A Plague On Both Your Houses

Change We Can Believe In

Obama has choices.  He can choose to ignore the pressure from the left, from the Old Line of the Democratic party, and choose change or he can be a Democrat first and for bi-partisanship, creativity and the nation second.  He would be a fool to choose the latter.  From a pure strategic standpoint (forget the merits) doing what the base of the democratic party wants initially (later will be different) is the absolute wrong move.  He should resist and be seen to prevail to solidify his power and leadership.  The perfect place to do this is Bob Gates.  He is widely respected.  He is part of the existing administration.  He is not a registered Republican.  He is a professional.  He makes sense and would owe Obama.  The democratic left doesn’t like him.  That is a plus, not a minus.  He represents change, not straightforward change (that is easy).  He represents a change from the old way of thinking along partisan lines to a new way of thinking practically and creatively what is best for the country.  I also think Richardson and Somers represent no-change run-of-the-mill uncreative ideas for cabinet posts.  RFK (environment), Powell (education?) and the New York Fed President (treasury) represent more out of the box, interesting, change picks.  Caroline Kennedy is also an interesting idea for the UN.

 

Tags: politics, obama, transition, administration, democrats

Ben Smith's Blog: Reacting to Rahm - Politico.com

Reacting to Rahm

The Republican message is that he's a hyper-partisan pick.

"Barack Obama's first decision as President-elect undermines his promise to 'heal the divides.' Rahm Emanuel is a partisan insider who played a lead role in breaking Washington," said RNC spokesman Alex Conant, and John Boehner called the choice "ironic."

But it's a little more subtle than that. Emanuel likes to win, but he doesn't hail from the left of his party, and he's been successful in part by working with Republicans.

Lindsey Graham puts out a statement stepping on the GOP message:

This is a wise choice by President-elect Obama.

"Rahm knows Capitol Hill and has great political skills. He can be a tough partisan but also understands the need to work together. He is well-suited for the position of White House Chief of Staff.

"I worked closely with him during the presidential debate negotiations which were completed in record time. When we hit a rough spot, he always looked for a path forward. I consider Rahm to be a friend and colleague. He's tough but fair. Honest, direct, and candid. These qualities will serve President-elect Obama well.

"Rahm understands the challenges facing our nation and will, consistent with the agenda set by President-elect Obama, work to find common ground where it exists. I look forward to working with him in his new position and will continue to do everything I can to help find a pathway forward on the difficult problems facing our nation."

Ben Smith's Blog: Reacting to Rahm - Politico.com.

 

This got me thinking about the election and what it means.  The rift that is forming in the Republican party, and the disappointment that may come from left wing democrats (although its too early for that), tells a lot about the politics of division that has ruled political discourse for the last decade at least.

Extremists beware.  Vitriol is no longer in vogue.  Inability and unwillingness to compromise are passe. Its time for everyone to realize that the center is going to have its day.  Obama has realized upon the desires of the middle for inspiration, intelligence and hope.  The politics of the extremes rely upon and thrive only upon the apathy of the middle.  Those who believe in moderation and compromise must be apathetic for the extreme right or left to rule and even to be powerful in their own party.  This was the meaning of Obama’s victory and the failure of McCain’s strategy.  The old rules dictate that the electorate is apathetic in the middle and active at the extremes.  Obama gained a majority and a landslide electoral college by capturing and revitalizing the middle.  Lindsay Graham and probably John McCain realize this.  The conservatism and combativeness of Boehner and Conant will probably not prosper in this environment.

Tags: politics, transition, republicans, democrats, congress, white+house, obama

Palin and Her Followers Frighten Me

The same people who make fun of those who treat Obama like a rock star who can do no wrong treat Sarah Palin in exactly the same manner.  She walks on water.  Nothing she says or does is bad. 

The reaction to her violation of Alaska’s ethics laws is a case in point.  Had Bill Clinton violated and ethics law no matter how obscure or parsed words about it there would be impeachment proceedings.  Ooops, he did and there were.  Yet the reaction of the same people who supported impeachment of Clinton say about Palin and her husband “I would have done the same,” or “She didn’t do anything,” or some other excuse.  And what does Palin do? According to MSNBC:

“After the results of the investigation were released, Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, was asked by a reporter if she abused her power as governor. She replied, "No, and if you read the report you'll see that there was nothing unlawful or unethical about replacing a cabinet member. You gotta read the report, sir.”

