Ann) and talked about McCain's "annihilate North Korea" comment (I can't find a direct quote). It started with a compliment to McCain, to which McCain laughed and said "Thank you," but turned on a dime into a direct attack. Obama knew he had the Arizonan by the short ones, McCain knew it and probably anyone who reads an editorial by a center/center-left writer knows it, too. The purpose is clear: McCain is hardly even-tempered or a cool hand at the tiller, but a reckless man. Will it work, or do people want a little saltiness in their commander-in-chief and President?

To ramble on about each topic would take up too much of your time. Find the transcript if you want fuller quotes. I will talk briefly about health care and what was left unsaid.

***

Health care is a huge issue, one that will be at the centerpiece of the next debate. McCain can turn opinion toward him if he drives home a broad, solid domestic agenda that touches on health care, entitlement spending and education, coupled with an economic life preserver. But last night, that first issue wasn't really handled all that well - by either.

Obama spoke about his plan, which includes you keeping your policy if you like it, going after insurance giants to lower premiums and offering a buy-in to the federal insurance package government employees get for the uninsured, though he didn't mention any of his penalties or mandates, which do exist, and how this would increase the government's participation in the process.

At his turn, McCain glossed over any tax on employers' health care plans, a key attack-point by Obama, but did stress the $5,000 deductible credit offered towards insurance, allowing people to supplement, compliment or replace their current coverage. He also talked about state insurance regulation and how he'd do away with it so insurance companies will be forced to compete across state lines, something controversial, but theoretically promising.

So what's the net gain here? Both have policies that read very well for the average income American, but each has hidden clauses, and we're left until next week (or a search on Wikipedia) to find out what they are. I wasn't satisfied with Obama's answer, because he denied what he was offering was really a massive expansion of government spending and insurance interaction, and when has increased government in our personal lives every been that good? God love him, but McCain didn't defend the tax portion of his plan, which is a new revenue stream, and why it netted out ahead for the consumer (if it did).

So that was a failing that needs to be addressed next week.

***

Where do they turn now?

According to Gallup, McCain is down 11 points (52 vs 41). Look at Rasmussen, and the situation is a little better (51 v 45) and Zogby is even rosier (47 v 45), but RCP's average has Obama up well over five points.

"Despair" is the word I use when talking to McCain supporters. Obama has a dozen days of positive polling numbers and a terrific spread for most of that. Coming back, it's climbing uphill while greased up, drunk and chained to a few ranting partisans.

McCain didn't mention William Ayres, unrepentant radical/domestic terrorist, radical Rev. Jeremiah Wright or Tony Rezko, the unholy trinity in Obama's past. If he is sincere about winning, he has to swallow his ethical objections and start telling America that not only is Obama inexperienced, he has past associations (not including the Fannie Mae tie) that should preclude him from the Oval Office, dangerous associations with people whose views are not only out-of-step with "middle America," but even most liberals.

Sarah Palin has been going after the Obama-Ayers connection, and the media is slowly picking up on it. Watch this topic.

Comfortably in the lead, at least a few points outside the margin of error in polls, Obama needs to play defense and limit his negativity. Barring any "October surprise" regarding terrorism (or massive, Republican-backed economic recovery), Obama can rest easily knowing that he doesn't have anything to do him active damage beyond his control. Bringing up the Keating Five scandal won't help him, because McCain has been relatively forthwith about it. With the proper ad campaign, tailored to link Bush and McCain even more, while stressing his economic plan, the odds are stacked for him to walk away with a bigger victory than Bush in 2004.

***

Next Wednesday is the final debate, another standard podium affair. It'll cover domestic issues and the economy, so look for fireworks and hard proposals.

I'll be back before then if there's a reason.

By the by, if anyone out there wants to write "The Case for Obama," let me know. I'd like a last-week binge of opinion, including pieces pro-Obama as well as McCain.

-Hooper

The Most Gracious and Engaging VP Debate

2008-10-06T16:33:00.001-05:00

VP Debate/Smackdown

Last Thursday night's Vice-Presidential Debate between Sen. Joe Biden and Gov. Sarah Palin was nothing short of historic, and at the least, entertaining. Much like with the first Presidential debate, there's an argument over who one or if you could say either did. As with that debate, where the tie is given to the rookie, so must it be here. Sarah Palin did not stumble over herself, contradict basic sentence structure or blow-up; her performance, judged impartially, was very good. Point to her.

But let's examine the meat-and-potatoes of what is the only contest between these two engaging opponents before getting into the whys and wherefores of Palin's "victory."

***

Last time we met about a debate, I looked at each candidate separately. That won't be the case today. These two played off each other in a congenial, yet sparring manner that exemplified what civil debate could be. I would be remiss if separated them, especially since this is their only time together. They must be weighed side by side.

Hosted at Washington University in St. Louis, MO, by Gwen Ifill, the debate began promptly and ended on time. No surprises in format, and the blatant partisanship of the moderator, who has a book coming out called "The Breakthrough: ...and Race in the Age of Obama," wasn't an issue. She did interrupt Palin to say her time was up, forcefully, but let Biden talk over her a few minutes later when she tried the same. Granted, he was worked up and not listening to anyone, but "fair play" isn't just a phrase.

One of the first attacks levied against Palin (McCain) was the "fundamentals" line the Arizona Senator has bandied about the last few wees ("The fundamentals of our economy are strong."). The attack was rejoined by Palin and they were off, rarely letting up in intensity or personality over the next ninety minutes.

Though it sounds cynical, or demeaning, there was a palpable relief that Gov. Palin used numbers in her answers, not relying on soft economic statements by hard facts. It's a sort of criticism Bush received in years past, that Palin had fallen victim to and needed to correct. On the other side of things, Biden remained on an even keel for the most part, not rambling, as he can, into barely related armchair tangents that have stunted his ability as a campaigner the last year.

But his verbosity wasn't a handicap here, and he used his honed speaking ability to sound less like a windbag than ever, but he couldn't resist referring to himself in the third person a few times.

Palin, needed every word to count, did repeat a few. If you were playing a drinking game to the number of times she said "maverick" (6; Biden said it 9 times), you'd have had a good buzz going by the end.

Ah, but seriously.

Biden did a superior job than Obama. The ticket should be flipped, by all rights. He made a better case for linking Bush and McCain and utilizing the under-referenced Cheney (McCain and Palin are in "lock-step with Dick Cheney), even if many of the votes he criticizes McCain for, he supported. That is a big weakness with a long record, supporting the same thing as your opponents, and trying to talk around that (I/he was for it before I/he was against it). Biden isn't exactly liberal, either. He's a relatively conservative Democrat by Obama's standards, and that might be why he performed so poorly in the primaries, because he couldn't radicalize the base like Obama was able to, couldn't present a clear, defined alternative to conservative politics.

To be fair, Palin is built up as the paragon of conservativeness, but she's hardly Jerry Falwell. Interesting that she admitted, slightly grudgingly, that she supports equal civil, contractual rights for gay couples, same as Biden and Obama. More interesting, how vigorous Biden's denunciation of gay marriage was, and how he went out of his way to remind "middle America" that marriage, as defined in popular and historic opinion, is between a man and a woman. I'd be surprised if the SanFran Dem set was happy with such a response. To Palin again, her "conservative" credentials are clear, but she's hardly the arch-conservative the media has painted her to be. I think the same-sex answer, and her reluctance to admit that she sympathizes more than Redneck Joe Six-pack with the plight of gays and lesbians, underscores progressive thinking. Not entirely, no no no, but to a degree.

And speaking of Joe Six-pack, she sure did her level-best to link herself to middle America, rightly so. She is relatable, with a story that mirrors many families', and her "Aw shucks" demeanor, so much a detriment in urban and East Coast districts, rings a little true out beyond the city limits. Is that who we want as Number 2 in the White House? Debatable, but she isn't fighting alone to be seen as the middle-class candidate.

Biden schmalzed around too, lots of small town Pennsylvania lines, lots of Scranton and calling his sons "champ." He claimed he hangs around Home Depot a lot (you're kidding, right?) and often talks issues at the "local gas station." His community in Delaware, he claims, is also small-town, middle class America and we should know he still lives among the grunts and peons and laborers, etc...though it's safe to say his secluded home at the end of a long-drive, replete with pool, few neighbors and miles of road before he approaches the sprawl of Wilmington isn't exactly "roughing it."

In a shock to me, Biden's weaknesses were in appearing older than McCain and not offering a defense of his anti-Obama statements (and ideas) from the primaries ("He's not ready to be commander-in-chief."). I don't want to spend a lot of time on appearance, but he didn't always look good. There were throbbing veings at his temples when Palin really riled him up, his eyes took on that small, glassy stare of the elderly and his voice! This isn't a weak-voiced man, but too often it faded to a husky fraction of what it could be. Remember, he is the guy who had brain aneurysms in the early 90s - a far more difficult thing to actively survive than skin cancer.

More damning than any health perception could be was his refusal to address his barbs against Obama spoken during late 2007 and early 2008, essentially saying he was wildly inexperienced and not ready to lead, domestically or militarily. It almost seems like Biden has sacrificed many of his positions to accommodate himself to Obama's worldview, a point Palin bitingly made (and again, went unanswered). Further aggravating the ticket, Biden pointed out the sort of role he'd play as VP.

In pretty bald terms, Biden's opinion of his role as Obama's VP was as point-man for legislation, in on all decisions and a partner in executive matters. He uses kinder, gentler wording, but it's the same post as Cheney holds now: the voice behind the throne, the puppet master. The one who has the knowledge to make the decisions and the experience and contacts to get the policies pushed through. It was a stunning attack on Obama, that his running mate so vocally stated he wasn't able to make decisions, to promote policy or effectively govern without him. How this hasn't gotten more play is beyond me, as it is a repudiation of Obama and Biden and the Democratic Party's stance against Cheney and his abuse of power.

VP as an advisory position is also great, and it's that role that Biden will take - possibly more so than any other VP since, well...Cheney. Admit he has more experience than Barack and is needed to help with complicated issues.

It was his bold wording, not his intent, that I thought alarming for Obama's credibility as a leader. Because in the end, the President has to stand alone when he goes to the country and says, "We need to do this, and it might sting a little."

Don't think I'll spare the rod when it comes to Palin (minds out of gutters). She has no capacity to dovetail thoughts. When moving from one topic to another, she shifted without a clutch and it showed in awkward wording and delivery. No more was this more apparent than when trying to defend the "finger-pointing backwards" of Biden, when the Senator repeatedly tried to tie McCain to every Bush/bad decision in the last eight years.

A suggestion I'd have for her: go to a few catch-all news websites to read stories of the day so you can merge breaking stories with canned and studied responses. You can read editorials written by your supporters that offer those segues you need between telling Biden he's wrong to look back and confirming that McCain has broken with Bush on key points and will break further with over the next four years. Her vulnerability is in her very small town-ness that defines her to so many, a narrow worldview that hinders broad discussion of the spectrum of issues.

Energy was her bailiwick Thursday, foreign policy more Biden's. But both have a clear and firm grasp on their strong suits. An argument could be made that Obama is a domestic policy generalist and a foreign policy absentee voter - he has lots of plans for the former without much more than rhetoric on the latter. Biden focuses foreign policy to real terms, nailing responses sure to please a lot of average households. Palin, understanding McCain's aversion to energy and "down home" politics in favor of foreign and military policy, unleashed a salvo of pro-energy answers that, while not always related to the question, boldly underlined her credentials where gas, heating oil and dollars headed abroad are concerned.

She slammed the media, looked a little annoyed and spoke wearily at times (We've been here before, Joe...) but never lost that spark.

Joe Biden channeled Ed Asner a few times, coming off temperamental at times, especially when he laid into the "maverick" status McCain touts.

One final bit on Biden, and this is more commentary: in talking about opinions he's changed his mind about, he addressed judicial appointees. His answer might be the most dangerous thing said this election. He advocated political ideology as a determinant of a judge's worth on the bench, not their interpretation of the Constitution, not their scholarly past or prior cases. This is, in essence, a clear desire on Biden's (and Obama's) part to stack the Supreme Court with justices who will legislate from the bench, talking away Congress' power - with no oversight - and remanding their true judicial authority to the back-burner.

From an e-mail to some friends:

It would be enlightening, someday, to read and see the prep notes both had for the debate, and to see what they were jotting away about during their opponent's turn. How much did each have prepared going in, by the way of "canned" answers? We know, in the first debate, that Obama had more than McCain, but that was in his favor, keeping a clearer message and not getting caught in the morass of his own inexperience. Certainly Palin had more pre-written, or memorized, lines about certain topics and a strategy to bring things back to her strengths - middle class, energy, reform.

By any measure this debate was a referendum on Palin, her ability to think on her feet, frame original responses - all candidates have cobbled some answers from stump speeches and none of the four this year are any different - around core principles and policy. She knows energy better than Biden, but that comes from her experience in the sector. He knows constitutional law. Yes, he has more experience than she does; by being alive some two decades more, I'd hope so. But it wasn't a negative for her, as she got him to mumble responses, fall back on stump positions and admit that the two of them see eye to eye on a lot of issues.

Their back-and-forths were far more revealing about either candidate than expected, showing progressivism on both sides, as well as a tendency towards conservatism. Biden is no bleeding-heart liberal, like Obama. Palin might not like gay "marriage" but when it comes to civil contracts, her state supports them for all couples, as does she.

I thought it was a terrific debate, perhaps showing us the real ticket this year should be the bi-partisan Biden/Palin. Similar stances, similar backgrounds, middle-class, family-oriented, not high-falluting intellectuals but still crisp on the issues and policies. It would have been the perfect Progressive ticket.

No serious gaffes, a few pronunciation errors on both parts, some padding of records and distorting of opponents - in all, a better, cleaner debate than last Friday's.

Joe Biden and Sarah Palin were, despite the hostile waters they navigated, friendly to the last, getting their whole families on stage in a big group hug. It was heartening to see, and made me wonder what a Biden/Palin ticket would be like. These two really did agree on a number of issues throughout the night and but their principles to shame when it came to cordiality.

***

The next debate is tomorrow, a town hall style Q & A that promises...what? Quick wit? Gotcha questions? That sledgehammer moment when one candidate verbally slaps the other into place?

