The Cognoscenti

The Potential For Common Ground

2011-11-02T23:48:00.000-07:00

Why are there no projects that Republicans and Democrats can work on together in Congress?

Most of the people I know have a very diverse range of views, and the best part of that is watching them converse on the issues of the day. For one particular group of friends I spend some time with, despite a full range of views across the political spectrum, all of the discussions that transpire on Obama, on congress, on healthcare, and economics, generally result in much more agreement than disagreement. People's natural proclivity in a normal conversation is to look for common ground rather than disagreement. Unfortunately, partisan politics does not serve our national conversation in quite the same way.

But, why can't politicians try to agree on something, even if it was something small? The reality is for the past 10 years congress has had historically high disapproval ratings. Those ratings have reflected equally on Republicans and Democrats throughout their time in control.

Why don't the political parties get together and try and find 5 issues where there is broad consensus, and present them to the American people as an effort to demonstrate congress can work for all the people in spite of our intense political divisions?

It might remind politicians what really matters: legislation that results in real positive change for the electorate. That's what's remembered. That's what makes a great statesman.

But, ultimately it starts with us. It's too easy for us to gravitate towards viewpoints that reflect our own. It's too easy for us to constantly search for ways to substantiate our own positions. We, for the most part, enable this intense partisanship because we're less invested in the debate, and more invested in proving that we're right all the time.

So tomorrow, or the next day, or next week, or next month, listen to a talk radio show you don't agree with for an hour, or read a few blogs from the other side. Try and focus on what you can agree with and not what you dislike. Try and find the basis for respecting those you oppose.

That's the kind of thing our politicians need to do. But, it's also the kind of thing we need to do more as voters to expand our own minds and create a constituency of moderation that appeals to politicians.

Lastly, I always dreamt of a TV debate show, a bit like the old show Crossfire or Hannity & Colmes, where every week day the issues are debated in four or five segments. But, the twist would be that a prominent conservative would have to argue the liberal side. And, a prominent liberal would have to argue the conservative side. At the end of the show a studio audience of independents could vote on who won, and an amount of money could be donated to a charity of that person's choosing as a prize. This could incentivize contestants to make a real effort to represent the other side, and hopefully, encourage the viewing audience at home to participate in considering different points of view.

These are the kinds of strides we should be making, in my humble opinion, to transform the national conversation into one where in Congress, like most Americans, politicians look for common ground rather than disagreement.

We're In This Together

2011-10-11T01:58:00.000-07:00

I haven't written a political blog in quite some time. I don't think anyone frequents this place anymore, as its been many years since I updated the site on a regular basis.

I've been very political since my teenage years. I studied government and politics at college in the UK. I fell in love with US politics, and not long thereafter fell in love with an American gal, and moved to live in this great country that has given me so much pride and opportunity.

I love this country so much. I love it's sprawling landscapes, its disparate breadth of culture, its commitment to liberty, and personal responsibility, its optimism, and its enterprise. I love its constitution. I love its legal system and institutions. I love what it actually means to be an American. The spirit of all those immigrants that came here, centuries ago, fleeing persecution and oppressive circumstances, in pursuit of prosperity and freedom... that spirit endures and permeates the present. It makes the United States stronger today just as it did then.

Earlier this year I received my permanent residency. As I've heard many other ex-pats say before me, I feel as much an American now, as I do an Englishman.

I've never felt less political, and less interested in the successes of the respective parties. I'm a liberal. I'm left of center. I'm pretty conservative on economic policy. I'm pretty liberal on social policies. But, I don't see what's going on in the country through the prism of re-election for Obama or defeat of Republicans as I have done in the past.

We're in a global economic crisis. What's going on is so much larger than all the petty political narratives espoused by both the left and right.

There is a vacuum at the heart of our politics, and national discussion. There is just raw anger, on either side. On the right people feel the nation's fundamental values and identity have been torn asunder by Obama. They feel patronized. They feel he doesn't want to be their President. On the left people feel the richest 1% are squeezing the middle and working class further and further, while not being held accountable for the mess they got us into in the first place. All this anger is expressed by Tea Party protestors and Wall Street protestors alike, and its exploited by political pundits, without any positive proposals for meeting these great challenges and building a more prosperous future for everyone.

We are adrift. Our respective political ideologies are so bankrupt of practical solutions, and sound policy objectives. It all gets lost beneath the rabble.

The economic consensus that emerged from the 1980's, and the economic growth inspired by Reaganomics transformed the western world. It transformed it in ways most of us are too young to fully grasp. In some ways it divided us. In some ways it damaged us. But, it provided us with an extraordinary standard of living, and a vibrant marketplace full of booming technological advancements and unshackled innovation and creativity.

We live in a world where as individuals we have a greater say over our own identity, and our place in the world, more so than any generation before us.

We live in a world where we are inextricably connected to people in many different countries. We live in a world where divisive social constructs like institutional racism, misogyny, and oppressive organized thinking diminish the worth and trajectory of individuals less. We live in a world where everything from our ring tones, to our social networking pages, to our clothes, to our cars are an opportunity for us to say something about ourselves. Many consider modernity a spiritual bankrupt wasteland. I see the spirituality and humanity of people invested so significantly in their lives. I don't think true love has ever meant more. It may transcend the conventions of the past, but many of us have heard the abusive stories of our grandfathers and great grandfathers and what family units in the 1950's and 60's often amounted to in reality compared to the idyllic pretense.

We are more emotionally literate, expressive, unique, and capable. We have greater access to information than ever before.