Uh, Governor, technically what you say is true, but if somebody really reads the report as you suggest they will find “Finding Number One” on page 8 which says “I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.” I think that says that you abused your power, if I read correctly.

This kind of parsing of words is disingenuous in the extreme.  It is also either arrogant or stupid to suggest someone read the report knowing they will find Finding Number One.  It is hard to believe that John McCain can be trusted with anything if he is suggesting that we should trust Sarah Palin. 

Someone who abuses her power by using it to further her personal ends in the context of her sister’s nasty divorce, and sees nothing wrong with it, frightens me.  Its like the Mafia, don’t cross a family member, your livelihood and your reputation could be in danger.  But then, this is what frightened me about the Bush/Cheney Texas Mafia, so I guess I’m just a weenie.

Tags: Politics, Palin, McCain, ethics, Alaska, Obama, campaign

What Palin did is Serious

Her transgression may sound trivial and Palin’s denials certainly parse words, but abuse of power is never trivial.

She says that the report did not show that she violated the ethics rules by firing the Public Safety Commissioner.  That is true.  She goes on to say that she looks forward to working with the Personnel Board.  What she fails to say is why she has to work with the board.  She doesn’t tell you that because if she did she would have to admit that the report finds that she violated Alaskan law.  Specifically the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.

Her supporters will no doubt attempt to trivialize this.  It is abuse of power and it is serious.  Why? Because she and others used her power as Governor and her position as Governor for a personal vendetta (whether Wooten deserved it is truly irrelevant).  What if she were VP and used the power she has to have the IRS audit Wooten or have the Secret Service or FBI investigate him. Would we condone that?  I hope not because that is a very dangerous precedent to set.  That is corruption. Condoning that condones other personal abuses for personal gain.  Maybe she gets mad at somebody and sicks the IRS on them.  Maybe all of a sudden she doesn’t like how Tina Fey portrays her so she has the IRS Audit her every year and the FBI investigates her and she has someone trump up accusations against her.  Can you say Joe McCarthy? 

We might change the “sir” to “madam” and apply Welch’s famous quote  -"Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" – to Palin.

Tags: Palin, Ethics, Politics, campaign, McCarthy

What Palin Did

I can’t figure out why the mainstream media, at least so far, can’t figure out what the report issued by the legislative investigation into “troopergate” actually finds.  Page 8 of the report is very clear:

1. She violated Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.  Presumably she did so because she used her office to benefit a personal interest (getting her ex brother-in-law fired)
2. Firing the Commissioner of Public Safety was proper and lawful.
3. Wooten (the brother-in-law) got his proper workers compensation benefits.
4. The Attorney General’s office failed to comply with requests for Palin e-mails.

If you’ve seen the interviews, Wooten seems to have a screw loose and may well have deserved to be fired.  That is irrelevant.

The real issue here is a failure to recognize the separation of the Governor’s office from her personal problems.  She continues to fail to recognize that it was wrong to use her office (or to allow her husband to) for personal purposes.  This is not a gray area, not really open to debate. Cronyism and corruption are exactly what she is supposed to be fighting, and it is this kind of behavior and the failure to recognize that it is wrong that leads to such cronysim and corruption. 

Tags: politics, Palin, corruption, investigation, campaign

Divisiveness, Blogging and the Campaign

Our political discourse has become too self righteous and hypocritical.  What is good for the goose is not for the gander.  We are judgemental.  We don’t think. 

Now, let me be clear, we Americans are not notorious for our intellectual discourse and thoughtfulness.  It’s not our nature or our style.  We are blunt.  We are straightforward.  But in an age of instant knowledge, instant publication and a balooning discourse, it behooves us to understand that with our rights of free publication and speech come with responsibilities.  We are utterly failing to even acknowledge, let alone fulfill these responsibilities.  We do so at our peril because those who exercise their rights unfettered by responsibility will have those rights taken from them in reaction to such profligacy.

We as Americans have a long and rich history of bitter political battles going back all the way to Adams and Jefferson.  Even by today’s standards some of the language in that race was outrageous. 

Adams’ supporters ripped Jefferson, calling him … “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father… raised wholly on hoe-cake made of coarse-ground Southern corn, bacon and hominy, with an occasional change of frecassed bullfrog.”