I look for honesty in the answers, and decency when at all possible. The mud that each candidate is slogging through doesn't look pretty on them, nor do I like to be slathered with it when they pontificate and gesticulate madly about the other running a negative campaign. I hope that tomorrow brings some uplift, some positive rejoinders.

They damn well better learn a lesson from Joe and Sarah Middle-America, that you can disagree without losing your humanity.

-Hooper

Dining with Doubt

2008-10-03T17:36:00.000-05:00

The following is a piece by Matthew H. Griffin about local politics in suburban Chicago. It also touches on voters' economic uncertainty and the desire to be reassured, or at least talked to like adults. Enjoy.

-Hooper

For reasons still unknown to me, I found myself invited to a campaign dinner in a posh home in Hinsdale. It was a hard decision: dance class or political dinner.

I can see and feel change I like at one of those places, but I steeled myself and my resolve to hear if IL-13 opposition candidate Scott Harper (D) had anything productive to add to the dialogue about the economy. It sticks in my craw that my one and only financial instrument is worth 70% of what I paid for it.

With Senator Obama's choice to frame the crisis in bleakly populist terms like "When will Wall Street get that the crisis has already hit Main Street?", I have increasingly been dismayed by the lack of gumption our progressive politicians have demonstrated when speaking on this crisis. We're quick to solutions like a $700 billion bailout but slow on providing context for this crisis.

Upon hearing the news that I was going to a tony reception, a friend who has a son involved in the campaign business exclaimed, "My son has been to tons of those in New York, and he says that we have more erudite conversation around the dinner table." High dissatisfaction coupled with low expectations is not a very promising situation. I am reminded of the young dancers playing – well - young people in David Dorfman's Underground pumping their fists in the air chanting, "We're apathetic!"

At the party, I found that I was surrounded by deliciously informed voters. One voter knew the roll-call of Northeast Illinois' Congressional delegation on today's failed financial bailout. Another voter explained the credit crisis to me in great detail. I told this man that I expected our elected officials to be able to articulate the roots of the crisis, to which he responded that most people do not follow the crisis in as much depth as he does. I conceded this pointed and countered that it's important that elected officials have really sharp staff!

He sighed and said, "Ah well, it's the American 'S' factor."

"'S' factor?" I said.

"S for stupid," said he. "No one would understand the explanation. What did Churchill say, 'Five minutes with any voter is enough to discourage any politician!'"

Five minutes with this informed voter was very heartening to me, but would I be able to say the same after hearing Harper speak? After Harper did speak, a high school pal's father listened to me pining for specifics. He reminded me, "Politicians aren't anybody's friend."

To Mr. Harper's credit, he respectfully took his potential constituents' questions with an openness of spirit. I was reminded of a teacher who said that the Dali Lama is always smiling. We're dealing with big amounts of money here and serious issues and we are looking for the candidate who makes the well-timed joke that gets to the heart of the matter. It's the better person who does. "Will she debate you?" asked a local politician referring to Scott's incumbent opponent Judy Biggert (R).

"We'll make something of it if she does not," replied Harper with a smile.

-Matthew H. Griffin

Who bailed who out in the what now?

2008-09-30T17:20:00.000-05:00

Bailout Battle; In the Polls; Palin's Peril

Monday saw the first (failed) vote of the bailout package proposed by Secretary Paulson and amended by Congress, Obama rise steadily in the polls and a growing spate of stories about the upcoming VP debate this Thursday. It's a heated time in politics and with the economy, the two often intertwining with disastrous results.

You've read (hopefully) my analysis of the first debate, and I stand by my conclusions: Obama wins in public perception, supported by numerous polls, while McCain wins when one actually reads the answers and sees the substance present.

Now we move on to the 800-lb gorilla in the room: the bailout.

***

But first, let's get poll news out of the way.

Obama has seen a definite bounce in all the polls over the last few days. His Gallup three-day tracking position is at 50% to McCain's 42%. It's not the widest margin between the two (Obama's led by as much as 12 points in other polls, McCain by 10), but it is supported by a number of other major polls that show this is not a mistake.

With the stock market (DJIA) tanking nearly 780 points today, or 7%, and the negative economy tied more to the Republican White House than the Democratic Congress, expect McCain's numbers to stay low while Obama racks up a great weekly running average going into the VP match-up this Thursday.

I fully expect this gap to narrow only by a few points in the next two weeks, until the town hall debate. Nothing short of McCain pushing through a Republican-backed bailout proposal that protects investors and regular Americans far more than the Democratic-slanted one will make his numbers rise significantly. A stellar performance by Palin (utterly unlikely) would only add 2-4 points, but probably detract only a point from Obama's overall.

Historically, incumbent parties and candidates do bad when the economy is in the toilet. Voters pushed out Bush Sr., Carter, Ford and Hoover, all suffering from bad or stagnant economies in their election years (granted, each had other issues to contend with). Association games usually only go four or eight years back, so the public sees failure and thinks, "Who's in charge now?" They don't thing about Congress, though it's been punished in the past, but the top seat; ignore legislation passed before the current administration, only what wasn't passed recently to stave off destruction; and believe whatever political opponents to the current administration say instead of looking back at historical market trends.

Gallup, Rasmussen and Zogby have great tracking polls that have been more/less in line with endgame election tracking, where we find ourselves. Check them out often to see how the game is shaping up, and use RealClearPolitics and their running average of all major, non-partisan polls.

***

Whew, that economy of ours - what a time we live in! So what's the deal with the $700 billion House "bailout" bill that came from Treasury Secretary Paulson and the Administration, was tweaked by Democrat leaders, balked at and (slightly) amended further by House GOP leaders and not passed by a Dem-controlled House yesterday? It's a big story, a big economic deal, a make-or-break issue for both presidential candidates, a possible lead-in to economic collapse and possibly the most important "real economy" issue since we gave up the gold standard.

Why aren't U.S. citizens beating down the doors of their Congressmen to pass this bill and keep us from a second Great Depression?

It's a bitter pill that we have to take, but it can be made to taste just a mite bit sweeter and the American people (and Congress) know it.

In short, the bailout or rescue package bill was aimed at infusing the U.S. economy with cash and credit, buying up bad mortgage-related securities from struggling investment firms and banks. There are other powers inherent in the proposal and approaches that can be taken by Treasury to provide a backstop against further institutional or private loss. There are also some clauses that deal with the companies and their top execs who participate, namely that the companies will be giving the U.S. government warrants to buy chunks of themselves and CEOs would have to accept salary caps (except they wouldn't, exactly, if the contracts were renegotiated, and "golden parachute" or termination clauses would remain in many cases).

In general, though, the idea is to take struggling mortgage backed securities/collateralized debt obligations off the books of similarly struggling companies and onto the government's own, with the intent of selling them at a future time, hopefully higher or even with what they will pay the companies.

It's a flawed plan, and you can't argue otherwise. But the alternative to not acting quickly, proponents argue, would be devastating.

Think about it this way. Every individual in American would have to pay $2,335 (roughly) to cover the cost of the $700B price tag attached to the bailout. But what would the cost be if we entered a prolonged recession that would turn into a (possible) great depression? Do you think most people would lose just $2,335?

So this bill goes before the House of Representatives, and by Sept. 29 - after all the nonsense the week before with the bill gaining and losing and gaining traction, McCain's 11th hour return to Washington followed by a reluctant, petulant Obama, House GOP revolting at what appeared to be no interaction by them at all due to stonewalling by Democratic leaders - we think it's going to pass. Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emanuel, Steny Hoyer, Barney Frank - the Democratic leaders of the Congress all told their people and everyone else to vote for this act to save the American people the tragedy of a depression.

Except it didn't happen like that. Not exactly. You see, the House is split between Republicans and Democrats, but the latter have the majority, enough to pass any bill that requires only simply majority. Ostensibly, you'd think that if the entire party leadership were behind a bill, it would corral the rest of the rank-and-file Dems to vote "yes" and regardless of the GOP's response, it would pass. Minority Leader John Boehner (R) stated he thought the support was there by some Republicans, that though many disliked the bill, votes were there.

"$700 billion is a staggering number," Nancy Pelosi stated to the House just before the vote was taken, "but only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country." Not many words, but it poisoned the deal.

GOP members who may have backed the bill balked at supporting something that, to start with, their arms were being twisted to pass and now was being blamed on their party and only their party, when true culpability was scattered through nearly two decades of Congress and two Administrations.

Still, 32% of Republicans voted in favor, along with 60% of Democrats. Ah, there we go.

40% of Democrats in the Democrat-controlled House voted against something their entire leadership supported, had pushed through. 40% either voted their conscience or for fear of their constituents voting them out. Regardless, they made their choice against their party. Nancy Pelosi, confident in victory, had Sunday and earlier Monday told her compatriots to vote their heart on the bill and not be feel obligated to, essentially, be the fall guys when the bill passed. Best to let secure or retiring Dems and who-the-hell-cares-about-them Republicans be seen supporting it.

For politics and principle, the Dems didn't get the votes. For seat security and principle, the Republicans denied them passage.

Now we are left to figure out what comes next. The economy needs something. There can't really be an argument against government action to some degree. Maybe they lower the amount to $350B and add a gov't insurance clause for certain businesses, placing less taxpayer dollars at risk of a negative return should Treasury get screwed when they (eventually) try to unload the securities they intend to buy.

One other idea called for the gov't to get preferred stock from companies in exchange for a cash infusion, with dividend payments providing a positive return for taxpayers. There are hundreds of economists, businessmen and politicians gunning to get their idea, if only in part, written into the new bill. Many see Paulson's original proposal as autocratic and extreme, a hammer blow to a problem that requires laser-precision.

Other pundits say we don't need this package at all, but a new sort of limited regulation, some advisory boards, the aforementioned insurance - but no whopping check. This highlights who are the true libertarians in our country, those who want the government to remain as small and out of our hair as possible, possibly to the detriment of the country.

Personally, I dislike the deal. I don't see it as a "bailout" of Wall Street. That word carries with it some unsavory definitions, like we're salvaging these firms who made the stupidest choices on their own. In fact, this is a rescue mission. Not only have Wall Street investment bankers abused the looser credit system, the laws letting low income families get mortgages they shouldn't and the deregulation breaking down barriers between banks and investment firms; but average people are to blame as well. Those mortgages aren't paid down by ghosts but real people.

Main Street is as culpable in this crisis as anyone else, as full of the same sort of greed and want that "fat cats" in glass-and-steel are. It's just easier to blame the big guys, to say the were enabled to this evil through the similar evil of deregulation, and that they, Luciferesque, ascended from the fiery Pit with tantalizing temptations. Own a house or condo you never could. Buy a security product that's new and backed by mortgages, things which rarely go into default in large numbers.

No one was enabled or pushed to do what they did; free will is beautiful, if you believe in it. It makes people responsible for their actions, not victims of circumstance or an unseen force. We make our choices and suffer the outcome. Many are suffering, but not everyone. Not a majority by any stretch. In fact, only 25% of sub-prime mortgages are in foreclosure, and sub-prime mortgages are only 7% (at most) of the total number of mortgages out there. The problem with all these foreclosure figures, saying it's X% higher than the last ten years, is because we're on the other side of the peak of an amazing boom economy. Of course the numbers look dramatic when taken out of historical perspective. In 1934, 40% of homes were in foreclosure. We are no where near that level.

And that underscores another aspect of this crisis: confidence. Credit exists in part on real numbers in ledger books - cash on hand, debt outstanding, receivables, expenses, etc. Do you know it's also tied to confidence? The dollar bill is a piece of paper that we say is worth a certain amount of money, placing economic value on something that, stripped of its economic importance, is just ink on paper. This is also called "fiat money," and that means it's worth what the government says its worth, in the absence of some form of hard backing, like gold (which would make it representative currency). We can easily see that intangible, unquantifiable factors can sway institutional credit, the value of the dollar, spending levels - all tiers of the economy.

Though it's very popular to say this, I will chime in and attach some blame for the "crisis" on the media's doorstep. If many stations were not hammering home with bold headlines, ominous music and graphic obfuscation that we're in crisis mode or economic meltdown or financial peril, many people would honestly not think we were. Psychology is playing a large part in all this. Traders on Wall Street are smart, but even they lose when playing chicken with the dire pronouncements of CNBC or CNN or the Financial Times or the Wall Street Journal.

Will the economy collapse if we don't get $700B now? No. Will it collapse if nothing is done? Again, no, but it will decline sharply for the short term (say, two or three years) while the losing parties go bankrupt, are absorbed, scale back activity and in general, limit our economic growth. This would be a depression.

I have great confidence in capitalism and the free market to correct itself, even if that correction is a slap in the face, a punch in the gut and knee to the groin. We've seen bubbles pop, and this is no different. The credit and mortgage bubbles, tied in to every American alive, might seem farther reaching than when the Internet went bust. Not everyone owned tech stocks, but most do own houses and/or cars and/or credit cards.

We are a highly leveraged society. People loaning other people their confidence in the form of currency. Business relies on this for payroll, as "anonymous" stated in his comment to the last Hoedown. It is necessary to have stable credit. We can take a hit for a while, some companies and people will suffer and you know what? That's life in a "free" market, capitalist society. The risks are known that if you can't pay, something will be taken to cover that payment eventually, be it lamp, car, house, wages, corporation, etc. Returning to the overall topic, economic rescue, that is exactly what we have to do - rescue a faltering financial system before it starts dragging greater than 2% of mortgages nationwide. The collapse in confidence will trickle up and down simultaneously, with consumers not buying, hoarding currency, while corporations are unable to meet payroll because banks are unable or unwilling to risk their books - their confidence - in loans.

Lowering lending rates to free up capital, lowering taxes, affecting the reserve requirements - these are tools in the toolbox acknowledged by Paulson, but they aren't seen as efficient for a situation of this size. We've moved beyond for any number of reasons. Grander, more immediate ideas are required.

Things are moving forward still, with the FDIC accepting both McCain's and Obama's advice on raising the insurance cap for single and joint depositors. The House was not in session Tuesday, and won't be tomorrow either, due to the Jewish holiday, so we won't see another vote until Oct. 2. The Senate, however, will vote in a bill Wednesday. When the grumbling Congressmen return on Thursday, potentially in light of the upper house's positive vote, we'll see if they can pass a bill or send the markets screaming down another 777 points.