Before the 1980's the way in which we discussed economic systems was very different to today. The political consensus involved a mixed economy, with much higher levels of taxation, and more extensive regulations. It involved a world where the individual mattered less.

In our time, Republicans and Democrats alike have subscribed to an economic consensus, and save for a fortuitous passage in the 1990's (to the credit of both parties) we have never come to grips with two things. Excessive government debt, and a recognition that too little taxation, and too little regulation allows for the engine of free market economic growth to derail, and turn a boom into a bust.

While too much taxation and too much regulation stagnates, not only our economy, but the very vibrancy of our potential as individuals, too little allows for economic anarchy and a financial sector that resembles a lawless and dangerous wild west.

Our problem now is sovereign debt all over the world. A significant amount of that sovereign debt has nothing to do with the excesses of wall street, financial markets, or deregulation. It's about corrupt governments and social programs, well intentioned, that cannot be paid for.

So we can course correct. So we can confront the challenges in Greece, Ireland, and many other European countries that are destabilizing the economy. So we can put rules in place to prevent the markets making the same mistakes again and governments making the same mistakes again.

So we can cut government spending in the United States without suggesting its a painless process. Cutting government spending in large measure in the short term contracts economic growth. That is the reality.

So we can cut defense spending. So we can reform social security. So we can set a much more aggressive target for spending cuts over a period of 6-10 years.

And, so we can marginally raise income taxes on people who earn over a million dollars to increase government revenues, while incorporating the right tax incentives and credits to ensure it doesn't discourage small businesses from hiring.

We cannot compete with the labor costs in developing countries. We cannot legislate protectionism to prevent companies shipping jobs overseas.

We have to innovate. We have to create new thriving products and services. We have to address our trade deficit.

We have to recognize that life is extremely hard right now for families all over the country. We have to recognize that the economic crisis is a human tragedy, first and foremost.

We have to recognize that there is nothing wrong with being successful. There is nothing wrong with being a millionaire or a billionaire. An individuals pursuit of success for his or herself is the nature of our economic system.

The alternative is a prohibitive marketplace suffocated by a state that eventually can't afford the social justice it tries to implement anyway. Billionaires and millionaires are amongst those who will be relied upon by us all to turn this economy around, like it or not. We need them to invest. We need them to take chances.

Rather than castigate the rich, or brand angry protestors as socialists, why not take a different approach?

Obama's greatest failing, in my opinion, has been the manner in which he's patronized the tea party, and antagonized the business community.

By comparison, the right is so convinced their political opponents are dedicated to destroying America that their punditry spends all of their time manufacturing cynical conspiracies with a mild strain of McCarthyism.

Why not try and understand each other within a framework. A mutual understanding and a basic consensus is attainable.

Why not consider the other side? Why not step into their shoes? Why not respect those that we disagree with while being strong in our own positions? Why not stop feeling threatened by all of these tangential political narratives? Why not really try to confront reality and its challenges as THE priority?

It's the economy stupid.

Let's start the journey of making it better.

And, the journey alone, if we can set a course of improvement, can be a path that lifts us up.

Why wouldn't we? We're in this together - left, right, rich, poor, Republican and Liberal alike.

If we can address the sovereign debt crisis, pass stronger regulations, and do so in a comprehensive fashion, fundamentally acknowledging both sides, this nation can thrive.

Developing nations develop. Their living standards improve. Their living wage gets larger. Their people gain greater freedoms and demand more rights. Developing nations eventually develop and the playing field will level.

In the interim America can address its issues, learn from its mistakes, as the world addresses its issues, and with greater unity, and a commitment to solutions and not partisanship... we can... once again... grow.

The Better Angels Of This Generation

2008-11-09T02:49:00.000-08:00

"Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."- Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address

Bill Clinton, for a very long time, represented the best of what Democrats could aspire to. In many ways he was a reflection of his time, and, perhaps, a level of egocentric survivalism that was inherent to his generation.

Bill Clinton was like a reality show contestant; plotting, triangulating, and emerging victorious, admirably. He defeated vicious foes that had employed loathsome attacks in 1988, eviscerating Dukakis. Those foes were prepared to do the same to the Democratic nominee in 1992 and Bill Clinton was a byproduct of this political reality. He was an antidote to Reagan's Republican national majority that was earned partly through bitter cultural divisions. Those divisions were cleverly exacerbated by George H. W. Bush in his race with Dukakis after Reagan had served two successive terms, winning two dramatic landslides. Many didn't believe it was possible for a Democrat to get elected President in 1992.

However, much to chagrin of Republicans, in sync with popular culture and compassionately engaged with the economic downturn, Bill Clinton charismatically resonated with an electorate that was redefining itself. The Vietnam era was finally slipping into the recesses of the nation's subconscious, (lying dormant, ready to emerge a decade later after September 11th and the lead up to the Iraq war).

Bill Clinton was a good President. He was a smart and practical man, who understood complex policy issues. In power, with the assistance of Dick Morris, he learned how to market himself to the center right. "The era of big government is over," he proudly announced, and slowly, but surely, he lost his compass, if it ever existed in the first place. As he scrambled in his final months to instigate a middle east peace process to cement his legacy it became apparent to me the extent of Bill Clinton's selfishness. He achieved everything he ever strived for, winning two successive terms and retaining the approval of large sways of the American people. But, in doing so, sound economic governance aside, no great strides were made. The success of his re-branding of the Democratic party with notions like the "third way" complemented a society where rampant commercialism was augmenting itself at the root of the national culture. Democrats admired Bill Clinton because he could win. Democrats admired Bill Clinton because of the proficient manner in which he played the game. His campaign staff called him "the secretariat," the ultimate political thoroughbred. If I'm honest with myself, that is why I admired him so deeply, too.