[Jefferson’s election] critics warned, would bring "dwellings in flames, hoary hairs bathed in blood, female chastity violated... children writhing on the pike and halberd."

 

Thus it is hard to say that any of the recent rhetoric about terrorism, untword associations, or evil intent is new.  Playing on the fears and frustrations of the populace is not new.  In an age when we have immediate and instant access to those words and they reach millions of people electronically and in print; when they are published and broadcast on the air waves, on the internet, on cell phones and in e-mails; in an age where there is no time to digest, refute or repudiate them before the next barrage and in an age where the ease with which the internet and the blogosphere can be stirred to a maelstrom in about five seconds, we really ought to be careful.  Just as it is not right to shout fire in a crowed theater, it is not right to shout terrorist to a crowd on the internet, on TV or anywhere else.  It is manipulative and dangerous.  It divides us.

I don’t know who in this campaign has been more divisive or manipulative and I don’t care.  It divides us.  It makes us less.  It demeans our writing and our speech. It demeans our campaigns.  It demeans us as humans.  Today we can not only revel in the enormous freedoms and access we have to put in our two cents, we need to step back, look at our responsibilities to those around us and try act in a manner that gives credit to the intelligent, decent, tolerant and understanding people that we aspire to be.  We have great opportunities for unity, understanding, compromise and progress.  There are those who will stand in the way of that progress and that opportunity.  You can not combat them if you emulate their behavior.

Tags: politics, blogging, discourse, division, freedom, responsiblity, campaign

The McCain - Palin Campaign Has Crossed Over to Evil

No longer can we simply dismiss the McCain campaign as “rallying the base” or “politics as usual.”  The times have changed. For the worse.  Every responsible politician, and particularly John McCain, needs to step back and say “Am I encouraging a mob?”  We are in the worst economic times perhaps in 70 years.  People are angry and in pain.  They are losing their jobs, their homes and their savings.  They are looking for people to blame.  They still fear for their safety. They are looking for ways to release their frustrations. 

John McCain and Sarah Palin, instead  of “Country First,” take the “get elected first” approach.  They associate their opposition with terrorism here and abroad.  They associate him with being “different.”  “Do you really know who he is?” the ask.  They are encouraging and exploiting the fear, the anger, the frustration and it is getting worse. 

What they are doing is evil.  That’s right – evil.  Not just wrong.  Not just bad.  Not just politics. Exploiting otherwise decent people and using their fears, pain and frustration to unleash them on others with different names or different skin colors or different religious beliefs is evil.  That’s not what American politicians do.  That’s what Adolf Hitler did.  And he did it when people were afraid and angry and losing their jobs and their life savings.

Tags: McCain, Palin, campaign, politics, Hitler

The Palins' un-American activities | Salon - Where is the outrage?

"My government is my worst enemy. I'm going to fight them with any means at hand."

This was former revolutionary terrorist Bill Ayers back in his old Weather Underground days, right? Imagine what Sarah Palin is going to do with this incendiary quote as she tears into Barack Obama this week.

Only one problem. The quote is from Joe Vogler, the raging anti-American who founded the Alaska Independence Party. Inconveniently for Palin, that's the very same secessionist party that her husband, Todd, belonged to for seven years and that she sent a shout-out to as Alaska governor earlier this year. ("Keep up the good work," Palin told AIP members. "And God bless you.")

AIP chairwoman Lynette Clark told me recently that Sarah Palin is her kind of gal. "She's Alaskan to the bone ... she sounds just like Joe Vogler."

So who are these America-haters that the Palins are pallin' around with?

Before his strange murder in 1993, party founder Vogler preached armed insurrection against the United States of America. Vogler, who always carried a Magnum with him, was fond of saying, "When the [federal] bureaucrats come after me, I suggest they wear red coats. They make better targets. In the federal government are the biggest liars in the United States, and I hate them with a passion. They think they own [Alaska]. There comes a time when people will choose to die with honor rather than live with dishonor. That time may be coming here. Our goal is ultimate independence by peaceful means under a minimal government fully responsive to the people. I hope we don't have to take human life, but if they go on tramping on our property rights, look out, we're ready to die."

This quote is from "Coming Into the Country," by John McPhee, who traipsed around Alaska's remote gold mining country with Vogler for his 1991 book. The violent-tempered secessionist vowed to McPhee that if any federal official tried to stop him from polluting Alaska's rivers with his earth-moving equipment, he would "run over him with a Cat and turn mosquitoes loose on him while he dies."