***

This Thursday, possibly hours after another failed vote, Sarah Palin and Joe Biden will go head-to-head in what may be the most watched VP debate ever. And the most important.

In one corner, you have three-and-a-half decades of Washington experience, thousands of interviews and Q & A sessions tucked away - Biden's experience handling tricky "gotcha" questions and more seasoned debaters is likely a great boon to him. Though he'll have to reign in any snarky comments that might come out sexist, he still has the odds on his side, probably 3:1.

Hailing from Podunk, Alaska, weighing in at just sixteen years of political experience (and I'm including city council), with few national-level interviews and only off-camera question sessions with voters on the road, Sarah Palin is in for a beating. It'll probably be historic, the flames that will engulf her as Biden relentlessly assails her every answer and position. Can she beat him? Yes, a monkey could if they got Biden to start rambling about make believe history. But the odds are more than out of her favor. Right now, you might be favored to win the debate when you yell at the TV screen after a Joe B response you find unacceptable.

Palin is being sequestered in McCain's AZ ranch with the most senior members of the campaign guiding and training her. The lesson: be yourself. She has been so stifled by all the ex-Bush handlers brought in to make her seem "intelligent" that a gal who really is sharp is dulled and robbed of much-needed confidence. Larry Kudlow, of CNBC, had great things to say about her after early 2008 interviews he conducted, especially her grasp of the issues.

Should she shake all she's been force-fed since the convention and go back to the Alaska McCain-with-ovaries maverick, it'll be a debate - a fight worth watching.

***

I am tired. These last few weeks have worn me out, and there's still a month and change left until the votes are cast.

My opinion hasn't changed. It's Obama's to lose. He can win this without much effort if he stays under the radar and lets the Bush Administration drag McCain down, regardless of if it's fair to do so.

More after the debate.

-Hooper

Just Answer the Question

2008-09-26T16:51:00.000-05:00

The First Debate; Biden Off the Ticket?!

Since we last met, Gov. Sarah Palin has spoken with the media, Biden has goofed his way around the campaign, Obama has come out against his running mate and McCain whiplashed them all by suspending his campaign.

Debates, Gaffes, Stunts, Mean-Spiritedness: now we've got an American election. With the economy dominated everyone's mind, the candidates took to the stage Friday night for a foreign policy discussion. In the weeks before, the government bailout of failing financial markets was the big bit of news, but beneath it all, the nitty gritty of election politics continued.

Busy times, people!

But, to start, we need to address that debate.

***

Hosted at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, MS, the first Presidential debate was moderated by PBS’ Jim Lehrer and was intended to focus on foreign policy issues. Of course, due to extraordinary circumstance, it did not. In fact, a good third of the debate time was given over to economy-related issues and those touching the government bailout package.

The point of this recap is not to recite each candidate’s answers to the questions posed. We know, in general, their positions. Obama has a tax cut plan that benefits - from an income tax perspective - most taxpayers. McCain favors tax cuts that affect all, but still include cuts for the (controversial) wealthiest among us. He also proposes a focused "league of democracies" that cold wield significant economic and diplomatic might when facing rogue nations. Obama is more satisfied with the UN and NATO, but seeks the same goal. They each want to spend, to cut, to alter the game plan for our military in different ways.

These are policy topics. While we did watch the debate to get reacquainted with their policy, we also needed to become acquainted with them. So let’s look at them, their appearance and mannerisms, the amount of respect they showed for their opponent and Jim Lehrer, the tone and phrasing of their responses and the personal qualities that shine through in such a magnifying-glass experience that indicate their presidential mindset.

***

We will start with Sen. Barack Obama.

As has been mentioned to me this past week, he has greyed a lot since this campaign started. His youthful looks are giving way to a creased face and whitening hair. I heard a (somewhat ridiculous) rumor that there was no effort made to disguise the grey to make him appear more experienced, as age adds wisdom. Image is the least important thing, but it pays to keep it in mind.

More so than McCain, Obama has had a great deal more recent experience debating and bandying about sound bites. As a great public speaker, and someone with a legal background, he understands the framing of a response and the body language required to connect to an audience. Not that McCain doesn’t, but his focus in life has been far less on speeches.

Points to Obama for the businessman-like movements and gestures, making us thing of a boardroom meeting, or failing that a closed-room hearing.

So that nonsense aside, how did he do?

His responses were well-thought out, heavy on stump speech themes and lines, but structured in such a way to forget he’s given all these responses before as part of larger speeches. He helped this by using the point system. "There are X things we need to do. Number 1...." It provides internal and external focus, allowing you the debater the luxury of a list-like framework to work in and the audience an easy-to-follow set of ideas.

Also more lawyerly was his tendency to be curt, to have "just one more point" to make, as well as the old mainstay, the objection. During the debate, Obama was far more likely to interrupt either Lehrer or McCain to get a word in. We know McCain has a temper, but I think we saw Obama has one, too. While he would laugh off some statements McCain made, he would also directly (forcefully? Angrily?) attempt to rebut what he saw as a distortion or lie.

When it came to answering questions, when it comes time for any presidential debater to answer questions, there is a certain amount of evasion. Pin yourself down with a hard statement and it’ll stick with you if proven wrong, folly or inadequate. Changing a position after a debate is a deathknell for a campaign. Faced with the question about what proposals he would cut from his budget to make room for the Wall Street Bailout package, Obama said it was hard to know since there isn’t a budget to judge the impact on, but he would still want to emphasize health care, education, alternative fuels, etc. Basically, he gave no answer but read a few bullet points from his website. This tactic did repeat itself, answering by diversion when he didn’t want to become stuck by a hastily stated position that he might not really believe in.

On foreign experience, Obama proved he knows the names, situations, requirements and key areas of long-term importance. I don’t think anyone will say he came off as unknowledgeable about issues beyond our borders. Do you agree? That is policy again. Save it for a true commentary.

The biggest criticisms I’d level at Obama would be his Kerry-like droning at times, rambling on, and the preference for saying "Senator McCain is right..." too many times. It hurts him to agree so much with his opponent, and he did. If he agrees with so many points, is there really a change we can believe in? Conservatives will hammer home on Obama’s playing up, inadvertently, McCain’s experience and skill with affairs of state.

Also, lest I forget, after McCain talked about Obama’s lack of field experience related to his foreign relations subcommittee, Obama referred to Sen. Joe Biden and his experience, like he could leach off of it and absorb three decades+ foreign and domestic policy experience. Big gaffe, exposing your crushing lack of governmental experience.

But he did do a lot right. His responses were clear and articulate, his presentation very professional, his eye contact maybe 65% of the time with the camera and not Lehrer or McCain. He made his stutters sound like thought-gathering moments, a tough thing to do. Showing an aggressive streak will probably help prove he has a backbone and can stand up to someone other than a middle-aged woman.

***

Across the aisle, to Sen. John McCain.

He looked old, but not decrepit. I think the boost in the polls the first half of the month did much to add vigor to him physiologically and not just mentally. He wasn’t Bob Dole up there, some old fuddy duddy best suited to retirement home living on Boca Raton. There was energy in those eyes, and silver on his tongue.

Unlike Obama, he did not have the best movements, but this isn’t his fault. As he cannot raise his arms past a certain height, it becomes hard to avoid looking like your suit doesn’t’ fit. The timbre of his voice, at the beginning, was also very somber, almost like he was speaking to a group of librarians. He got fired up and more commanding in tone as the evening went on.

Did that fire result in a victory?

I cannot, even as a Republican, say he hit it out of the park. His weakness on economic issues, or his unwillingness to defend certain areas of his tax plan (corporate cuts help every corporation, oil related or not), made the first few responses a little muddied. As he got into cutting wasteful spending, he developed better and his best moment regarding the economy was when asked that question about what he’d give up to accommodate the bailout: departments of the government. Basically, he’d audit the government, find the waste, and trim it to save money. "Scrub every agency of government," was the line, more/less.

This points to a difference in debate style. Obama was able to quite easily turn a question to a platform for another, vaguely related issue. McCain stuck, on the whole, to the question asked; he evaded some, but that wasn’t a great fault of his. His problems came in the force of his tone. We know he can holler, can pound a podium and raise his voice. It just took him 30 minutes to remember.

While Obama projected businessman or lawyer, McCain was the old general called back to action. He’d seen the battlefield, knew what had to be done and was here to tell us, to deliver a moral at times, a parable or story when appropriate. It wasn’t the ramble of a Grandpa in a rocking chair, but the burden of experience coming out. You could tell the weight of decades of public service has shaped McCain into more than just another Senator.

He hammered home on his record, how he has a record, to look at the record. Obama seldom tried, and mostly failed, to say how some parts of McCain’s record were shoddy or overly partisan, but with 26 years on Capitol Hill, there are bound to be highs and lows. McCain’s best defense was to highlight Obama’s slim record: when discussing the economy, to remind people of the nearly $1 billion in earmarks he requested over his first three years in the Senate; on foreign policy, bring up Obama’s continual opposition to the surge in Iraq.

To compliment the disastrous phrase, "Senator McCain was/is right," McCain made sure to say that "Senator Obama is (still) mistaken/wrong/naïve," bringing the experience issue to light, undercutting Obama’s foundation without being overly snarky.

But McCain wasn’t perfect. As I said, his speaking voice cost him early on. He also didn’t use that temper to highlight how he was mad about mistakes made in the Administration. He should’ve practiced his gestures a little more to refine his appearance and he should not have repeated the phrase, "but most importantly" before every point. It diminishes what came before.

That said, he hammered out his views on the economy, pork barrel spending, and foreign policy. Repetition is key to votes in November, letting people know consistently where you stand. He also was able to draw on decades of foreign policy experience in the field to show he not only could point to Afghanistan on a map, but the towns he stayed in on his trips, show from a military standpoint how you needed to move personnel, recall the military and sometimes political history of a certain region and it’s bearing on today’s issues. Ready from Day 1 is a rallying cry in the McCain camp, and he went a long way to proving why.

***

So who came out ahead? Neither won, that’s for sure. Reading through the transcript, I’ve found great lines for both, and they really do read well. Were you deaf, and had to rely on a transcript, I’d say McCain comes off better, since the words and ideas are there, even if the dynamite oratory isn’t. But we judge this as an audible and viewable event, not a series of notes passed in class.

Did McCain’s longer sentences draw you into the narrative he built? Did the staccato phrasing of Obama keep your attention from short sentence to short sentence (and yes, you can ramble still with enough short sentences...)?

Before you assign victory, read the transcript, available at every news site. See the differences in opinion that are baldly apparent. Ideologically, many of you have made up your minds, or are voting a party line because it is what’s expected of you from some quarter of your life. But try to examine the issues through the focused lens of these two candidates’ measured responses. Ask yourself how you’d react and respond to the questions and crises.

A day later, the press says McCain turned in a slightly better performance, that technically he did do a better job. Again, reading the comments gives that impression, too. He avoided what historian James Chace says is a preference of politicians to value "repetition, vagueness and incantation," a great way to describe Obama’s rhetoric throughout this whole campaign. However, Obama looked better than McCain, crisper, younger. Nixon won his debate with Kennedy intellectually, but lost it in the court of visual opinion. I think similar will be said for McCain.

We have three more debates, one for the next three weeks. Plenty of opportunity to judge ideas, character and what is best for the country.

***

To quell some rumors, I’d like to talk about Joe Biden. There has been some talk that his gaffes of late, numerous and humorous, are on purpose and meant to set up an 11th hour removal from the ticket with Hillary taking his place. I do not find any credibility to this theory. The last time we saw this take place, in 1972 when Thomas Eagleton was replaced as George McGovern’s VP candidate after some embarrassing psychological details came to light, it ended in disaster for the presidential candidate. No one has convinced me this is any different.

People talk about Sarah Palin and then the return to Washington amid the bailout bill talks as Hail Mary passes on McCain’s part, but were Obama to boot Biden now and bring in Hillary, you’d see mounds of criticism bury the freshman IL senator for his poor judgment in picking a VP and pandering by choosing Hillary.

For your reference, Biden’s gaffes:

*Said Hillary would’ve been a better VP candidate than him
*Came out strongly against the Wall Street bailout package before Obama said word one and was later criticized by Obama for doing so
*Claimed Barack "ain’t taking my shotguns," highlighting further differences in policy on the ticket
*Said that FDR went on TV when the Great Depression hit to tell America what was going on: "When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on television and didn’t just talk about the ‘princes of greed,’ he said look, here’s what happened."

***

This has been a pretty long Hoedown, so I’m splitting it in two and moving the poll analysis and Bailout Bill discussion to the next post. Look for it Monday evening.

-Hooper

90/97

2008-09-12T14:45:00.000-05:00

Poll Report & Bounces; "Maverick" Tendencies; Lipstick

First off, thanks to all who have been actively participating in our "issues" discussions (in "Ovary-Slapped" and The Daily Hoe's preview post). Remember that you may know who you're calling a close-minded bigot, so...chill out.

***

On to the developing political scene!

We at the Den follow a number of polls to see how things are shaping up nationally and state-by-state. The curious nature of each sort of poll has McCain winning in by popular vote, and Obama winning in the electoral college (though other sites have it slightly reversed, with a slim 2-Electoral vote lead for McPalin). Let's take a brief look at the states, using the parenthetical's numbers

Most are firmly in one camp or the other, with a few true battleground states holding pollsters and pundits rapt. Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Florida and Virginia are the attention-getters for the time being. It could be that a particular ad campaign or debate firms up the numbers one way (Florida, for example, is a virtual certainty for McCain, but post-Dem Convention, Obama got some bounce there, leading to it's flopping between neutral and red), while other states take their place on the fence. Michigan, Pennsylvania and (surprisingly) Washington are all running numbers nearly as close as those mentioned above, with neither candidate sealing the deal as they need to.