In Newsweek's outstanding journalistic opus charting the behind the scenes story from this year's Presidential campaign, the following passage stood out to me:

"Obama was upset with his own campaign after a low-level staffer referred in a press release to Hillary Clinton as "(D-Punjab)" because of her ties to supporters of India. "I don't want you guys freelancing and, quote, protecting me from what you're doing," he lectured his staff. "I'm saying this loud and clear—no winks, no nods here," he said, irritated to take the heat for a clumsy dirty trick he had not known about and would never have authorized. "I'm looking at every one of you. If you think you're close to the line, the answer isn't to protect me—the answer is to ask me."

It's so refreshing to think we have a President who truly understands the meaning of responsibility. After the disastrous last eight years, and the apparent state of denial of the Bush Administration, it is especially satisfying to consider the example this sets for all of us to take control of our lives, stand up for our mistakes, and not allow circumstances to control us or excuse us. A moment like this is the very definition of leadership and an expectation that we no longer have of our public officials in the excess of our growing cynicism and distrust.

Like John McCain, and to a lesser degree Sarah Palin and Joe Biden, Barack Obama's success can be directly attributed to his authenticity. He is a good man who has campaigned with integrity, and to me that aspect of his election speaks just as loudly as the fact that we have just elected the first African-American President. While Barack Obama has many parallels with Bill Clinton, and arguably represents a continuation of his policies to a greater extent than Hillary did, Obama also embodies many qualities that are quite absent from the former President. Part of that could be his youth and inexperience, but after being tested so dramatically in this campaign, and never faltering, I'm inclined to believe it is much more than that.

As Lincoln evoked so eloquently in his 1st inaugural address, national divisions, like those we have experienced these last eight years, can be assuaged by the "better angels of our nature . . . swelling the chorus of our union." And so Barack Obama has uplifted large sways of this country. There is an optimism surging nationwide that many have been longing for, founded on Obama's idealism, intelligence, hopefullness, and integrity.

In any democracy a President is a product of his or her era. Like Bill, Barack is a product of his. What inspired him to run for the office in early 2007 was an intuitive sense that people were ready for change. But, in reality that yearning he sensed was about much more than just change. We are in the midst of this new era, and as a result, it is impossible to say, with any degree of certainty, why Obama is so quintessentially of this time. Yes, his election counters the Bush Adminstration failures, and yes, it was a Democratic year. But, like with Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, and Kennedy, Obama's victory says much more than that about who we have become as a nation now.

In my opinion, the internet has transformed the consciousness of my generation and that explains the largest part of it. We are no longer an apathetic mass of marijuana bongs, beer pitchers, partying, and ecstasy pills. We are no longer an aimless mass with restricted avenues of self expression. Through the internet we are fully engaged with each other, charting out our own territory in the midst of an enthralling political discourse that is blossoming from youtube, to blogs, to message forums, and chat rooms. We have friends thousands of miles across the globe, from every continent, and country. As a result, we are less parochial, and much more internationally aware. We are environmentally conscious, and economically conscious. We are all activists now in our own way.

In addition, this new form of media is creating a powerful context for accountability that dismantles populist concepts like "Joe The Plumber" and counters unfair and dishonest negative attacks with the irrefutable truth of good humor, sarcasm and wit. We are a different nation than we were during the Clinton years, and while Obama has, to a certain extent, led us in this direction over the past twelve months, in many ways, this new generation has led him, too.

It is yet to be seen whether Obama will be a good President. It's quite possible that he won't be. But, he has already demonstrated that he is a much greater man than Bill Clinton ever was. To the extent that our leaders are a reflection of society at large I believe this says very good things about where we are heading over the coming decades. Suddenly, the prospect of great progress worldwide within my lifetime on matters of war, poverty, disease, the environment, economic opportunity, and social justice, do not seem so out of reach.

November 4th was the day that Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States, but, November 4th was not the day that change came to America. Instead, it was the day that a changed nation, and a new generation, stood up, went to vote, and made sure its voice was finally heard.

The Implications Of Rahm

2008-11-06T22:19:00.001-08:00

Obama is not worried about working with Republicans in Congress. He is worried about working with Democrats to get his agenda enacted.

My Favorite Moments Of The Greatest Ever Campaign

2008-11-02T01:20:00.000-07:00

Enjoy.

Obama Announces...

The moment Hillary lost the Democratic nomination:

Obama shows that he's got chops in Iowa:

Yes We Can:

Obama compares Hillary Clinton to Annie Oakley:

Obama's comments on Edwards and Clinton's "Biggest Weakness" Debate Answers:

Obama dismisses the Farakhan issue and Hillary's parsing with ease:

Obama hits back hard as Hillary plays politics on Bill Ayers:

Obama's Speech On Race: "A More Perfect Union":

Obama Convention Speech:

Pat Buchanan on Obama's Convention Speech:

Palin Defends The Bailout:

Palin clueless on Supreme Court:

Matt Damon on Sarah Palin:

Christopher Hitchens on McCain and Palin:

Colin Powel on McCain and Palin:

Ken Adleman on McCain and Palin

David Letterman Eviscerates John McCain:

Obama Knocks McCain Down (if not out) in the Town Hall debate:

Obama Calls Out McCain "He Doesn't Say It To My Face":

McCain doesn't do his research:

McCain Inadvertently Insults Pennsylvania:

Sarah Palin Rap on SNL:

Not Again I Hope

2008-11-01T18:13:00.000-07:00

The dramatic surge against the Labour Party in the UK 1992 General Election, against all opinion poll data, was actually used as inspiration by the Clinton campaign later that year to avert the same occurrence. However, Labour's policies, especially on taxation, were far more left wing than anything Obama is even close to proposing in his platform. Also, Labour's previous stint in power in the UK, from 1975 to 1979 had coincided with a national economic meltdown. For this reason I don't see the same thing happening this Tuesday, as Clinton's time in office is much more re-assuring to voters in Obama's favor.