Vogler wasn't just a blowhard either. He put his secessionist ideas into action, working to build AIP membership to 20,000 -- an impressive figure by Alaska standards -- and to elect party member Walter Hickel as governor in 1990.
Vogler's greatest moment of glory was to be his 1993 appearance before the United Nations to denounce United States "tyranny" before the entire world and to demand Alaska's freedom. The Alaska secessionist had persuaded the government of Iran to sponsor his anti-American harangue. That's right ... Iran. The Islamic dictatorship. The taker of American hostages. The rogue nation that McCain and Palin have excoriated Obama for suggesting we diplomatically engage. That Iran….

Imagine the uproar if Michelle Obama was revealed to have joined a black nationalist party whose founder preached armed secession from the United States and who enlisted the government of Iran in his cause? The Obama campaign would probably not have survived such an explosive revelation. Particularly if Barack Obama himself was videotaped giving the anti-American secessionists his wholehearted support just months ago.

Where's the outrage, Sarah Palin has been asking this week, in her attacks on Obama's fuzzy ties to Ayers? The question is more appropriate when applied to her own disturbing associations.

The Palins' un-American activities | Salon.

How come we haven’t heard more about this?  How come the Obama campaign doesn’t put this out everywhere?  This is much worse than a guy who was generated by the Viet Nam war and turned himself in to the FBI.  These are people who are still out there and whom Palin, far from disavowing (as Obama has with Ayers), has openly praised and who’s party her husband joined.  You want to talk about big lies, John?  Talk about this.

Tags: Palin, Obama, McCain, terrorism, Ayers, Vogler, politics

The United States should buy Afghanistan's poppy crop instead of trying to eradicate it. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine

in the short term, hard-pressed Afghan farmers should be allowed to sell their opium to the government rather than only to the many criminal elements that continue to infest it or to the Taliban. We don't have to smoke the stuff once we have purchased it: It can be burned or thrown away or perhaps more profitably used to manufacture the painkillers of which the United States currently suffers a shortage. (As it is, we allow Turkey to cultivate opium poppy fields for precisely this purpose.) Why not give Afghanistan the contract instead? At one stroke, we help fill its coffers and empty the main war chest of our foes while altering the "hearts-and-minds" balance that has been tipping away from us. I happen to know that this option has been discussed at quite high levels in Afghanistan itself, and I leave you to guess at the sort of political constraints that prevent it from being discussed intelligently in public in the United States. But if we ever have to have the melancholy inquest on how we "lost" a country we had once liberated, this will be one of the places where the conversation will have to start.

The United States should buy Afghanistan's poppy crop instead of trying to eradicate it. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine.

Why the US has an inability to see beyond myopic and moralistic strategies in foreign policy I will never understand.  Why not buy the stuff?  It is cheaper to buy it than deal with its consequences on so many levels it strains credulity that we have rejected this strategy.  It supports the people of Afghanistan.  It takes drug supply off the open market. It denies funds and supply to our enemies.  It denies our enemies a recruiting tool.  Sometimes I wonder what the politicians in Washington are smoking.

Tags: Afghanistan, politics, strategy, war, taliban, drugs, terrorism

Whatever Happened to Moderation?

What happened to Rockefeller republicans?  What happened to people who understood economics and believed that the government shouldn’t interfere in your private life?  What happened to fiscal conservatism, a belief that both parties espouse and neither follow?  Why can I find nowhere a person who says, “You know, Obama is good on this but not on that, and McCain is good on this but not on that and in the balance I like….”  The discourse no longer even resembles rationality.  “Obama is a muslim terrorist.”  “McCain is a war mongering pawn of radical right wing wackos.” 

I wish there was a party that believed as I do.  Capitalism is good, but the markets are, in some cases, inefficient.  Health care and the environment to give examples. 

In this world, to allow financial markets the greatest efficiency, you need regulation but only enough to require that information reach the marketplace – disclosure  and transparency are the keys.  You don’t need pay limits and other foolishness that doesn’t pass the economics 101 smell test.  Sarbanes Oxley was overkill.  It layered on a bunch of costs with little incremental information getting to the marketplace.