Looking at Electoral-Vote.com, one of the best electoral vote tracking sites out there, we can see how tenuous each candidate's hold is on their votes. Granting Florida will stay with McCain (likely), it hashes out to 268 Obama, 270 for McCain - enough for victory, but only 2 ahead. That's Nevada right there, a state firm as jello in the McCain column. Of course, though barely ahead even in the most recent round of state polls, McCain has to seize and maintain the slim margins currently achieved, clinging for dear life, or accept he may lose something small like New Mexico, but still try for a Colorado or better yet, Michigan or Washington (again, it's weird that it's close there).

The likelihood of a large number of states moving from column (D) to (R) or the other way around is well within the statistical bounds, even less than two months out. But my money, and my gut, says Obama will probably eke out ahead.

That's right - despite the amazing resurgence in the polls by McPalin, Joebama will most probably win come that cloudy Tuesday in November. There's too much of that Obamamentum not for him to win.

***

But I'm willing to issue a caveat, in form of the national polls.

Here's the story.

That's the Gallup organization's daily tracking poll going back several weeks, ending on 9/11/08. We see how Obama has been on top most of the time, even the rest. Once it became Joebama, he suffered an odd flat response in the polls, erased by his convention performance. Then McPalin emerged like a cracked-out vagrant from an alley and all eyes went to Team Maverick.

The interesting data we're looking at are the last four days: 49 McPalin/44 Joebama; 48 McPalin/42 Joebama; 48 McPalin/44 Joebama.

So for three days, McPalin managed to maintain it's gap against Joebama, five crucial points putting him outside the margin of error. In the face of this, and ignoring state polls, we may say the tide has turned for John McCain and left Barack Obama to face a series of narrow, but just slightly diminishing polls. A lot to glean from just two days, but it supports a growing number of polls conducted by a variety of respected institutions saying McCain is ahead. It's a lead he's holding, and the Obama campaign is sweating bullets.

Of course, with data released today, we see the lead has shrunk a point as some support has returned to Obama. Independents have increased a point or two for Obama, firming up from the "no opinion" category, but not significantly impacting McCain's overall.

What's most impressive are the surrounding polls showing larger gaps, running even, or McCain leads. Few show Obama ahead. Of the nine averaged polls at RealClearPolitics.com (as of 9/11/08), showing McCain with an average 2.3 point lead, six have McCain ahead, two are for Obama by 1 and one is tied. McCain's biggest lead is a 10-point likely vote knockout - 54 to 44 - conducted by USA Today/Gallup. At the worst, he's at 45, his current support level. Obama's highest showing is in the CNN/OpinionResearch poll - 48 - while his lowest is 42, from a FOX News Poll (for those discounting FOX, Gallup has him at 44 for a low) That high is also from the only tied poll left in the average.

I think we can hold the chart above to be a good measure of each candidate's support: Obama ranges from 50 to 44, while McCain spreads out between 49 and 41. Odds based on that are certainly for Obama.

In the Gallup tracking poll that predated the one above, it said it's 48 McCain vs 43 Obama. So the gap was preserved (5 points), but each loses a point to "no opinions." It's those people, as I've said, who are firming up. There was a long-held opinion that the country is broken down 40-40-20/Republican-Democrat-Independent. The logic is, going into a presidential campaign, unless you are a horrible candidate, you have 40% of the vote already; you're just fighting for 10.1% of the remainder.

Now, we're into 45-45-10, as the country has polarized over the last two decades. Fewer voters are undecided. Look at the running avg. at RCP: 47.4 McPalin vs 45.1 Joebama. 7.5% undecided or with another candidate. Figure 6% factoring in third-party votes. The future of the country is in very few hands.

Joebama's campaign says "Wait until next week, and especially after the debates. Let the air clear after the RNC." Team McPalin just can't stop cheering to listen.

***

So what's in a word? "Maverick." It brings to mind a number of things: James Garner, old western TV show, Mel Gibson, 90s western movie, one who bucks the trend, McCain. Looking at FactCheck.org, I rounded up some numbers (and they got them from Congressional Quarterly).

According to Joebama, McCain is anything but a maverick, voting "with" President Bush 90% of the time (actually, voting with Republicans that much). Meaning, I'd assume, voting on those initiatives which had his support. So 10% of the time, he bucks the trend, crosses the aisle and lives up to his nickname.

Of note, he has several key pieces of legislation that were co-written with Democrats to his name. Those are major points for him.

McPalin has been quieter about Obama being a maverick or daring to use that word in relation to him. They instead stick with his lingo, agent of change (I can't help but think "Agent of C.H.A.N.G.E., some old adventure serial spy organization). Is he an agent of change, they ask. According to the same people, Congressional Quarterly, Obama voted with Bush roughly 40% of the time, but with his fellow Democrats 97% of the time. So 3% of the time, he votes against the party line.

He has no major legislation to his name.

Analysis? It depends on who you talk to.

Obama supporters would say it proves 1) Obama can be bi-partisan, voting with Bush, 2) supports his party's platform of progressive/liberal politics instead of the Republican line and 3) McCain is in lock-step with Bush and the Republican party.

McCain supporters would say it proves 1) Obama is no agent of change, voting a party line rather than principle, 2) McCain has voted on ideology and not with party identity more (and for longer, if we drill down through Bush's full two terms) and 3) there is a greater probability that he will put the (R) aside for (USA).

What I get from it is, and from looking deeper at the numbers, is that Obama hasn't been in the Senate long enough to really establish a solid voting record. What he has is very pro-Democrat, and he doesn't show a great tendency to associate with Republican legislation. McCain, on the other hand, only voted with his party 77% of the time in 2005 and 67% in 2001, proving that - if not always - he can quite easily stand on principle and ideology, and not party doctrine.

But he has two decades in the Senate. Obama hasn't finished one term yet.

***

By now you've heard about the Obama lipstick flap ("You can put lipstick on a pig...but it's still a pig." - in reference to McCain trying to gussy-up his campaign with Palin). A few words on it that I shared with an ardent Obama supporter:

I won't get into deceptive or manipulative politics. As long as all campaigns have 30-second negative ads, there will be deceptive politics. As long as candidates opt for quick, media-friendly soundbites during speeches instead of boring - but necessary - policy statements, there will be deceptive politics. But not all deception is malicious, and some is downright humorous in political races. You have to have a thick skin about you.

For example, Barack made a verbal gaffe when he used the Palin/female keyword "lipstick." We argued that she doesn't own the word, nor do women, but that's for us to agree on, not reality. In reality, lipstick is worn by women, but that's ok and not the issue. The problem Obama has is that he used a word associated (key word, again) with another major opposition candidate, who unfortunately was also a woman. I agree he is not in the wrong, just in error. He should've had the foresight to realize the "pit-bull with lipstick" quote was pretty popular and not going away and would be associated with his follow-up comment. "Lipstick" is an uncommon word in politics, though it won't be again. He made a gaffe. The McCain reaction was a deceptive ad, a quick thing that was meant to more irk you guys than win major votes. And it worked. Point McPalin. Joebama needs to step up now and ignore the remark, as it is a non-issue.

Because this campaign is about the issues, right?

It was a key word associated with Palin, and will be until after election day. Obama should've known better. He's paying the price for trying to be cute. The phrase isn't invalid, and the sentiment can certainly be expressed about McCain and his tax policies or campaign or whatever. But not in that way.

***

Remember to tell a friend. We're trying to get exponential growth here, people.

C'mon - it's cheaper than gas!

-Hooper

Inaugural Poppycock

2008-09-07T18:35:00.000-05:00

*First point of interest is the story reported in CNN's Political Ticker that Obama has claimed he "thought of the military as an ennobling and, you know, honorable option," and gave some consideration to enlisting, but in the end decided no to. Not if that isn't the biggest load of political posturing we've had so far this election, I don't know what is. Fresh off a string of polls that show his national lead shrinking, and after a Republican convention that stressed military service and "country first," he now comes out and says he was interested at one point in the armed services.

Why? Because "I have friends whose parents were in the military. There are a lot of Army, military bases there." Faced with backlash against his lack of military appeal (not that he has to serve; volunteer army and all that), he feels it necessary jump up and say, "Oh, me, too! I love uniforms!" He serves the US in his own, admirable way, and he shouldn't diminish that with these base maneuvers.

**If you live in Chicago, you've no doubt read about the school strike last week led by Rev. State Senator Meeks. It's purpose was to expose the disparity between urban Chicago public schools (high school, mainly) and suburban, "wealthy neighborhood" schools. Never mind that Chicago's public school system has a higher per student funding than ninety percent of schools in Illinois. Never mind that the funding is based on property taxes, and so this isn't a question of the state funneling thousands at rich kids, but those kids' parents pouring thousands into the system to make it better for their kids. I benefited from this, I'm the first to say, and I'm also the first to say that funding doesn't mean jack when it comes to education.

You can pour untold thousands per kid into certain (urban) school system, but if those kids, and their parents and their communities are unable to cope with the responsibility of maintaining some level of decorum both in and outside of the classroom, why should we bother? Why should we weep for communities that have given up and aren't willing to fight for their own children? It's easy to embrace a negative, I'm-a-victim culture, to blame racial disparities, but it's harder to stand up to the thugs and bullies and machine politicians that care less about a good education and more about keeping you down so you vote for them, they who offer hope and anger and Equality but deliver a form of cultural slavery more deadly than iron-forged chains.

***What is it about feminism that's so exclusive? I know, it benefits women. Focus. Why do feminists only promote strong women who think like them? It's no secret that Sarah Palin is reviled by the leading feminists and organizations like N.O.W. (National Organization of Women). But why? She is a hard-working mother of five, contributes on of two paychecks to her house, manages to raise her kids as best as she can (they all make mistakes), enforces a tough responsibility for personal actions, is unafraid of bullying good ol' boys - how is this not a feminist's dream? She's the first female governor of Alaska, a state many would think of as a last bastion of the cowboy/frontiersman mentality - and that means a man leads things, not some hussy. But lo, she leads and is respected.

Is it because she disagrees with them on a few issues? I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you really are a democratic organization, you accept opinions of all stripes. Denying someone the respect they deserve as a pioneering woman simply because you disagree with her on abortion is a slap in the face. It's an insult to all the brave, hard-working, strong women out there who think like she does but have busted their asses to succeed in "a man's world." Show a little character, you Gloria Steinems of the world.

There. I've said my piece for the day.

-Hooper

If "Ecology" Were to Replace "Economy" in McCain's Speech

2008-09-05T14:26:00.000-05:00

The following is an independent, op-ed piece by Matthew H. Griffin, long-time sounding board and conscience of Hooper's. The opinions expressed in this piece are the author's, and they do not have to be yours. But he certainly wants you to think about them.

And you should. Please read on.

-The Management

Listening to McCain's speech on Thursday night, I repeatedly heard invoked "global economy." What I really long to hear is a politician that starts talking about "global ecology."

A global ecology envisions the benefits of letting the earth lie fallow, of cultivating inefficiencies in the hope that something will germinate because it has the time and positive conditions for growth. Unemployment benefits, state-supported universal access to excellent, affordable health care and education: the global economy that I heard so much about does not allow for such inefficiencies. The global economy holds true that there can be no end to the parade of commodities that ceaselessly stream into our homes and pass out just as quickly. The motto of the global economy is, "Drill, baby, drill."

I long for a politician who can make a convincing case for conservation and for preservation in all its myriad forms. The real candidate for change will formulate the problem thus: unfettered access to profit is resulting in our poisoning! The global economy is causing immeasurable degradation to our bodies, to our planet, and to the delicate web of wildlife about which we know so little and hear, see, and experience increasingly less.

I struggle with the fact that I can't bring this point home to those to whom it matters most. My friends will not hear me equate my father's poisoning and death by cancer with the machine behind, "drill, baby, drill." They will say that's liberal crazy talk.

Who now would stop to consider if his condition has been adversely affected by the lack of migratory birds that pass through Hinsdale, Illinois, because of the toxic sprays used fifty years ago in the campaigns against insects that killed Elm trees? Who would stop to consider if he has been hurt by the increasing indiscernibility between art and marketing. For surely art--which is using up and wasting a lot of paint to quote Monet--is one of those inefficiencies that has to go!

We need inefficiencies and fallow time to let the earth produce wonders that we can only come to appreciate in future generations. Otherwise, our constant demands on the finite resources of the planet will make deficiencies our only legacy.

-Matthew H. Griffin

Breaking Convention

2008-09-05T00:53:00.001-05:00

The Republican National Convention

The GOP's big to-do has come to a close in St. Paul/Minneapolis. We've had an abbreviated convention this year, focused as we were over the weekend and on Monday, the first official day of the Republican National Convention, on the threat of Hurricane Gustav. Well, the media frenzy whipped up by the hope of another national natural disaster proved premature, and the RNC moved forward, truly starting on Tuesday.

So did they make their case? Did Gov. Palin's roll-out continue as dramatically as it started? Are any other teenage Republican daughters sporting buns in their ovens?

***

As stated, the RNC did not get off to the same start the Democratic National Convention did last Monday. Where they had pacific weather and a harmonious speech by Michelle Obama, the Republicans were left essentially running a "boot fund," passing the plate to raise money for hurricane victims. And though Laura Bush and Cindy McCain did a great job as MCs of the truncated first night, it was a dud for all involved, a misfire that nearly cost them their week's publicity.

Then came night two, and two very different speakers.

I'll start with the boring approach first. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I...or D) is a friend of John McCain's and the two share a similar policy view for Iraq, the war on terror and the Middle East. On most other things, I don't think they see eye to eye, but many vote on one issue and Joe cast his lot just that way. But did you care? His speech, while filled with a number of good lines and ideas about bipartisanship that really ticked off Dems, came across flat and monotone, more of a Ben Stein parody than a keynote address.

But at least he had Fred Thompson, former Senator, warming the crowd up before him. Whew! That man can rumble. He told McCain's story better than anyone, with that perfectly cadenced, deep southern drawl, giving us a human portrait of an individual often thought of as "hero" before "man." It was a firebrand speech that got people whooping and cheering, elicited great response and had no small measure of laughter.

Night three followed the cavalcade of almost-were Presidential candidates: Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani. This triumvirate was to cause McCain the most headache on the campaign trail, because they were the best liked for a long time. But each did their part to get the audience revved up for the true introduction of Sarah Palin. Romney hit Obama hard and stressed economic talking points while Huckabee did his own hatchet work and came across like the southern preacher he is.