However, I can remember nothing more nationally traumatizing than the Labour defeat in 1992. It was against all expectations and extended the Conservative term in power from 12 to 17 years. The nation had to wait another 5 years until a triumphant 1997 and a Tony Blair victory. But, it was well worth the wait.

Don't Lose This Opportunity

2008-10-29T18:01:00.000-07:00

This election isn't about Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, William Ayers, Islam, Socialism, or any of the other nasty and hypocritical tenets of the McCain campaign. It's about you. The opportunities for you and your family. Your healthcare. The Schools and Colleges that your children will attend. It's about your country and its noble place in the world as the greatest nation on earth.

Don't lose this opportunity. Don't let the Republican's manipulate you.

Are you better off than you were 8 years ago? Do you have more money in the bank? If you run a small business do you have more customers or less? Does your healthcare cost much more or less? Do you feel more or less optimistic about the future of your children?

This election is a choice between change, or more of the same. I understand that people are cynical, but there comes a time when if you're unwilling to take a chance then there is no hope for any of us. Things cannot get any worse than a collapsing economy, national debt that has more than doubled, a deficit that is skyrocketing, unemployment that is on the rise, and housing prices plummeting. Things can only get better... if we have the courage to change.

6 Days

2008-10-29T02:07:00.000-07:00

Zogby trends Obama by a small margin, Rassmussen trends McCain down to only +3, Gallup trends Obama... I wish this damn election were over. I dreamt that McCain had won the election last night. A couple days ago I said Obama had to win by a large margin to guarantee his mandate. Right now I'd take any type of victory.

Contrasting polling in 2008 to 2004 and 2006

2008-10-28T20:43:00.000-07:00

Here is an interesting graph showing the RCP tracking poll average from 2004.
For those like me, who are stressing out big time with the election only a week away, it's reassuring to see that Bush's lead against Kerry was consistently smaller than the lead Obama is sustaining over McCain. I haven't seen McCain ahead in a single poll since September. Here is a list of the actual poll numbers leading up to the election in 2004.

With so much divergence from pollsters trying to assess the make up of electorate this year it's also fascinating to take a look at the projections for the 2006 senate races, compared to the final results. Here are the numbers.

In the 2006 election in Arizona the Republican performed 0.4% better than the RCP average. In Maryland the Democrat performed 5.3% better. In Michigan 1.5% to the Democrat, Minnesotta 3.4% to the Democrat, Missouri 0.5% to the Democrat, in Montana 2.4% to the Republican, New Jersey 1.6% to the Dem, Ohio 2% to the Dem, Pennsylvania 5.5% to the Dem, Rhode Island 5% to the Dem, Tennessee 3% to the Dem, Virginia 1.2% to the Republican, and Washington State 5.7% to the Dem.

It seems as though in the traditionally Democratic states, Democratic turnout considerably exceeded expectations. I think we're going to see something very similar this election. I live in California, and even though this state isn't competitive everyone I've been in contact with is extremely enthusiastic about casting their vote as if it was potentially decisive. One wonders whether the same can be said in traditional red states like Texas, Utah, Oklahoma, etc, where Obama doesn't have a shot. For that reason, based on the numbers above you could safely argue that Obama will poll at least 1-2% better in the nationwide popular vote. Of course undecideds are probably going to break narrowly for McCain so this might end up being a wash.

Additionally, it's good to see that in Ohio and Pennsylvania, Democrats also out performed their polling in 2006. I think this bodes well for Obama in both of those states, but especially Pennsylvania where he currently has a double digit lead in the polls.

The bad news is that in the competitive red states, Montana, Virginia, and Arizona, the swing went in the opposite direction. As Republican's rallied towards the end of that election it was noticeable just how close both Democrat, Jon Tester in Montana (who had been widely favored to beat Conrad Burns) and Jim Webb (who had opened up a decent lead in some polls against George Allen) came to losing their races. From this you could argue that Republican turnout in Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Montana, North Dakota, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona might be much higher than is expected. Florida is anyone's guess.

The geographic diversity of these trends is what I think has to be taken into account with the current polling. For example Pew has Obama up by 15, Gallup by 7 in their expanded model, Hotline by 8, and Research 2000 by 7, nationally. By comparison Gallup's traditional polling model has Obama up by only 2, and TIPP, Zogby, and Battleground have him up by 3-4 points. Their turnout models are probably all correct, but geographically relative. This is a big country, some parts of which have been harder hit by the economy. I think it's fair to assume we're going to see different things happen in different parts the nation come November 4th.

Obama had a magnificent week by any estimation last week. From Colin Powell's endorsement, to the $150,000 spent on clothes for Palin, the infighting between McCain and Palin, it helped Obama reverse a trend that was heading in McCain's favor. State polling is a lagging indicator of the national mood and I think the extent of the leads you're currently seeing for Obama in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, etc, are as a result of his successes last week.