On social issues – the government should be out of it in most cases.  As an example why should a gay couple not have the rights and obligations of a straight couple?  If the state is going to provide certain rights and obligations to couples, why does it matter if they are gay or straight?  On the other hand, just because in its infinite wisdom the government has decided to give tax breaks to churches, doesn’t mean it can dictate what they do.  It should not tell any Church that it has to “marry” a gay couple nor should it limit a tax exemption because it refuses to do so.

This polarization makes me scream.  It is unnecessary, counterproductive, mean spirited and vitriolic.  People wonder why nothing gets done.  Probably because the people trying to get things done are being shouted down by both sides who would rather nothing get done than make a compromise.  Without compromise, we would not have had this country.  We would not have had the kind of freedoms we now enjoy.  Without serious, unpleasant, compromises, the United States would not exist.  If we continue to refuse compromise, berate it and call it capitulation, we may no longer have the freedom to choose.

Tags: politics, Moderates, compromise, extremism, republicans, democrats

Debate Strategy

McCain might want to back off the attack campaign.  He looks like he has nothing to say and that its all about Obama.  Voters start to think that you have no substance if all you do is react to, and talk about, the opposition.  McCain should talk about what he will do, not what Obama will do.  McCain might want to say “You know, I’ve tried to let you know about the ways Senator Obama is going to actually hurt Americas economy with tax increases and big government, but I’ll let you judge that for yourselves.  My friends, let me tell you what I will do to help America remain the great country that it is…..”

Obama needs to attack pre-emptively.  I think he would be well served to start out the debate by saying something like “You will probably hear a lot from John about me and my policies.  John will say I voted 94 times for tax increases, a completely misleading statistic, or that I hung out with terrorists, also completely misleading.  But that’s because John doesn’t have much to say about his policies, how specifically he is going to help the working people of this country.  Well let me tell you how I am going to help the working people of this country, then we’ll both be talking about the same thing, my Presidency…..”

Tags: politics, Obama, McCain, debate, republicans, democrats

Sarah Palin - Shame on You

Well the McCain campaign is certainly starting to panic.  Its one thing to talk about bad policy or disagreements or even character flaws, youth or inexperience.  Talking about voting records is ok.  But now they are calling Obama a terrorist.  Do the words “I have in my hand a list” ring a bell?  Governor you are not Joe 6 Pack, you are trying to be Joe McCarthy and America will punish you for it. 

We are tired of the George Bush tactics of swiftboating and worse.  We are tired of Character assassination.  We are tired of a complete lack of substance.  Don’t tell us what’s wrong with the other guy, tell us why we should vote for you.

I for one will not.  Not now.  You have finally gone beyond redemption.  Anybody that reminiscent of Joe McCarthy will never have the support of Joe 6 Pack.

Tags: politics, McCain, Palin, Obama, McCarthyism, campaign

McCain knows how to win a War?

Palin said in the debate that John McCain "knows how to win a war." How? By being in the bottom of his class at West Point? By being a POW in a war we lost? Where does this knowledge come from? What does he have that Obama doesn't that gives him this knowledge?

Tags: McCain, Obama, War, politics

Explaining a Vote for the Rescue Plan

I live in the OC, a bastion of conservativism.  John Campbell is my congressman.  He is conservative and a republican.  This letter is one of the more cogent explanations of a vote for the rescue plan that I have heard.

You are one of many people who called, wrote, or e-mailed my office with questions or opinions about the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. As you probably know, the bill was passed by both houses of Congress, signed by the president, and is now law. The vote in the Senate was 74-25 and included yes votes from a wide range of the political spectrum including both Senators Obama and McCain, both California Senators, and the most conservative member of the Senate, Tom Coburn (R-OK). It then passed the House by a vote of 263-171 which included yes votes from The Speaker, Majority Leader and Minority Leader. 

 As you may also know, I voted in favor of the bill and was a strong advocate of it. I hope you will take the time to read on so I can explain why I feel so strongly about this legislation.

 First of all, if you are personally opposed to the bill it is probably because you are against a $700 billion bail out of Wall Street. You should be against that. I am too. But that media term for the bill is a complete mischaracterization of what the bill does. It will not cost $700 billion and it is not a bail out of anyone. Let me explain:

$700 Billion: This amount will not be spent. It is being invested in hard assets (mortgages secured by homes) which will have an expected cash flow in excess of the purchase price. So the taxpayers should get all their money back that way. But if that doesn't work, taxpayers will also get warrants (stock options) in the companies from which these assets are purchased. So, if those companies recover, taxpayers get part of profits. And if both of those don't get the whole $700 billion back, whoever is president in 5 years is required to submit to Congress a proposal to get any loss back from the companies who sold the government the assets. That's 3 different ways to be sure the taxpayer is made whole and maybe makes a profit. This bill may wind up costing less than one year's worth of earmarks.