Giuliani, however, had the best lines:

"[Obama] ran for the state legislature and he got elected. And nearly 130 times, he couldn’t make a decision...I didn’t know about this vote “present” when I was mayor of New York City....You don’t get “present.” It doesn’t work in an executive job. For president of the United States, it’s not good enough to be present."

"Because change is not a destination, just as hope is not a strategy."

"How dare they question whether Sarah Palin has enough time to spend with her children and be vice president. How dare they do that. When do they ever ask a man that question? When?"

He led right into Sarah Palin's speech and, as you know, this writer was taken with it.

She tossed a heap of red meat into the audience, got the waters churning, and really dug into Obama like few in the Republican camp have done. Her personal story is fascinating, as is Obama's, and she used it to reach out to blue-collar, average Joe Americans who might have gotten married at 19 because of a roll in the hay with your high school sweetheart, or had the life-altering happen when their child was born with a handicap, or seen a son or father or brother ship off to a foreign shore, possibly to never return.

But for all that, she was still a pit-bull with lipstick and I can't imagine Obama isn't still smarting at her jabs:

"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities."

"We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco."

"Here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country."

"Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems — as if we all didn't know that already. But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all."

"And there is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state Senate. This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot — what exactly is our opponent's plan?"

"In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.They're the ones whose names appear on laws and landmark reforms, not just on buttons and banners, or on self-designed presidential seals."

Soundbites, some written weeks ago, quips meant as radio and TV fodder - but they're effective. Palin's speech was watched by only a million less than Obama's. Think about that. Anyone who looks at those numbers (38MM vs. 37MM) and thinks she isn't shaking up the campaign should take another look. I imagine her impact in the polls will be seen after the weekend and people have had a chance to watch her some more.

But what about McCain?

"Stand up and fight! Nothing is inevitable here." His closing remarks indicate his willingness to take this all the way. Despite the almost laid back quality of his speech, it's conversational town hall tone and lack of soaring rhetoric, he still managed the slow boil that brought deafening cheers to the Twin Cities.

We cannot argue Obama's skill with the spoken word. McCain has no chance competing with Obama for the same part in community theater. But for the Presidency, he presented a measured, even-tempered approach far different from the quick-hammer "Yes we can/No he can't" oratory that has typified Obama's many (excellently delivered) speeches. McCain's speech was literary, building a narrative about his life, the changes wrought with age and experience and the goals and ideology he has in store for America. A few lines:

"Despite our differences, much more unites us than divides us. We are fellow Americans, and that's an association that means more to me than any other."

"...the first big-spending pork-barrel earmark bill that comes across my desk, I will veto it. I will make them famous, and you will know their names. You will know their names."

"Now, my opponent promises to bring back old jobs by wishing away the global economy. We're going to help workers who've lost a job that won't come back find a new one that won't go away."

"Education is the civil rights issue of this century...but what is the value of access to a failing school?"

" I hate war. It's terrible beyond imagination. I'm running for president to keep the country I love safe and prevent other families from risking their loved ones in war as my family has. I will draw on all my experience with the world and its leaders, and all the tools at our disposal -- diplomatic, economic, military, and the power of our ideals -- to build the foundations for a stable and enduring peace."

" I'm not running for president because I think I'm blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save our country in its hour of need. My country saved me. My country saved me, and I cannot forget it. And I will fight for her for as long as I draw breath, so help me God."

Certainly, his speech wasn't aimed at liberals, but centrists at best, those not so calcified in their positions that they can't see something positive in the other side. We'll check in with the fine folks at Gallup next week to see the daily tracking data, and if McCain succeeded better, worse or as well as Obama. He didn't actively distance himself from Bush, but also didn't tie himself to the President. He criticized his policies, his administration and the government these last several election cycles. Did he do enough to (at least start to) sunder the hoops of steel created by Democrats that they hope bind him to Bush?

I predict he'll close to within two points in Gallup and even in national averages (CBS already has him dead even).

***

There was a reason for this post's title aside from being quippy. Past RNCs have been militant in their Republicanism, their conservatism, their "right wing" ideology. Granted, none of that was missing, except from McCain's speech. Yes, his ideas are those of the GOP, but there's a lot behind, between, next to and in those words. He, like Palin and Lieberman, slammed the Republicans and partisan politics enough to jump-start again the "maverick" image, and cable commentators picked up on that.

His break with party orthodoxy may not seem so severe to you reading this. You say, he has a 90% pro-Bush voting record. Well, a lot of Congressmen on both sides of the aisle have a pretty strong pro-Bush record as well; that doesn't mean they're yes-men to the guy. Not every vote is an authorization for war. And McCain has put his name on legislation that is unpopular to Republicans, teamed up with Democrats to get business accomplished. Aside from his war stories, stressing the earned image of the "maverick" is his best asset, one Obama cannot claim to have.

***

On a purely personal note, I was happy with the anti-union rhetoric. We've moved beyond the days of the union - and the need for such, one one time necessary, organizing among workers. The only folks now who could benefit are illegals, and they shouldn't be here anyway.

Whoops! There I go again...

***

Please comment with your reaction to the RNC, the speeches and all that jazz.

I might put a piece up over the weekend on the protests that interrupted McCain a few times, what it means for both parties as well as our freedom of speech. Protests in front of 45,000 fans sure do get a lot more airtime and voice than those in front of 80,000.

-Hooper

Ovary-Slapped

2008-09-03T23:38:00.000-05:00

This commentary by Hooper does not mean you have to vote Republican or buy a shotgun..

I know I didn't respond at all to last week's Democratic Convention speeches as they happened, but I could not pass up expending a few words on the brilliant speech by Gov. Sarah Palin.

She's a conservative all right, and also a feminist. A mother, and a full-time government employee. A wife to a working husband, and the Republican VP nominee. There's a lot on Sarah Palin's plate. Tonight, she (and the other speakers before her) made the case that though she's handling a great deal right now, she's ready for more.

Perhaps it was Rudy Guiliani who had the best retort to those saying she should drop out to "be a mom," essentially 1950s' housewife thinking spewed by leftist liberals: "How dare they question whether Sarah Palin has enough time to spend with her children and be vice president. How dare they do that. When do they ever ask a man that question? When?"

It's a valid point. But enough about that. You know my opinion now, that her ovaries of steel can take and dish out more abuse than the media and the Obama campaign want you to believe. Let's look at her honeyed words.

"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities." <-- that's when the speech rose from simple acceptance, from rote "life story" territory into something downright magical for a conservative or Republican. It hits hard right at the root of Obama's story, his time spent working for the "downtrodden." It's time and experience that shaped him, he says, but Sarah Palin would argue it brought no executive experience. It's snarky, funny and to the point. She followed it later with another effective jab, "[America]'s not just a community and it doesn't just need an organizer." While certainly community organizers will bristle at this line of attack, the average person will understand that she is deflating an overinflated resume.

"The fact that drilling, though, won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all."

Some have argued that Palin brings nothing to the White House but a few episodes' worth of Jerry Springer material. Here, she reminds us Alaska's key role in supplying America with domestic energy sources - and that it's got a lot more to give. For those frustrated at the pump, what sounds better: drill on our soil for a product that we can use and support today with our current infrastructure, or don't drill and instead "invest" in alternative energy sources as the way out, sources that would require an unprecedented change in our country's energy supply systems? I think they'll pick the former, because when you listen to Palin, you understand it isn't the end of the road, as Democrats doom-and-gloom. Oil is step 1. Natural gas, step 2. Ethanol, geo-thermic power, nuclear power, wind, water and solar power steps 3. and up. Innovation, creativity, ingenuity: these are the hallmarks of US industry, captured perfectly in Gov. Palin's statements.

On final quote, and then I must away to bed.

"But listening to [Obama] speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or even a reform, not even in the State Senate."

If there's one thing Palin's not afraid to do, it's attack, and that's what the Republicans need. The party needs to get out the message that Obama has essentially been campaigning for president his entire time in office, posturing, but not following through. Michelle Obama did mention some legislation she was proud her husband was attached to or behind, but none of it has been made law or made it out of committee.

It's easy to target Palin as inexperienced. Alaska is big, but has less population than most states. And a small town in Alaska is a bump in the road to the rest of us...right? That is the line we have been fed, but will not swallow. Being mayor simply gives Palin a better record than the law-less Obama; adding to that being Governor - even if just less than two years - puts more "executive" experience marks in her box than anyone else on either ticket.

If Palin, the second name on the ticket, can get the American people to doubt the competition's #1 guy (and I think she has), what chance do the Dems have? Can they do more than try to manufacture scandal? Will the killing blows be left to Palin to deliver, freeing McCain from the rigors of being his own offense and defense?

Whatever the outcome after the debate, after the election, I have no reservation in saying Palin has become this election's unlikely star. Her deft defense of her record and experience, relevant family story and cutting attack of the Democratic hopefuls must cast aside any aspersions even the harshest of pundits had.

-Hooper

News Brief It's a girl! McCain Chooses Palin

2008-08-29T09:54:00.001-05:00

**Updated with full bio**

Alaska governor Sarah Palin will be John McCain's running mate on the Republican ticket.

Continue for her bio and a quick reaction.

Born in Idaho, Sarah Palin moved to Alaska when she was still an infant. She was the daughter of education folk, a school secretary mom and science teacher/track coach dad, and excelled in athletics, earning the nickname "Barracuda" for her fierce play on the basketball court. She majored in journalism and minored in political science at the University of Idaho. When 20, she won the Miss Wasilla beauty pageant and came in second in the Miss Alaska competition, which (I think) marks the first time a beauty pageant contestant has sought presidential-level office in our fair country.

In 1988, she married (eloped to save money) Todd Palin, and the two just celebrated their 20th anniversary. They have five kids together, two sons and three daughters. Their eldest son ships off to Iraq this Sept. 11, and their youngest son, only four months old, has Downs Syndrome. She did find this out during a prenatal scan, but would not consider an abortion. She calls him "perfect."

Over her life, she has been a sportscaster and a commercial fisherman (her husband's business, when he's not working Alaska's North Slope as a production operator for BP). Her first step towards politics was in 1992 when she was elected to her first term in the Wasilla town council, a post she won again two years later. In 1996, she won the election to be mayor of Wasilla, and was re-elected in 1999. Another feather in her cap, she was also named President of Alaska's Conference of Mayors.

Moving from local to state-wide politics, she was appointed as the ethics commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas commission. She resigned in protest of unethical actions and later filed against fellow Republicans, leading to large fines, other resignations and a growing image as a reformer - even within her own party.

After an unsuccessful 2002 attempt at the post of Lt. Governor, she came back in 2006 and won her gubernatorial campaign by a healthy eight percent. She was the youngest Alaskan governor elected, and the first woman. While in office, she's done her best to reduce frivolous spending and really, done a whole lot more. To list all of her accomplishments and initiatives would take more ink than I spent on Joe Biden, and that wouldn't be fair.

Though not the oldest candidate, and certainly inexperienced on an international scale, she brings with her a keen understanding of our energy concerns and domestic economic issues. Her image is of a reformer, harkening back to the days of progressive Republican Teddy Roosevelt and more recently, McCain himself, comparisons the Republican party certainly wants to play up. She is an aisle-crosser, appointing people of all stripes to high positions and not being afraid to slap down her own party when it gets out of line.

So her major failing is lack of foreign policy experience, a key criteria McCain has stressed. It's easy, however, to answer such criticism, chiefly by pointing out the Democratic presidential nominee's lack of foreign policy experience. But we don't have to match a negative with a negative. Her lack in one area is matched by executive experience, a quick mind and strong economic and energy experience. McCain's more learned foreign policy experts are no doubt going over every international issue country by country at this stage.

But Biden still has the edge come the debate, a big experience gap that he'll play (rightly) to the hilt.

For more reading, check out her acceptance speech, her Wikipedia page and her Alaska gubernatorial homepage.

***

I'll be brief. Her nomination places an enormous burden on the Democratic party. She's a hard nut to crack, and as we'll see, her bio makes her almost unassailable in the traditional manner. Her age and governmental experience aren't really an issue, because if you start poking there, highlight Obama. Just because he assumed a national pulpit earlier than she, it doesn't mean he's more experienced and the Dems would watch their criticism.

For example: a trusted voting Democrat told me that McCain is 72 now (Happy Birthday!) and could keel over while in office, leaving this first-term Alaskan governor mother of five to assume the presidency. That's a serious consideration.

Consider the rebuttal: Obama is a first term US Senator with no executive experience. He has not been a chairman at a major corporation or a president, not a governor, mayor, or ranking military officer. And he isn't first in line should the President keel over - he's the domino that would start the collapse. The onus is on him to explain why his lack of experience is really better than hers.

The tickets are crossed: McCain's experience matches Biden's and Obama's lack thereof matches Palin's. McCain simply has to stress that while the Untested is one step from the Oval Office on his ticket, it's right there on the Dems' side.

Palin will lock in conservatives looking for a pro-lifer without question, an NRA activist, a "frontier" American who makes opportunity instead of waits for it to be doled out. She's risky come debate time, but a smart choice that zaps life into the McCain campaign. Oh, she also delivers a pretty good speech.

I expect a slight bounce in the polls.

-Hooper

Conventional Warfare

2008-08-28T22:15:00.000-05:00

DNC Convention

It all went down this week in Denver, CO. A black man won, for the first time, the nomination of a major US political party. How'd it go down? I won't bore you. Read elsewhere if you want news on the musical interludes, crappy live performances by any number of established bands, the little speeches, videos, Drunk Ted Kennedy.

I'm looking at the big dogs only. And really, only Obama mattered in the end.

So...yeah. Hillary. Michelle Obama. Slick Willy. Nights one and two were highlighted by knockout speeches by the two most prominent women involved with the presidential election. But whereas Michelle hit the ball out of the park for her husband, emphasizing that he's a Christian, non-Muslim, non-terrorist/anarchist/anti-establishment, decent human being, Hillary took a different tac.

She purposefully hit a high fly ball over the Republican infield while Obama was waiting to score from third. Not the best maneuver, Evita. Her husband, on night three, did a suitable follow-up, but was more specific and pointed. Shame he was jabbing his own candidate. Biden's speech, I'll admit, didn't capture my attention. I did not watch all of it.