By contrast, Obama had a poor weekend, and a terrible Monday this week, in my opinion. His campaign have a habit of losing their focus and reverting back to the very general bi-partisan optimism that doesn't translate well into soundbites on the evening news, and it doesn't come close to controlling the national conversation. Obama needs to be on the offense in making focused attacks on McCain. Right now the McCain campaign has free reign to throw their ridiculous bombs at Obama because he doesn't have to compensate for any of Obama's attacks. As far as I'm concerned every sentence that comes out of Obama's mouth from now until election day should include the words Bush and McCain. Obama has earned 50% + support, but now he has to ensure that the right wing attack machine doesn't have the leverage to re-brand Obama as a Marxist, terrorist, muslim, manchurian candidate that is only going to make the economy worse (as if that were possible).

However, today the right were unable to sustain that momentum. A McCain campaign source calling Palin a "whackjob" certainly didn't help. That is a good sign for Obama. Zogby's latest tracking poll will be out very shortly and while this should generally reflect Monday's narrative, if there is no trend for McCain that will be a good sign for Obama. Likewise, watch Gallup tomorrow, the most consistent indicator of the direction of the national mood, in my opinion, this campaign season. McCain's only hope is day in, day out, incessant negativity against Obama. Hopefully Bill Clinton campaigning with Obama in Florida tomorrow and the 30 minute prime time advertisement that airs tomorrow evening will assist Obama in preventing that from occuring.

UPDATE: Zogby shows Obama gaining 0.4%.

Almost There

2008-10-27T20:10:00.001-07:00

VOTE.

Palin Ally, Senator Stevens Is Guilty!

2008-10-27T14:56:00.001-07:00

Alaskan, Republican Senator, Ted Stevens, close colleague of Alaskan Governor, Sarah Palin, has been found guilty on seven counts of making false statements for not reporting gifts. Great timing :).

"I have a great deal of respect for him," - Sarah Palin on Ted Stevens:

UPDATE It gets better: "Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin began building clout in her state’s political circles in part by serving as a director of an independent political group organized by the now embattled Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens.

Palin’s name is listed on 2003 incorporation papers of the “Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.,” a 527 group that could raise unlimited funds from corporate donors. The group was designed to serve as a political boot camp for Republican women in the state. She served as one of three directors until June 2005, when her name was replaced on state filings."

UPDATE There's more:

UPDATE It gets better: From Sarah Palin's comments today on Senator Stevens' guilty verdict: "I'm confident that Senator Stevens from this point on will do the right thing for the people of Alaska."

Democrats Are Getting Ahead Of Themselves

2008-10-27T13:17:00.001-07:00

I am a terrible pessimist and even I can see that Obama is very, very, very close to winning the Whitehouse on November 4th. But, to read most left leaning blogs, or listen to pundits on cable news, you'd think this race was over and November 4th was merely a formality. It's not. Obama leads by an average of 6 points, with a few polls like Battleground and TIPP having him ahead by only 3. We've been here before, with Hillary Clinton in the primaries, and I'm very concerned we're heading for a similar end result this election day with John McCain.

The truth is, yes, Obama has all but wrapped up victory. Just as, during the primaries in Texas and Ohio he'd essentially already won the Democratic nomination.

The reason he has wrapped up victory is simple: Pennsylvania and Virgina. Currently Pollster.com puts Obama up by almost 13 points in Pennsylvania, and by almost 9 points in Virginia. These results constitute insurmountable leads in the last week of a Presidential campaign. Combined with the fact that in the Virginia Senatorial race Democrat, Mark Warner, is running 30 points ahead of his Republican rival, I just don't see how John McCain can overcome his deficit in the state.

With Obama set to hold onto all the states that Kerry won in 2004, with the possible exception of New Hampshire, he is also set to win Iowa and New Mexico (where he has led throughout this election season). If Obama wins Pennsylvania, Iowa, Virgina, and New Mexico then there is no realistic route via which McCain can get to 270 in the electoral college and Obama is President.

McCain's team would do well to spend the rest of this week in Virginia because make no mistake, it is the only state that truly constitutes a bellwether battleground this election. It is the be all and end all of victory for McCain.

So why I am fretting? Simple. If Obama wins the election by barely a percentage point in the popular vote, and narrowly loses Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Missouri, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Arizona, and Indiana then, just as Hillary's comeback ultimately served as a rebuke, so will McCain's performance exceeding expectations. Obama will be President and everyone will celebrate, but change, even after George Bush's disastrous eight years in office, will be a struggle when his Administration begins in 2009, as George Bush quickly found out in 2005 following his narrow victory against Kerry.

If Obama simply stumbles across the finish line late in the morning, waiting for results back from New Mexico, the symbolism of this victory will be mitigated and the right wing attack machine will be energized. They will know that, even in these circumstances, with everything working against them, their ideas discredited, and their Presidential campaign run poorly, the Democratic candidate, wholeheartedly loved by his base, could only muster a closely fought victory. They will rightly see 2010 and 2012 as an opportunity to emphatically set the record straight.

The opportunity of this election is to not only win, but to earn a decisive mandate for governance, and to leave the Republican party fractured and in tatters, fighting amongst each other for the right to control their party's identity. If Obama can win by at least 5 percentage points in the popular vote, and win Ohio, Florida, and a host of other states, the message of change will be an earthquake that permanently transforms the political landscape in this country. By contrast, the far right, the religious right, the fiscal conservatives, and the moderate Republicans will be at war for the next two years trying to wrestle control over their own party. If this kind of margin fails to materialize, Obama could be on the back foot from day one.