 Bail Out: The assets will be bought from companies at probably 30%-60% of what they paid just a year or two ago. If I offered to buy your house that you bought 2 years ago for half what you paid for it, would I be bailing you out? I don't think you would look at it that way. These companies will lose lots of money. Fine. They made an investment that went bad and they have to live with it. But they will not be bailed out. Many companies and a number of banks will still fail even with this bill. The purpose of the purchase is to cut out the cancer that is clogging the world's financial arteries so that credit and loans and cash can flow again. No one is being bailed out. 

 Wall Street: If we do nothing, expect to see many days on the stock market like Monday, September 29th when the stock market suffered its biggest one day point drop ever. That will devastate the retirement plans of millions of everyday people. All forms of credit have already dried up. If they dry up more, companies small and large will not be able to get standard short term loans to buy inventory and make payroll. That means lots of job losses and layoffs. And people with money market funds and bank accounts may not be able to get their money, even with FDIC Insurance because these entities have to sell a loan to get you cash. And no one is buying the loans. 

 Many different proposals were looked at and discussed.  I was actually part of a working group appointed by the Republican Leader to develop an alternative plan, which, in fact, developed several provisions that were included in the final bill.  Our goal was to develop a virtually cost-free plan to stabilize the global financial markets and save every American's savings and investments, not a bail out.  I believe that the final bill meets these criteria.  There is no guarantee that this bill will work. But I have not seen an alternate plan that I thought had a better chance to both work and pass both houses of Congress. 

 If the bill works, some banks will still fail and some companies will still not make it. But it will be far, far fewer than would have otherwise occurred. Some of you have asked me why a believer in free markets would support this bill. I have done so because I believe this is a solution to preserve free markets, not replace them. In some ways, this bill is more of a free market solution than other actions that have been taken. The government will not take over any companies here. Even the warrants will be non-voting. No one will be compelled to sell the government their assets if they don't want to. Even the "reverse auction" process of establishing pricing for the assets, where sellers submit bids to one buyer rather than the other way around, is a market based pricing method. 

 No one wanted this bill. No one wished for this crisis to occur. But it is here.  This is a worldwide problem and not just an American one.  And we had to act. My vote was carefully considered, but made without reservation. I applaud my colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, who joined me in doing so. 

 I appreciate the great honor you have given me by allowing me to represent you in the United States Congress. 

 I remain respectfully,

 JOHN CAMPBELL

Member of Congress

Tags: politics, republican, rescue+plan, bail+out, congress

Is McCain becoming a One Trick Pony

ARLINGTON, VA — U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement on the jobs report:

“Today’s report of another 159,000 lost jobs confirms what America’s working men and women have understood for months: our nation’s economy is on the wrong track. It is imperative that Congress act to address the financial crisis while protecting taxpayers and being good stewards of their dollars. But we must do more.

“America’s middle class needs help from a government that is truly standing on their side and not in their way. I am committed to getting to the roots of this crisis — reforming Washington and cleaning up the mess created by the greed and crony capitalism of government-backed mortgage giants – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I will reverse out-of-control spending, end the wasteful and corrupting practice of earmarks, and get the government budget back to balance. I will reform health care to control costs and better serve American families, open markets around the globe for our products, cut taxes, and expand domestic production of energy to eliminate the ability of international oil markets to hold our economy hostage. I will create jobs and get the economy on the right track.

“Unlike Senator Obama, I do not believe we will create one single American job by increasing taxes, going on a massive spending binge, and closing off markets. Our nation cannot afford Senator Obama’s higher taxes.”

The Page - by Mark Halperin - TIME.

I think McCain has nothing to say about the economy other than “no new taxes.”  This is old, worn out rhetoric that no one really believes.  Americans generally know it is disingenuous and they have heard, and believe Obama, when he says he won’t raise taxes on 95% of the people and that is fundamentally fair. If McCain doesn’t find something else to say about the economy and economic policy, he isn’t going to win.