(Psst - that's why no one cared when he was chosen, and the polls remain unchanged.)

***

Michelle Obama gave a very nice, polished speech Monday night to an agreeable audience. There was nothing new here, no invective against McCain or lavish praise for Hillary (just a throwaway "18 million cracks" line). Pundits predicted she'd attempt to humanize Obama's image, bring the "father" and "husband" out from storage. It worked, mostly. I can't think of a time in the speech where I rolled my eyes or thought she was mugging for the camera with a sappy story. Sure, the car ride home with one of their infant daughters, Barack looking over the seats to see his new family every five seconds, was a cute story, but it didn't degenerate into a Hallmark card.

The rest of the substance, well, some people have picked apart a few of her claims about her husband, that she inflated his record, but that happens. He might've fought for a veterans' bill, but it didn't make it out of the (Democrat-controlled) committee. Stuff like that (Biden did that two nights later).

The worst complaint I have for her is that it was too slickly delivered. Her hand movements were her husbands, as was her cadence. Certainly she has watched him speak on the campaign trail from Day 1 (in IL), and in doing so, picked up some mannerisms. As someone who looks at those things when a person speaks (and who wildly gesticulates himself), I found it distracting at times. But that's a minor quibble.

***

Oh, but Hillary...she screwed the pooch.

From the stock speech to the you-can't-ignore-me orange power suit, she was a woman aflame, but not for Obama. She mentioned him a number of times, but didn't. You can take her speech and replace "Barack Obama" or "Senator Obama" with any Democratic contender. It was more a valedictory of her campaign, a promise she isn't done, than a ringing endorsement of Obama. Granted, we never thought it would be. And it's not like she said, "Yay, go brown man or...whatever."

It's clear she is positioning herself as the next Ted Kennedy, senior statesman (D) in Congress. If Obama fails in November, Hillary is suddenly there for "I told you so's" until the last piece of confetti falls on McCain's shoulders. 2012 could be her year. Or not. She might fade after this into the Senate. Did we see her swan song speech? If so, for her, it was terrific. It was a speech for her. Obama was a side note.

***

Throughout this week at the convention, McCain hasn't had an easy time. Night one avoided truly harsh criticism, since it was Michelle's night, and she was about humanity, not vicious attack. But night two, three and culminating in Obama's thunderous oratory: McCain must feel like swiss cheese.

Virtually every major speaker ripped into him a sentence after praising his 1) congressional service or 2) military service. They also tied him firmly to the Bush Administration (the "foreign policy of Bush/McCain," Obama said), a challenge since it became clear McCain was the frontrunner. Democrats need a clear target, and McCain is nebulous at best due to his cross-aisle appeal in all previous election years. Bush and Cheney are as crisp as a fresh dollar, sharp targets easy to locate and define as opposite to everything the Dems believe in. Lassoing McCain to one or both drags him into the mire of eight contentious political years.

Despite Gore, Clinton (Bill), Pelosi, Richardson, Biden, Durbin, etc. expending their righteous indignation at the very person of John McCain, it is Obama's speech that will echo in the papers and blogs and running cable commentary. He reached out and patted him on the back, briefly, and then gut-punched him the next second.

That's ok, that's a convention speech. No one will claim he was too harsh, but he was harsh. We haven't heard an Obama this...vitriolic at any point in the whole campaign (which he's been running for 12 years. Woah!). Every failure, from Iraq to dependence on foreign oil to high corporate profits and huge tax burdens on the middle class were framed in the context of McCain's career. As an aside, Biden's been there longer and through rougher seas.

But ignore every other serving Congressman - it's about McCain, his voting for the Iraq war, desire to lower taxes for oil companies (only them, it seems, though lowering the corporate tax rate does impact, oh, toy, food, diaper, rocking chair, baseball-mitt-making, apple pie-tin forging, American-flag stiching corporations, too. But that's poor copy for an attack, to paraphrase Glen Beck), refusal to make the same outlandish alternative energy commitment. That's John McCain, who care's, but doesn't get it, doesn't know America.

That's the rare form Obama found himself in. The balance of the speech we heard after every primary, on every stumping ground from mess halls to union halls, hospitals, schools, fields, factories and impromptu platforms. Change is needed, we are change, they are the past, and that's the core of it all. As oratory, McCain cannot match it. CANNOT. Obama has a gift few have outside of a really good church - the ability to reach into the soul of the listener and tickle the outrage at injustice, the guilt at our misdeeds, the hope tamped down by cynicism, the love for a better tomorrow.

And there, dear readers, is Obama's true gift: communication. He might not say anything different, just in a different order, might inflate and deflate records depending on purpose, but it all emerges from his mouth like auditory gold.

Bush III, Bush/McCain, eight years is enough, we don't need a third term: that repeated message will start showing in the polls. It's the real story, the link that was successfully forged over four days and thousands of words of politicking and posturing.

McCain is, to borrow from the vernacular, boned.

***

I will say, I haven't seen this much pomp and pageantry surrounding a convention in over forty years. The indoor arena was typical, and not very exciting. The mock White House/Greek temple stage borrowed from a Cecil B. DeMille set? Astounding. Risking weather and attendance (don't want empty seats on TV), they pulled off a stellar last day that the Republicans will not beat.

***
Friday morning, McCain announces his VP pick. Pawlenty of Minnesota? Romney? Kay Bailey Hutchison?! Who knows, maybe he convinced Colin Powell, about the only person he could add to his ticket that would make it invincible...outside of Hillary or Barack.

The Republican Convention starts Monday. Eyes open, people.

***

That's all tonight. I'm tired. The convention was both grueling and over quickly, probably because I didn't have the exposure this year that I did the last two presidential elections. We'll see how the RNC does it.

-Hooper

News Brief Joe Biden is Obama's VP

2008-08-22T22:32:00.000-05:00

**Updated with Bio**

Joe Biden is Obama's Vice-Presidential candidate.

He accepted when offered earlier this week and will appear today on the campaign trail with the junior Senator from IL.

Biden brings with him many characteristics Obama does not have, but people want him to have: a long tenure in US politics, foreign policy experience, the "measure of years" (he's 65), he's Catholic and he's a white guy (what? who said- no, that wasn't important!).

Much more after the jump.

Senator Joe Biden of Delaware is a safe choice for Obama. As stated, he brings to the table a few key traits that many in the Republican and Democratic Parties have said are missing from (D) ticket. But we'll get into that soon. First, a little background.

Born in Pennsylvania (Scranton, actually), Biden comes from a strong Irish Catholic background, linking two key constituencies to Obama right there: Pennsylvanians (blue collar workers) and Catholics (see "Pennsylvanians"). When he was 10, Biden moved with his family to Delaware, where he has essentially resided ever since. Married twice (his first wife, Neilia, died in a 1973 car accident that also took their baby daughter and injured their two sons), there are no major skeletons in his closet related to his family. Aside from his two sons by Neila, he has a daughter by his second wife, Jill (married in 1977).

Biden's political career began in 1970, when he was elected to the New Castle County Council. At the time, he was a practicing lawyer, and not yet out of his twenties. (Note: I can't find other employment info aside from "lawyer," "councilman" and "Senator.") In 1972, in a tough race against a strong Republican incumbent, Biden won his first term as Delaware's junior Senator...at the ripe age of 29. He's served since and is one of the longest-serving Senators currently in Congress.

While a Senator, Biden has been responsible for two major pieces of crime legislation, the Biden Crime Law and Bill (pending) and the Violence Against Women Act (that's a terrible name...). Aside from that, he's worked on the Judiciary, Narcotics Control and Foreign Relations Committees. On the last, he has served since 2007 as Chairman, a post that has given him broad exposure to national (and international) media, garnering respect and name recognition. He was a major voice for military intervention in the Balkans during Bill Clinton's presidency, and some consider him largely responsible for swaying Clinton's policy that way.

Politically, he is a Democrat. There aren't many things about him that will upset the standard (D), from his support of withdrawal of Iraq (he favors federalization within the country; good in theory, but how to execute?), universal health care, no parental notification in cases of underage abortions, unionization, etc. He has broken philosophical ranks a few times, with his support of much of the Patriot Act, intervention in Iraq (just differed on strategy), immigration (he'll build the fence himself!) and a ban on partial-birth abortions.

What makes him the "safe choice" has a lot to do with really three issues: experience, foreign policy and race.

As I've said, he is the Foreign Relations Committee Chair, as has been a key voice in the ongoing discussion of the Iraq question. Before Bush's presidency, he was right there in the thick of it with the Balkans. His eye does tend across the water to trouble abroad, be it in Darfur (military intervention), Iran (diplomacy + sanctions), Cuba (democratization), Israel (two-state policy) or North Korea. And he can back all his talk up with hard experience earned in the trenches of the Senate since the Nixon era.

Great bridge to the next point: experience! Being in the Senate since 1973, he's seen seven Presidents in office, power flip back and forth across the aisle, the end of the Vietnam war, the fall of the Soviet Union and the whole ugly run-up to ousting Saddam in 2003. In between, he's done much regarding domestic policy and has built a solid reputation. It's this sort of (sigh) gravitas (I hate that word!) that Obama desires/needs to bring legitimacy to his campaign with non-youth voters. Worry lines and white hair - the sign of the aged thinker.

WHITE! He is white. And Catholic. Not a she. Wish as we might that the "Campaign for Change" who present a ticket without an old white guy, alas, not this time. No estrogen, no fiery latin temper (or rolly-polly even-keeled disposition; I'm looking at you, Bill Richardson) or at least youth to match youth. And older white guy satisfies the Clintonians desiring a fella who understands "blue collar" doesn't precede "Oxford dress shirt."

Will Obama get a bump from this announcement? It's good for five points over the weekend, settling to three until Obama's speech. The average guy doesn't know or care about Joe Biden, except if they live in Delaware (and even then...). He was in and out of the 2008 primary race before it really started, had an abortive attempt in 2004 and a major go in 1988 before lagging behind and being accused of plagiarism.

I stand by Bayh or Clinton being better, more electable choices, but that isn't to say Biden can't help Obama win it. Certainly, he shores up the experience dam, and that might just do the trick.

-Hooper

See Wikipedia's Biden bio & Political Positions pages, as well as Biden's homepage, for more info.

Is Verbal Kint Obama's VP?!

2008-08-22T15:52:00.000-05:00

Notes...Pt 2; Obama's VP (oh, and that other guy's); McCain is not Dole; Etc.

To finish the recap of things that happened since last we met at the beginning of the summer, we must look to the TV.

Most states have begun getting commercials for either McCain or Obama (or both, in some places). Of these, the most famous McCain commercial was a satirical jab at Obama's celebrity, equating it to the vapidity of Paris Hilton and her ilk. While there is a certain humor in pointing out that a candidate for president has the media presence of a movie star, not all saw it as that humorous, Paris included. Obama fired back with a jokey response about how McCain should tell us what is great about him, instead of what is bad about Obama. It was all forgotten a week later.

News cycles move faster this election year than any previous. What is major news one week is overcome by some other brush fire the next. Why focus on Obama's far more important trip to Europe and the Middle East when you have a commercial (and a humor-tinged one at that) to discuss? Thank you, media.

Then again, moving focus from the trip to commercial artfully dodges questions about Obama's conduct overseas. Look, I even talked about it second!

***

So Obama left the country for a while and visited foreigners. He talked with heads of state, citizens of other countries, generals, tribal leaders, the foreign press. Two items caught real attention: the Berlin speech and the Iraqi tribal leaders meeting.

The former saw him performing for a packed audience before the Victory Column, trying to capture the same feeling as JFK or Ronald Reagan when they gave their big speeches ("Ich bin ein Berliner." "Tear down this wall!"). While his German audience reacted very positively, the analysis stateside of the speech wasn't as high. Simply put, we've heard this stump speech at most campaign rallies and post-primary celebrations. Nothing new for us, per se, but if the election were held tomorrow, and in Germany, Obama would win.

And that has a lot to do with Obama's multinational appeal and approach. He has stated he wants to sit down with everyone of importance (and in some cases, infamy) to discuss how we all move forward as one people, one world. Bring the US back to the international table again. Kerry tried this four years ago, to less-than-stellar returns. The result - a stunning electoral and popular vote loss - means that US citizens want to be the focus of the campaign, not Europeans.

In Iraq, Obama got to see first hand the progress the military and Iraq was making in securing and rebuilding a country that suffered under a totalitarian regime for decades, as well as three major wars (Iran/Iraq; Persian Gulf; Iraq War '03). It's no secret Obama has been preaching withdrawal since day 1, but when faced with tribal leaders who requested - pleaded? - for the US to keep a military presence in the country, what did he do?

While he did say he wanted withdrawal, preferably the 16-month plan, his language had softened to a lingering American presence and to when this all would be pushed through. Perhaps that also had to do with Gen. Petraeus urging Obama to rethink his withdrawal policy, since it operationally tied his hands by binding him to a timetable. Positioning his position as more stately a "drawdown" of troops, as opposed to rasher timetables earlier desired (everything gone by spring 08 and damn the surge!), helps him with those who supported the war and said the surge would work.

"I believe that the situation in Iraq is more secure than it was a year and a half ago," Obama said. "I think that the definition of success depends on how you look at it." No doubt he judges it a smaller failure than the invasion, since the security level should've been where it is today several years ago. No argument on that last bit (though I think the surge has been a great success, following the Powell doctrine more than Rumsfeld's).

Still, the overall effect of the trip was to solidify in foreigners' minds that Obama is thinking of them as much as US citizens, and would continue to do so if President. The end of "cowboy diplomacy."

***

Who vill vin da veepstakes? Obama knows, but he isn't telling.

Did you know Evan Bayh (Sen. IN, D) was for the Iraq War? He appeared with Bush in 2002 in support of action in Iraq. That's one way to win over hawks. Add to that his appeal in a Republican state, and I think you're looking at the next VP.

Biden says he isn't the guy (code maybe, hinting at a woman?), but Vegas odds still places him at the top of the heap. The other big names (Clinton, Sebelius, Kaine, Webb, Hagel) have been quiet about this topic.