"Wassuppp..." Change

2008-10-24T14:54:00.000-07:00

Wassup 2008

A Sense Of Entitlement Runs In The McCain Family

2008-10-24T12:37:00.001-07:00

Joe McCain, John McCain's brother, calls 911 to complain about traffic:

What McCain Really Thinks About Joe The Plummer

2008-10-22T17:25:00.000-07:00

From his position on the Bush tax cuts, to his negative campaigning flip flop, and his selection of Sarah Palin, undermining all the central tenets of his candidacy, John McCain has made John Kerry look like the model of consistency this campaign season. However, this example below is the worst demonstration of his electioneering yet, in my opinion. Watch as John McCain goes much further than Barack Obama in a response to a questioner posing an identical inquiry to that of Joe The Plummer. Enjoy:

Keep in mind, McCain is justifying a tax code in this video that is far more progressive than the comparitively conservative tax code that Obama is proposing.

John McCain = Socialist?

The State Of The Race

2008-10-20T16:28:00.000-07:00

This is my assessment of the Presidential race as it stands today. Below are the latest numbers from the daily tracking polls (yesterday's numbers are in parentheses):

Research 2000 (10/17-10/19): Obama 50 - McCain 42 (Obama 50 - McCain 43)
Rasmussen Reports (10/17-10/19): Obama 50 - McCain 46 (Obama 51 - McCain 45)
Zogby (10/17-10/19): Obama 50 - McCain 44 (Obama 48 - McCain 45)
Hotline (10/17-10/19): Obama 47 - McCain 42 (Obama 48 - McCain 41)
Gallup - Traditional (10/17-10/19): Obama 50 - McCain 45 (Obama 49 - McCain 46)
Gallup - Expanded (10/17-10/19): Obama 52 - McCain 43 (Obama 51 - McCain 44)
Tipp (10/15-10/19): Obama 47 - McCain 41 (Obama 47 - McCain 42)
Battleground (10/13-10/19): Obama 49 - McCain 45 (Obama 49 - McCain 45)

There are many divergent opinions from pollsters about party identification and that explains the disparity you are seeing in some of the results. For example, some pollsters are using conservative models like Zogby, employing party identification percentages from 2004 that favor Republicans. Others, like the Daily Kos/Research 2000 tracking poll, are optimistically projecting a huge Democratic turnout, as has been predicted in some quarters.

Today's average of all the tracking polls is: Obama 49.375 - McCain 43.5. Yesterday's average was Obama 49.125 - McCain 43.875.

The 2004 Election Map:

With just two weeks left, and McCain running approximately 6 points behind in the national polls, Obama is also enjoying very significant leads in all the states he must win: New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Virgina, and New Mexico. Right now, state polls are lagging indicators of the momentum shifts in the race and that won't change until the daily tracking polls begin in the battleground states closer to the election. But, what we can discern is that for McCain to emerge victorious he will need all of the momentum to be running his favor from now until election day. Any day in which Obama is able to stabilize his lead, or expand upon it, makes it much less likely that John McCain will follow George Bush as the forty fourth President of the United States.

Based on my average, McCain needs to recover 5.875 points against Obama's lead if he is to level the race and stand any chance of emerging victorious. With the race that close it's likely that undecideds will break for McCain and he will take Florida, Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina, Nevada, and Colorado. That will put him within striking distance of the blue states where, presuming New Mexico and Iowa are out of reach, he'll have to win one of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, or Wisconsin.

For me, the first problem with this unlikely scenario is Virginia. I think the Democratic candidate for Senate, Mark Warner (pictured right), a very popular former governor, is making this an incredibly difficult state for McCain to win. Warner currently leads his Republican opponent by 20+ points and I can't imagine a scenario where Obama doesn't benefit from this tremendously on election day. Secondly, Obama's leads in those critical blue states that he must hold are very big. Pollster.com puts Obama's average lead in Pennsylvania at 14 points, Michigan 10 points, Wisconsin 8 points, and Minnesota 7 points. Those are big leads for McCain to overcome in the space of two weeks. Obama's lead in the 2004 George Bush states Iowa and New Mexico are 12 and 7 points respectively, and those spreads have been too stable throughout this election season to change now. That means McCain must win one of those four blue states to get to the magic 270 number in the electoral college.

14 days of polling remains. That means that McCain must recover an average gain on Obama's lead of 0.42 points a day. McCain actually lost ground today, ceding 0.625 in the spread towards Obama. Anymore polling days like this will make it next to impossible for anything other than an Obama victory.

However, there are some caveats to take into consideration. Firstly, Obama's support is notoriously soft. We saw that against Hillary in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsyvania, where the electorate actually moved away from Obama and towards Hillary in the final days of polling. We also saw it post Republican convention where his lead went from +8 against McCain to -6 in the space of a weekend. Additionally, throughout this entire Presidential race up until the economic crisis began in September, Obama's leads have fluctuated wildly from +15 to -6. The electorate's trust of Obama is subject to a rapid erosion of support given the right set of circumstances.

Secondly, undecideds typically broke against Obama in the primaries. We saw this in New Hampshire, and in many other states throughout the battle with Hillary. If voters still have reservations at this point about siding with Obama then the probability is that they will resort to their fears and concerns, as opposed to their hope and desire for change, even in this political climate. Also in the 2006 mid-term elections, we saw a similar trend in favor of Republicans and against the Democrats. It has been forgotten, because of the innumerable tight victories Democrats were able to eventually win, but the Democratic lead going into that election should have, in reality, resulted in far more emphatic margins. The United States, ultimately, is a center right nation and these natural proclivities amongst the electorate will always work against Democrats in the closing days of most political races, in my opinion.