Tags: McCain, politics, Obama, election

Palin v. Biden

Surprise surprise.  I was wrong.  Biden didn’t screw it up.  In fact he was masterful. He did nothing that allowed anyone to accuse him of anything but being respectful of Governor Palin.  He called her “Governor” the entire time, even correcting himself when he went through the list of people in this race by their first names.  He was masterful in attacking McCain but never Palin.  Good lawyers know when to stop questioning a witness and let what they have said stand.  They know when to trust that the jury doesn’t need to have what they can see with their own two eyes forced down their throats.  He used this principle hear.  Americans can see her and can judge for themselves.  At the same time, she doesn’t matter and he used this opportunity to demonstrate that. The conversation will no longer be about Palin and that is good for Obama.

He also did a great job of exhibiting that he knows John McCain well and you felt that you wanted to trust his judgment on “John.”  You knew, by the end of the debate, that they were in the most exclusive club in the world together and you felt Biden gave you insight into McCain.  Strategically this is excellent because Biden made credible hits on McCain’s maverick status and on his similarities to Bush.  If McCain attacks Biden he will just look petulant because Biden isn’t his enemy.

Palin didn’t lose this either.  Biden won, but she held her own.  I agree with the Wall Street Journal when the say “her citing of facts sometimes came cross as rote….” but at the same time, she was no longer a deer in the headlights as she has been this past week. 

Palin did try to promote her image as Joe Six Pack, but to me it was flat.   She didn’t make mistakes but she was out of her depth.  You felt uncomfortable for her.  She did nothing to convince me that she belongs in the White House but she convinced me that she can improve.

Biden on the other hand really did a great job.  He came across as both down to earth and classy.  His use of McCain’s first name while calling Palin “Governor” gave the impression that he was being respectful of her but that she was a third wheel in the race.  He also gave the impression of genuine caring and honesty, which, for all her folksy rhetoric, she really didn’t do.

Palin scored points for me on tolerance and integrity.  I got no sense, and the democrats would do well not to promote the idea that she is corrupt.  I believe her when she says that she has friends that don’t believe what she believes.  The republican pundits tire me with their comparisons to Reagan.  She is not Reagan.  But on the other hand I give her credit for not being Bush or Cheney either.  She left me feeling that she would not provide the kind of polarizing, mean spirited politically vindictive corrupt leadership that Bush and his cronies have given us.  That heartened me about her and the Republicans generally.

On CNN someone said that she would be a candidate in four or eight years.  I have no doubt that’s true.  She reminds me of a talented sixth round pick in the NFL.  She needs some development but with some time on the practice squad she will be a contributor to the Republican Party.  Gone is the impression left from the Couric interviews that she is just a dope.

The verdict Biden wins.  Palin holds her own and improves.

Tags: politics, democrats, republicans, Biden, Palin, debate

What does "Win" mean in Iraq?

John McCain believes the Vietnam War was winnable. Now he argues that an Obama administration would accept defeat in Iraq, with grave costs to American honor and national security. Is McCain’s quest for victory a reflection of an antiquated pre-Vietnam mind-set? Or of a commitment to principles we abandon at our peril? Is there any war McCain thinks can’t be won?

The Wars of John McCain.

If the surge is working as he says and the Iraqis are capable of policing their own country, what is left to win?  He keeps saying that Obama would accept defeat.  How is it accepting defeat if you leave after achieving your goals?  I thought the goal was to make the country safe for democracy.  Apparently it is or soon will be (if the surge has worked as McCain says and the Iraqis can take care of themselves).  What other win is there?

I worry that McCain just wants us to be there, like Rumsfeld and Bush did.  Like we are in Germany.  Bush screwed that idea up by not having an exit strategy and not immediately taking over the country (which would have meant, as in Germany 63 years ago, they wouldn’t have had a choice).  Instead he let chaos reign and then installed the democracy.  That might sound nice on paper but it means we can’t legitimately stay if they don’t want us and they don’t want us.

So winning is ….?

Tags: McCain, War, Iraq, Obama, victory

What does "Win" mean in Iraq?

John McCain believes the Vietnam War was winnable. Now he argues that an Obama administration would accept defeat in Iraq, with grave costs to American honor and national security. Is McCain’s quest for victory a reflection of an antiquated pre-Vietnam mind-set? Or of a commitment to principles we abandon at our peril? Is there any war McCain thinks can’t be won?

The Wars of John McCain.