And rightly so. Edwards' nod as Kerry's VP was leaked and deflated the announcement. "Who is Obama's VP?" is a loaded question: who will our next VP be, the media asks, who will stand by President Obama, be the shoulder to lean on, the adviser, attack dog, etc?

You see, Obama is slated to win by most calculations, so it's very important to know who'll be filling the position Dick Cheney made far more powerful over the last eight years. Few VPs really rise above the perception of being the President's right-hand lackey, and none other in the post-war era have been as dynamic, controversial and influential as Cheney. Can the next VP measure up to his stellar (regardless of politics, the man is smart, and his execution of the position of Vice-President well-crafted) example of what the office can do?

***

McCain has stated he'll announce his VP on Aug. 29. I'll bring you more on his choices after we know Obama's. McCain has to match the energy Obama's announcement will make. Who to choose? The strong rumor is Romney right now. Inside sources say McCain selected him, but hasn't offered.

***

So Georgia (again, breakaway Soviet Republic). Still bitter over there, Russia hasn't left, is most likely violating the cease fire, has Georgian prisoners. Now they are threatening retaliation "beyond diplomacy" for the missile shield defense system the US is partly building in Poland. Not the point. Joe Biden wants to give Georgians one...billion dollars(!!) for reconstruction...and Obama agrees.

Talk amongst yourselves whether this is a good idea in "tough" economic times. Hm.

***

Poll aplenty! Look who's ahead....

John McCain, according to recent polls, has shrunk Obama's lead to a statistical tie. Historically, Bush did this to Kerry four years ago at the same time (Swift Boat ads) and Kerry never regained the momentum. Obamamentum is a different beast, however, and after a good VP announcement and convention, he'll add 4-7 points, bringing him to a comfortable lead. I bet he crosses 50% after his acceptance speech.

Here are some numbers, compiled by the good people at RealClearPolitics.com.

Obama has led McCain by as many as 12 points since February - and he's hit that benchmark several times! But somehow, the mix of experience, savvy ads, direct message and mounting success in Iraq have slashed in half and half and half again Obama's lead. Going into the convention, I can't imagine anyone thought Obama would be ahead only by an avg. of 1.4 points.

What does this mean? McCain is not Bob Dole. That affable old codger ran against Bill Clinton in 1996 and his age overshadowed everything else in the campaign (that and the goofball VP candidate, Jack Kemp). He was also seen as just another old white man with boring old conservative politics. I'd wager none of this applies to McCain, as it stands.

With his military experience, "maverick" tendencies within the Republican party (he crossed the aisle...at least twice!) and "straight talk" personality, coupled with a pointed ad campaign that targets the the lingering doubts people have about Obama (raise taxes? no foreign policy exposure...ever? universal health care paid for HOW?!), the AZ Senator presents a renewed candidacy with numbers not seen for months.

The "old white man" tag that Dole struggled and failed under isn't as applicable to McCain who, despite some rotary cuff issues, is spry for a septuagenarian and healthy as an ox. There's no really getting around the white part, unless he takes a page from Robert Downey, Jr.'s book (GO SEE TROPIC THUNDER! It's amazing!), but he can position himself as not defined by his caucasian-ness. Were he to appear with lots of brown people, that would help more.

He knows Bobby Jindal....

***

Next time on...The Political Hoedown:

Item! Red State/Blue State/...White State?

Item! Rick Warren vets faith, morality, sound bites.

Item! So [NAME] is Obama's VP! WOW! I'd never have guessed it. What does this mean, oh political seer?

Item! Conventions are upon us. Will Hillary's stormtrooperettes bring the hurt down on Obama? Or does "party unity" mean more than smiling while planning the other's destruction?

That's all, popsicles. Stay cool.

-Hooper

News Flash: Hillary on Dem Convention Ballot

2008-08-14T12:14:00.001-05:00

******************
IT'S NEWS, PEOPLE!
******************

UPDATE (1:30 PM):

So it's not all inter-party conflict, but rather a play for party unity.

...more after the jump.

***

Unity...or the crushing pressure of Hillary's estrogen-charged supporters?! Dun dun duuuuuunn!!!!

I kid ("j/k" for all you hipsters out there [j/k fayhot]).

There is probably some truth to the theory that Obama's and Clinton's camps came together on this to avoid some sort of 1968 replay, but with middle-aged women replacing war protesters and nervous DNC officials stepping in for baton-happy cops ("Dammit, we like Roe v Wade, you shrill harpies!").

A little more info has come out, and it looks less sinister, but still waters blah blah blah. There will be a "unity" claim in the press releases later, that both sides came at this together in honor of her spirited campaign, so let's hold hands and wish her well and give her the cheers she deserves...but only a few delegate votes on the floor.

Symbolic for women (You've come a long way, baby!), it would've been less demeaning if they'd not done this together and let the DNC keep her name on quietly, hear the roll and the delegates she won, and then let her gracefully concede for real as Obama gets the thunderous majority. But that's not the deal worked out, and the full story of how it came into being won't be known until after election day.

There can be respect in politics without telegraphing it to the media first so they know you respect the other because you're the Bigger Man and for changing the cynicism rampant today etc.

If word sneaks in about any behind-the-scenes tomfoolery, you'll be the first to know (after freakin' ABC's blog scoops me again at Drudge, the hookers...). I'll fold more about this into the second part of my "Notes from the Wilderness."

-Hooper

***

First post:

The latest just in, and this hasn't hit the main airwaves yet, but Hillary Clinton will be on the ballot for President at the Democratic Ballot. She has not taken her name off, in other words.

Guerrilla campaign to get her on the ticket?

This may not seem like breaking news, as many thought it'd still happen, but it could mean a lot to the Democratic Party and the election in the Fall. Check back later at the Den for a little analysis. But I thought you'd like to know.

-Hooper

Notes from vacation...

2008-08-12T14:25:00.000-05:00

Stuff, Gas, VPs: Recap Part 1

In this wild time between primaries and conventions, anything goes, from kooky ads that mean next to nothing, to the ideals that are supposed to build a big tent. A lot has happened since we last met at the Hoedown, but very little matters.

Let's recap.

***

The biggest draw on our wallets seems to be gas, and we've been in a tizzy over high prices at the pump. Well, so have the politicians. But out of all the huffing, the biggest proposal to gain any real traction is drilling in the Gulf of Mexico (or in any place where the US is said to have untapped oil reserves). Both candidates have been again it in the past, to a degree, but in light of the gas-price crisis, and the exposure to foreign oil markets, McCain came out first - and strong - in favor of drilling wherever we can.

Obama, at first against offshore drilling, came out in limited support in the beginning of August.

What does it mean? Both candidates have altered their stance to some more politically realistic and popular. It doesn't matter. Energy policy is so deeply mired in controversy, back-stabbing and posturing that it's highly unlikely anything said in the run-up to the next president's term will resemble the final legislation. McCain wants four dozen new nuclear plants; Obama wants massive changes to fuel efficiency in cars over the course of the next 22 years (forced on the automakers). Is either plausible...really?

(This writer is a proponent of nuclear power, and wonders how the Democrats and those to the left of them can decry such a source of energy when Morally Superior Socialist France bolsters their country with the power of the atom.)

***

So we have our number 1s. Who're the number 2s?

For Obama:

We know it won't be John "Oh yeah, I hit that" Edwards, with his admittance to an extra-marital affair (while his wife was sick with cancer), now faces a potential federal probe into his campaign finances, as allegations have popped up of $3-5 million in payoff money to the babymama (and another potential babydaddy candidate...talk about covering your bases). Even if he doesn't go through a lengthy court process, his political career is dead. He'll have to endure jokes like, "Does John Edwards' "two Americas" refers to one for each of his women?"

Let's look at five (D) choices.

Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, a Republican state despite its proximity to and worship of Chicago, is seen as one of the top candidates for Obama's VP slot. Bayh is a two-term Senator, and he's been present for the historic GW Bush presidency, getting to cast votes for all major legislation and nominations (against Rice, Ashcroft, Roberts, Alito), but he also was in favor of Bush's Iraq policy. He's got a lot going for him - red state, clean record, former governor...white male. That's right; Obama's VP will be a white male, because he's black and that can scare people. A white woman wouldn't cut it at this point (unless it's Hillary and let's face it, she's more man than he is), because they need strength, courage, external gonads - things the media tells us to associate with men (granted, the last is a default).

(In a perfect world, we could branch out beyond white males to run with Obama, the candidate of "change," but alas, you gotta get the votes.)

Fmr. Sen. Sam Nunn (of GA), along with the same general characteristics as Bayh, also brings to the table foreign policy and national defense knowledge. AND he's working as CEO of an anti-WMD group, the Nuclear Threat Initiative. The guy has a great reputation, some degree of name recognition and since he has no political office to vacate, picking him means no risky, and possibly Republican, replacement. His problem? He's 70.

Jim Webb and Tim Kaine of Virginee remain in the mix, especially with recent polls there favoring McCain. Webb's firebrand personality might rub the national circuit the wrong way (but his message and stands win them back), and Kaine's background is largely in law and education (though he can claim to be not another beltway insider). Kaine and Obama were both educated at Harvard at some point in their lives, which could lead to "elitist" attacks.

Hillary is sort of in the race. Not really maybe kinda. I can't take her off the top five because of the small matter of 18 million primary votes. That ain't chump change.

Obama will announce after the Olympics to much fanfare via text messaging and e-mail, to be followed no doubt by a joint appearance and speech. So this is technology's face, intruding into politics. For some reason, texting your VP choice seems...cheap.

For McCain:

People still like Gov. Bobby Jindal (Louisiana), but his age and short term as governor probably mean it won't be him. Another governor, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, is rumored to be on the short list, and is making the most of it. He's younger, clean-cut, and knows how to attack. On his second term as governor, he boasts a ten-year record in the Minnesota state house and a lot of hard-won legislation. While Minnesota is a blue state, that isn't as much a factor; it's unlikely Pawlenty's inclusion will turn it red due to the state's voting habits.

We also remember Gov. Charlie Crist (FL) and fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.), as they certainly are in the top five, along with those listed above. I refer you to past Hoedowns/Briefs. Who rounds out the five?

Another governor! Tom Ridge, former Governor of Pennsylvania, former Director of Homeland security and still a pro-choice activist, has been touring around PA with McCain, making speeches, shaking hands, looking like a good Number 2. There's a lot of appeal with him on the surface, and there aren't many blemishes (far-left wingers would point out he headed Homeland Security, i.e., Big Brother). The biggest is his pro-choice stance, which while brave in the Republican party, is also suicidal on a national level. Or is it?

They both need swing voters and the dissatisfied from either side. Which choice secures the votes? Who brings a state to the table that might otherwise be lost?

I'd opine that an Obama/Bayh combination would ease many blue-collar hearts and bring in Indiana, while McCain/Romney would reassure big business and let centrists know that the right-wing wasn't represented. McCain/Pawlenty is my second choice, as is Obama/Kaine.

***

There is war in Georgia. No, not the land of peaches, golf and moss-draped graveyards, but the small former Soviet country that borders Russia in the narrow band between the Black and Caspian Seas. I won't get into the conflict, as it's one we in the West probably don't understand as well as we think (though Russians are acting a bit...trigger-happy). But watch McCain and Obama as they react. Already, McCain has decried the attacks by Russia as Imperialistic and aggressive, pointing the finger at the Kremlin, while Obama started with general condemnation of conflict, and has moved to a harder stance, similar to McCain's.

Russian military activity will no doubt be a large part of the next presidential terms. Let's see who understands what.

***

What more do you want?!

Polls: it's about even. Obama has a slight lead overall, but McCain is still polling better than he should, given Obama's celebrity. The public has said they've been saturated with Obama and are tired of him, so that's a factor. Will they burnout before November? Will McCain solidify the red states gone white (neutral/battleground)?

The overall campaign will exceed $1.1 billion in cost. Is that really money well spent? How many political cronies are being made right now?

No one is talking about Iraq. Why? It's not so bad. Without any gross failure to report, the media has quietly placed articles about voting and returns to normalcy and militia laying down (some of their) weapons (even al-Sadr's men). McCain has held to his stance here, while Obama has given ground, not demanding the immediate pull-out he desired in previous statements.

Mike Gravel has finally withdrawn, lost the nomination for the Libertarian Party and currently supports Green candidate Jesse Johnson.

***

There will be a second part to this recap, as well as the promised piece on Iraq, mini candidate bios, and chicanery! Much chicanery!

-Hooper

Okay, mob. Get your torches.

2008-08-01T14:30:00.000-05:00

By now we've all heard of the outrageous case of incest and imprisonment in Austria. A man kept his daughter in a dungeon-like cellar and repeatedly raped her over the course of 24 years; he fathered seven children from her, one of which died shortly after child birth and was incinerated.

For this, you'd think he'd be imprisoned for life, or perhaps summarily executed, if found guilty. He did confess, after all. Guess how long he could get for this.

Go on, guess.

If you guessed life or death, of fifty years or thirty, you're wrong.

Try only fifteen years.

Josef Fritzl, 73, built a small dungeon out of a portion of his basement and kept his daughter trapped. He built a small bathroom and cooking station, had a bedroom/cell of sorts and an electronic lock on the door. While he was an electrician by trade, there is no way he did this all by himself.

His wife, mother of the captive Elisabeth, knew nothing of what was going on. She was told to stay out of the basement past that 350kg steel door - the whole family was. And so for twenty four years he had a secret. The neighbors knew nothing, nor did his other children, of the rape factory he kept going down there.

It's not like raping his daughter was a new hobby he picked up when she turned 18; he'd been doing it for the prior seven years. The motivations for her imprisonment will surely come out, as will a more rounded story of what happened, of her daily life and the children's. Already we see that he would come down, lock the kids up to have his way with Elisabeth without them seeing it. In short, he was a tyrant over them.

But this isn't about what he did; it's about what the European courts won't do.

According to an AP article by William J. Kole, "Many Europeans abhor the death penalty, and capital punishment is illegal across the 27-nation EU...even convicted murderers handed life sentences seldom serve more than 25 years."