Taking this into account I think it's fair to estimate that undecideds in the last 3 days will predominantly break to McCain by a margin of 65% to 35%. What this means is that if Obama is leading 50-46 heading into the weekend before election day, we will probably be looking at a final result of something like 51.4 - 48.6 in favor of Obama. The difference undecideds can make is negligible unless McCain is able to draw level.

The Intrade Predication Market gives McCain a 15% chance of victory and I think this sounds about right. However, news cycles like yesterday or today are crushing for McCain. The Colin Powell endorsement not only elevated Obama's standing on national security issues, but Powell also launched into a stinging attack on the McCain campaign, the selection of Palin as a candidate for VP, and on the Republican party for its conduct in general (video below). In actual fact, Powell went much further than endorsing Obama as was expected. Instead, he turned into a fully fledged advocate providing some of the most effective arguments for Obama's candidacy that we have heard this election season.

McCain has only one chance, and that is to pivot away from the negative campaigning, to positively evoke a sense of America's greatness being founded in Conservative ideals. He has to acknowledge that George Bush has failed, but explain that the failure is as a result of George Bush, and not conservatism. This is his only hope.

Bush ran a brutally negative and effective campaign against Kerry in 2004, but he did two things differently than McCain.

Firstly, he started early. When McCain was running ads about Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, Republicans had already defined Kerry as a flip flopper and a politician with no integrity. McCain simply started the "guilt by association" attacks too late, after Obama had already been introduced and defined positively in the minds of too many.

Secondly, Bush did hardly any of the dirty work himself. He came very close to publicly condemning the swift boat ads while surreptitiously co-ordinating their smears. George Bush pivoted from the attacks of surrogates by simply presenting a positive message about the greatness and strength of America . McCain, by contrast, has become defined by the Ayers attacks, or the lipstick on a pig reference that Obama made. He has taken too much responsibility for the work of his campaign.

Ultimately, the momentum is with Obama right now and not with McCain. The Powell endorsement, preceded by center right endorsements from newspapers nationwide, have provided the platform for an Obama landslide. Victory for Obama can be guaranteed, not by playing it safe, but by truly winning the hearts and minds of the American center ground, offering himself as a President for all, and not just a President of the few.

My final suggestion for following the race over the next fourteen days is to follow the Gallup tracking polls. They have been the greatest early indicator of momentum shifts throughout this political season, with Rasmussen, Zogby, and Battleground always playing catch up. The margin might be greater or smaller, but right now it's all about the trend. No trend for McCain equals no hope for his campaign. Over the past two days Obama has improved his spread by 4 points in the Gallup poll. If this isn't halted within the next couple of days then we will be heading for a landslide of Reagan-esque proportions.

100,000 in Missouri

2008-10-18T12:59:00.001-07:00

This is what change looks like.

Right Wing Elites Are Out Of Touch

2008-10-15T20:11:00.000-07:00

This is not the election of "Joe the $250,000+ earning Plummer" as Drudge has suggested on his website post debate. This is the one year when right wing media elites have been chronically out of touch with the real sentiments of the people. O'Reilly, Drudge, Hannity, Limbaugh... it's not about Ayers, Wright, Acorn, Barney Frank, or a plummer worried that the economy will tank if we revert to a tax code much more conservative than that under the Clinton Administration. I say this as somebody who manages a business that earns considerably more than $250,000 a year. The future of small businesses and our economy as a whole is not threatened by Obama's tax policy. It's threatened by a continuation of the failed Bush economic policies that McCain proposes to continue.

She Lied And She Broke The Law

2008-10-10T22:27:00.001-07:00

An Unlawful Abuse Of Power. That was the unanimous 12-0 conclusion of a bi-partisan state investigation into Sarah Palin's troopergate scandal.

Money quote from the report that was released late today: "Gov. Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda." The report goes on to say that Sarah Palin broke a state ethics law that bars public officials from pursuing personal interest through official action.

Read the report in full here

Here is an overview of the scandal from September 3rd, including excerpts of Sarah Palin's emphatic denials:

"Demand McCain Stop The Sissy Talk!"

2008-10-10T16:57:00.000-07:00

Those are the cries from the Conservative base tonight. An example from the Free Republic Message Board:

"I'm SICK AND TIRED OF THIS HORSE**** and I hope the rest of you guys are too!! BARACK OBAMA IS NOT A DECENT GUY! HE IS FRIENDS WITH A TERRORIST!! HE IS UP TO HIS NECK IN CORRUPTION FROM ILLINOIS STATE POLITICS TO ACORN TO FUNDRAISING TO THIS CURRENT ECONOMIC CRISIS!!CALLING OBAMA A DECENT GUY IS HORSE****! It completely legitimizes this fraudulant terrorist lover! JOHN MCCAIN CROSSED THE F***ING LINE WITH ME TODAY! I’VE NEVER BEEN SO MAD IN MY ENTIRE LIFE! WE HAVE AN ADMITTED SOCIALIST TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER ABOUT TO WIN THE MOST POWERFUL POSITION IN THE WORLD AND JOHN MCCAIN SITS IDLE AND PRAISES HIM AS A DECENT GUY!" More Here.

Why? Because McCain made these comments earlier today, trying to control the anger his campaign has fueled over the past few weeks:

Guilt By Association? Sarah Palin and the AIP

2008-10-06T22:49:00.000-07:00

Why does Sarah Palin get a free pass? From my September 2nd post:

"I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."

"And I won’t be buried under their damn flag. I’ll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home.”

- Joe Vogler, Founder of The Alaska Independence Party (the former quote is still on their website).