If the surge is working as he says and the Iraqis are capable of policing their own country, what is left to win?  He keeps saying that Obama would accept defeat.  How is it accepting defeat if you leave after achieving your goals?  I thought the goal was to make the country safe for democracy.  Apparently it is or soon will be (if the surge has worked as McCain says and the Iraqis can take care of themselves).  What other win is there?

I worry that McCain just wants us to be there, like Rumsfeld and Bush did.  Like we are in Germany.  Bush screwed that idea up by not having an exit strategy and not immediately taking over the country (which would have meant, as in Germany 63 years ago, they wouldn’t have had a choice).  Instead he let chaos reign and then installed the democracy.  That might sound nice on paper but it means we can’t legitimately stay if they don’t want us and they don’t want us.

So winning is ….?

Tags: McCain, War, Iraq, Obama, victory

Silent Majority

Remember the silent majority.  Nixon invoked it.  Ronald Reagan tapped it. 

The political consultants in the McCain campaign and the Conservative Intelligentsia have decided to brand Palin as the new Reagan.  That is an insult to the silent majority and is the last straw in their strategy of manipulating them as a means to power in Washington.  It takes marketing hype to a whole new level.

When Bay Buchanan gets on CNN and says that Palin is a populist and Reaganesque she is doing what she accuses the democrats of doing.  She is completely failing to understand populism and everyone outside the beltway. She and the rest of her friends in the Conservative Intelligentsia are demeaning the silent majority.  In the vernacular – disrespecting the silent majority.  Not only is Palin no Ronald Reagan she is no populist.  The Conservative Intelligentsia should be ashamed of themselves, coming up with this shoddy substitute for a populist.  Bob Barr and Newt Gingerich are more populist than Palin.  Putting Palin in the same class as great populists from William Jennings Bryan to Reagan is like putting a Junior College football team in the same class as Oklahoma, USC or Ohio State.  Its insulting.

The nomination of Palin demonstrates that the Conservative Intelligentsia has gone the way of the Liberal Elite.  They no longer have any respect for the intelligence, judgment or character of their constituents.  Palin is not smart.  She is not involved or concerned about the world outside of Alaska.  She recites her lines by rote and one is embarrassed for her while at the same time feeling she is disingenuous.  With Reagan or other recent populists like Clinton or Carter (and populists throughout history) people always felt they were talking to a human being, a person who cared, a person who understood.  With Palin you get the sense of talking to a political robot created by the Conservative Intelligentsia in an effort to fool most of the people most of the time.

The Silent Majority is still alive and well. They understand where the Conservative Intelligentsia has gone.  They know when someone is trying to manipulate them and take advantage of them.  They knew it when the Liberal Elite did it and they know it now that the Conservative Intelligentsia have gone in the same direction.  The Silent Majority elects people who are real, like McCain used to be.  They elect moderate even conservative leaning democrats and Republicans.  They don’t elect extremists or fools. 

The silent majority has been caught in the apathy brought on by a democratic party that either ignored them or took them for granted, so they went another direction with Reagan.  The Rove strategy has left them out in the cold and their apathy in the face of two parties catering to the extremes made that strategy succeed.  War and a failing economy are not conducive to apathy. A republican party that insults the silent majority and a democratic party promising change and lead by a charismatic leader, should bring them to the democratic side of the ledger this time around.  We can only hope that the Rove strategy of exploiting extremists will go by the wayside and no longer garner support with either party.  The silent majority is the heart of America and good for the country.  It is not the extreme, its the middle.  Catering to the extremes will bring us ruin.

Tags: politics, Palin, McCain, Conservative, liberal, democrats, republicans

Palin - At least she is philosophically consistent

Palin believes life begins at conception. When pressed by Katie Couric she stated her position pretty clearly.  What impressed me (and believe me, not much about her impresses me) is that unlike many, she is philosophically consistent and non-judgmental.  I have no idea how you can believe that a human soul resides in a fetus at conception and still be in favor of abortion in cases of rape or incest. That logic escapes me so  I have to give her kudos for a consistent and coherent position.  She also appeared (and as we all know appearances can be deceiving) to say that she does not judge those who believe differently. Again kudos for compassion and tolerance.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe she should be allowed within a mile of the White House, but in an age of polarization and pettiness, we should give a person credit where it is due and admire someone who will take a principled position and be tolerant of others.

Tags: Palin, republicans, abortion