We in American are divided over the death penalty, whether it is right to take the life of one who has done the same, or equivalent. Some states, like Texas, practically kill their harshest criminals for sport, while other states start that way but switch to a moratorium on capital punishment, as Illinois has. Right-to-lifers aren't just anti-abortion, but anti-death penalty. The two often don't go hand in hand, of course.

In the US, were these actions to have happened here, based on the offenses we have been told of, Josef Fritzl would face involuntary manslaughter for the death of the twin, at least six counts - individual counts - of rape, conspiracy and kidnapping. If you add all that up, just the rape, he could face a minimum of sixty years and that's lenient. The stated punishment would probably be over a hundred. The maximum I can hammer out would see him in jail past our tricentenniel, and well onto the quad.

I find it beyond the pale that such a monster could see freedom while he still lives. If ever there was a cause for at least life imprisonment, it's this. Keep this sort of predator away from the general population, separated from "decent society" by layers of iron bars and concrete.

But of course, my personal opinion would not be three hots-and-a-cot until old age took Fritzl. I am a proponent of the death penalty. In my mind, there are some violent offenders so heinous that we need to risk our own immortal souls to see them swept from this earth. Some take a war analogy, the war on crime, and in war there are casualties on both sides. Is it time to take the fight to the enemy? I don't see it that way. Not every violent offender is irredeemable. Our prisons are there for rehabilitation as well as incarceration.

To limit our recourse to the very worst offenses, though, puts society at risk. The death penalty isn't administered in every quarter like it is in Texas, where people joke about an execution a week. Balanced against the potential crime the death row convicts could commit should, as some future date, their sentence be commuted or the havoc wrought on the inside against the "redeemable," Texas has decided to mete out a harsh justice. Unfair to some, medieval and backwards, there nevertheless is message sent that they will not tolerate the degenerate, violent members of society. Not every state operates like the Lone Star state, but 3 of50, plus the Federal Government, exercise the right to execute a prisoner for a capital offense (listed as murder, treason, espionage). Perhaps it is this culture that shapes my views....

For the greater good of our fellow citizens, their safety and ability to pursue boundless freedoms, I find it the solemn duty of the criminal justice system to mete out lethal justice to those who have crossed the line, who cannot and will not let themselves feel remorse. In the cold heart of Josef Fritzl, what regret is there but for the loss of his incestuous lair? If he cared, he would never have started down that road. If he felt guilt for his actions, shouldn't he have let the imprisoned children loose and submitted himself to the will of the courts at a far earlier time - the death of one of them - or when he realized he was keeping people as caged animals?

Nearly a quarter of a century - twenty-four years - have elapsed between when his daughter Elisabeth became a captive and when she found freedom, all the while suffering the most inhuman, abasing treatment at the hands of the man who helped bring her into this world.

There is no earthly justice that can redress the wrongs done to her, but I hope the Austrian courts do their best to try.

-Hooper

Concede this!

2008-06-12T13:33:00.000-05:00

I get the phone calls, I read the e-mails and see the candlelight vigils. I know you want more Political Hoedown. Give me time, I just need…a little more time.

But until then, something to hold you over.

***

After Barack Obama became the presumptive nominee, the eyes of the punditry world turned to Hillary's next actions. Would she press on, drag her heels or concede quickly? None of those, of course!

Her speech last Saturday was considered one of her best ever, yet it was the underlying spine of defiance that marks it of interest to me. She underscores her achievements as a woman making history, while shuffling his race into a glorified footnote. Her applause lines for Barack were squeezed into a speech celebrating her and the campaign and showed a subtle disrespect for the man. Bill got a raucous applause as the only Democrat to be elected twice to the Presidency since Truman, and women everywhere had their hearts warmed (or inflamed) by the solid rhetoric talking about breaking glass ceilings (to paraphrase, "we may not have broken that ultimate glass ceiling…but there are 18 million cracks in it now." "WOOO! WHOO WHOOP!! YEAAARRGH!!" [that last one was Howard Dean's twin sister]).

Anything can happen between now and the convention, as she awkwardly reminded us several weeks back. It could be he starts polling far behind or just even with McCain, while in similar polls, Hillary is ahead. If she can use that sort of data, along with her sizable pledged delegate total to win over a number of supers, she could make it through the first round of voting in Denver. Once that first round is done, the delegates are virtually up for grabs and you know her iron claws will scrape up whatever they can.

This isn't over, the concession speech that concedes nothing says; just in a holding pattern. Considering all choices, though, I think the "Master of the Senate" option plays the best for her future in politics, if not her pride.

***

Will there be a dream ticket for the Democrats?

It's tough to say what VP Barack will choose, only that we might be surprised at either his daring or by his cowardice in the face of an estrogen tidal wave. Hillary is a top choice, but one that calcifies the opposition. More rumors have been springing up about the Virginia triad, Jim Webb (senator), Mark Warner (former governor) and Tim Kaine (current governor), but each has their sticking points. Leaks from the vetting committee reveal former military officials are being considered (but that could just mean Jim Webb, who served in Vietnam). Kathleen Sebelius, two-term governor of Kansas is a chief consideration, but wouldn't that just tick off the Hillary crowd, to give it to a different woman (and - surprise! - one with actual executive experience).

I have no comment at this time, since the semi-official list is still well over a dozen names and possibly two.

***

It's national bike-to-work week, which includes walking, rollerblading, mass transit…basically not driving your car/SUV if you can avoid it. If you live three blocks from the train station, walk instead of driving two miles to a parking lot one block away from a different station…not that I did that today because I was running late. Don't judge me!

***

Hillary has disappeared these last few days, while McCain is moving more into the limelight. His call for town hall debates, a brilliant move, backs Obama into a corner. However, there are no new policy arguments, just the same old. Oil is being dredged up (not literally, since that would lower prices and nullify the issue; thank you, environmentalists), but just because it nearly hit $140/barrel earlier in the week (it's backed down some).

Were you watching McCain give his speech Tuesday last? No? Probably for the best. "That's not…[wait for the teleprompter to scroll]…change we can believe in! [creepy smile cue…now!]" Over and over we were treated to that. And you know it made him look as bad as Bob Dole falling off that stage twelve years ago.

No comment on his VP choices right now, except...

Piyush "Bobby" Jindal, Governor of Louisiana, son of Indian immigrants, Republican darling: he will not be your next Vice-Presidential candidate (R). Why? He's young, only six months into his term as governor and not to be exhausted on McCain's bid. (Because you know he'd be tainted, nationally, in a loss, and that would hurt his chances to perhaps become the first Indian president, or at least candidate, the US has had.)

His resume is golden right now; imagine it by 2012, should he win reelection. Let his experience build and exposure grow naturally.

***

There's your update. Not so brief after all.

Hit the rock, don't smoke it.

[fist bump]

-Hooper

News Brief The battle is over, but the war...

2008-06-03T21:29:00.000-05:00

Barack Obama, junior Senator from Illinois, has become the presumptive Democratic nominee for the Presidency, pending validation at the Democratic National Convention this August in Denver.

He becomes the first black in America to make it out of the slate of primary candidates and ascend to the top of any national party's ticket in our nation's history. Support his ideas or not, that's one hell of a gold star next to his name.

Matt Saniie, congrats on a race well fought and won.

For more information, go here for the main story, here for some reaction, and through this magic door for Clinton's side.

Hillary Clinton, Senator from New York, has not conceded, but says she needs several days to work on her next step. I doubt highly it will end with her storming the convention.

McCain has his say also, but he's still being a lot quieter now than he will be.

More on this later in the week, and then we'll take a break from politicking to write some bios on the two nominees, John McCain (R) and Barack Obama (D).

-Hooper

Tonight, Tonight/Won't Be Just Any Night

2008-06-02T14:45:00.000-05:00

South Dakota & Montana; The Last Two Weeks; "Will, Should & Want"

My ancestral homeland and that state with the militias are voting today. South Dakota and Montana are the last two Democratic primary states, and their results will either force the issue of withdrawal on Clinton or bolster a claim of resurgance and popular vote victory. Montana will break for Obama, as the mountain/west states generally have, and South Dakota...that's a trickier proposition.

Looking at the state (I just spent the last week there), it has a breakdown of largely white, middle-class families with the agro-influence you'd expect from a high plains state. There are also a smattering of minorities, but their role won't be as big here. And though the very west of the state is mountainous, I don't see it following the trend of the other mountain states. All things considered, Obama will probably win there. I didn't see much of a Barack presence (there were more Hillary signs and commercials), and he did flub up a little at a recent rally in Sioux Falls, SD ("Hello Sioux City!" ...followed by confused clapping and silence, when it was obvious he'd not realized his mistake). But there's momentum to consider and the states around and how they broke. SD blue-collar workers, or their equivalent on the farm, aren't the same as steel mill workers.

It won't be a big delegate loss or gap for her tonight, but will further highlight her diminishing cause.

***

So I've been working or out of town for the last two weeks, and unable to keep your all informed. Here's a brief rundown of the major news, relating to the election.

*Oregon goes to Obama, Kentucky to Clinton. Both were no-brainers, but Clinton's win in Kentucky was a repeat of her smash vicotry in West Virginia, and resulted in some intersting exit polling. Basically, Obama doesn't have a lot of friends here. So Hillary wins again by a landslide in a state Obama didn't even compete in but matters in the fall, while Obama wins in a state that the Democrats have little chance of losing in the fall. At the end of the nigh, he is left less than 80 delegates short of the nomination and she remains latched onto this race like a Doberman on your crotch.

*Obama's rapport with white, blue-collar workers is officially nonexistant and in related obviousness, freezing water makes ice cubes.

*Obama quits Trinity United Church, citing personal reasons (it would be a distraction in the campaign, and he wants a church where he can sit in the pew and /not/ be singled out).

*The DNC rules committee rules on Michigan and Florida, letting them all sit, but saying their delegates get half votes. Hillary nets over 30 pledged delegates, but Obama's lead stays above 170 (which is still only a few percentage points when you think about it, hardly indicative of a mandate). Clinton loyalists scream, Obamians grimace, but no one dies. The world still turns, and Clinton...you guessed it...is still here, and now claims the popular vote is hers!

*Puerto Rico goes 2:1 for Hillary, but the turnout was weak (380k). We must admit, there were no major ballot initiatives to get people out, and on the major issues to Puerto Ricans, Obama and Hillary more/less agree. A win for the lady in pink!

*Reports come in early June 3 that Hillary will concede, only to be refuted by campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe. Are there some moles within the Clinton staff? Rumor has it (strong, strong rumor) that Clinton's advanced team has been shut down; they are the ones setting up speeches and activities. While they would have a slower go of it without primaries, advanced teams help to lay the foundation for the general election. Many volunteer staffers have already been told June 15th is the last day. Does this mean the Clinton campaign machine is being >>dismantled<< or retooled?

*Obama's camp - backed up by an AP story - claim victory in delegate totals, claiming there are enough Superdelegates coming out today, tonight and tomorrow to clinch the nomination.

*Hillary is still latched onto your crotch and a Doberman is in the race, or something. Long/short, she's still here until at least tonight.

***

What Will Be: Hillary loses Montana, ekes out a victory (or small small small defeat) in South Dakota, gets a financial, campaign funds - but no political - concession from Obama and becomes a leading Dem in the Senate.

What Should Be: Obama wins Montana, Hillary wins South Dakota. She uses her clout and, frankly, massive national support to arm wrestle money from Obama as well as one of the following: VP slot, Secretary of State, Senate Majority Leader or Supreme Court justice (should the need arise). The last two will probably be in conjunction, former until the latter. Her importance is too great to simply throw away for nebulous "change," the argument for the above goes, and she needs to be rewarded somehow and in a major way. The Senate is a good runner-up prize to the presidency, as is Sec of State. And to be a justice! C'mon!

What I Want: Hillary bullies on to the convention, satisfied in the notion that she has 47%+ of the delegates, closer to 50% of the popular vote and a drive following. She shouldn't go quietly into that so-on-and-etc. I want to see a convention that matters, with her making a case like the lawyer she is why she deserves the prize. Superdelegates can still change sides and Obama isn't the golden god of politics. I can see a march in the streets, her supporters hammering on the convention hall doors like Hannibal at the gates of Rome.

***

We'll chat more tomorrow.

-Hooper

Edwardian Politics

2008-05-15T14:40:00.000-05:00

All right, John Edwards has decided. After months of wrangling, he pledged his support to Barack Obama. And the world trembled!

Or so the media would have you think.

It's simple. In the early days of primary contest, a vote for Edwards was equated to one of three things:

1) A vote for change/a progressive vote, akin to Obama's "hope" mantra; a policy vote
2) A vote for John Edwards to be the President
3) A vote against Hillary Clinton, the presumptive (at the time) nominee and representative of the "old way"

The rationale behind the Obama camp's enthusiasm for Edwards' support is two-fold: he's a former VP candidate, and therefore known and (ideally) respected by the Democratic public; he's got a lot of blue-collar, "hard working" (male) whites behind him, being a southerner and, you know...white. Since Obama has had small progress to say the least among the working-class white male, Edwards can act as a missionary to shore up (build) support in that key demographic.

Because you shouldn't be fooled by Obamians who claim that their coalition will win in the fall (Youth, academia, blacks, wealthy liberals). They need Joe Schlubb from the steel mill in November just as much as McCain will. Jesse Jackson, Jr., claimed that the working white male "swing" vote could just as easily be hispanics, women, blacks or any of the other "key demographics" bandied about. The only fallacy there is that those groups have roundly chosen their candidate and aren't budging. The blue collar Joe, largely for Hillary, is still seen as up for grabs.

So will Edwards' endorsement help? Not in the least.

It's too little, too late. If he had wanted to make a difference and block Hillary, he'd have declared before Super Tuesday or stayed in, so he could act as a kingmaker of sorts (we in the punidtry are all sad he decided to bow out, hoping for a cinematic convention where Obamians and Clintonians yell at each other while the necessary delegates to win, controlled by Edwards, waited for the right moment to strike. A missed opportunity). He doesn't help Obama with white men because the majority have already voted.

Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Indiana - they already voted, and for Hillary. How many delegates did Edwards cost Obama by waiting? I'd argue enough to secure the nomination before May 2008.

Long/short of this is don't pay attention to Edwards. He's barely a politician and his meager 22 delegates won before dropping out prove that.

-Hooper