Sarah Palin's association with the AIP:
1) According to Lynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, Sarah Palin and her husband Todd were members in the 1990's and attended statewide conventions.

2) From the AIP website: "Our current governor who I mentioned at the last conference, the one we were hoping would get elected, Sarah Palin, did get elected . . . .and there was a lot of talk about her moving up. She was an AIP member before she got the job as mayor . . . " (Video Evidence)

3) Her husband, Todd Palin, was a member until 2002.

4) And finally, here is Sarah Palin's address to the AIP convention this year.

McCain's campaign slogan is "Country First." By contrast, the AIP campaign slogan is "Alaska First -- Alaska Always."

Would you be associated for decades with a political organization that professes hatred towards America? Or does hatred of America only matter if its espoused by your pastor, as opposed to your political party?

Here is an ad expressing the same sentiment:

John McCain and the Keating Five

2008-10-05T23:00:00.000-07:00

From Wiki:The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The five senators, Alan Cranston (D-CA), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), John Glenn (D-OH), John McCain (R-AZ), and Donald W. Riegle (D-MI), were accused of improperly aiding Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of an investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB).

The core allegation of the Keating Five scandal is that Charles Keating, who eventually served five years in jail for his mishandling of a saving and loan association (eerily similar to our current economic crisis), made contributions to senators and then called on them to resist the passage of regulation. As a result there was a slowdown in the finance industry and the real estate market that many consider a contributing cause of the economic recession in the 1990's. From 1982 to 1987 John McCain received $112,000.00 in contributions from Keating. In addition, McCain's wife and father in law, had invested over $350,000.00 in a Keating owned shopping center. McCain, his family and their babysitter had made nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard his private jet. Three of the trips were to Keating's luxurious retreat in the Bahamas. McCain did not pay anything for the trips until years after they were taken and the insinuation of impropriety first arose. Keating established similar relationships with four other senators.

The facts:
Regulators were concerned in the mid 1980's that risky investment practices were potentially exposing government insurance funds to huge losses. Charles Keating's savings and loan association, Lincoln, had become burdened with bad debt as a result of its past aggressiveness. As a result its investment practices were being investigated. For a time it seemed as though the government might seize Lincoln for being insolvent. Keating wanted five senators to intervene on his behalf.

On April 2nd, 1987, a meeting with the chairman of the FHLBB (Independent Federal Regulatory Body) and four of the Keating Five senators took place, including John McCain. The senators requested that no staff be present. One of the senators started the meeting with mention of "our friend at Lincoln" referring to Charles Keating. The chairman said he was unfamiliar with the details of that case, but offered to set up a meeting with the regulators in San Francisco that had oversight jurisdiction over Lincoln.

On April 9th, 1987, the Keating Five, including McCain met with three members of the San Francisco regulators. The regulators felt that the meeting was very unusual and that they were being pressured by a "united front." At this point the regulators explained Lincoln was under criminal investigation for many serious charges.

Lincoln was seized by the government in 1989. More than 21,000 elderly investors lost their life savings. A criminal investigation of Charles Keating followed that was expanded to include the five Senators, including John McCain.

John McCain was cleared of any criminal impropriety, but the Senate Ethics committee criticized him for poor judgment for when he met with regulators on behalf of Charles Keating. In 2002, John McCain said these two meetings were "the worst mistake of my life." The Senate Ethics committee did not pursue, for lack of jurisdiction, McCain's delayed re-imbursments to Keating for trips at the latter's expense. One of the San Francisco bank regulators felt that McCain had gotten off too lightly, saying that Keating's business involvement with Cindy McCain was an obvious conflict of interest.

There is more:
John McCain's first letter on behalf of Keating
John McCain's second letter on behalf of Keating
John McCain's third letter on behalf of Keating
John McCain's fourth letter on behalf of Keating
John McCain's fifth letter on behalf of Keating

In conclusion, can the American people really believe that John McCain, who admitted his judgment was compromised during the Keating Five scandal, is the man to clean up the current financial mess on Wall Street? Can we trust John McCain to implement the regulation we need?

The same John McCain who opposed Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans in 2000, because he felt they threatened the government surplus, and in 2008 supports them in spite of defecits and national debt that is spiraling out of control. The same John McCain who promised an honorable and positive campaign and then launched into attack advertisements about Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Moses, not to mention saying Obama called Sarah Palin a pig and wanted to teach sex education to Kindergarten children. The same John McCain who chose a clearly uninformed and unqualified Vice Presidential candidate at the age of 72 for purely political purposes. The same John McCain who, now down in the polls, is preparing to "change the conversation" away from the issues that matter to launch a nasty smear campaign against his opponent.

Can you trust John McCain?

Obama's pre-emptive strike against the smears:

The full documentary will be available at 12:00 EST tomorrow here at www.KeatingEconomics.com

Palin Made Things Worse

2008-10-04T22:25:00.000-07:00

Daily tracking polls including, for the first time, a full day's polling after the Vice Presidential debate, all show Obama either sustaining or increasing his lead in the Presidential race against McCain. The electorate are thankfully looking for more than a wink and an anecdotal aside from their next VP. However, having failed to win the argument on any of the issues, John McCain, who promised an honorable and positive campaign after winning the Republican nomination, is flip-flopping, planning to pursue an aggressive smear campaign to get back into the race. Expect plenty of McCain/Palin personal attacks against Obama over the next four weeks. McCain will probably justify these unscrupulous and unethical attacks once again on the fact that he didn't get all the town hall meetings he wanted. It's good to know his integrity is so unwavering.

John McCain = The change we need.

Sunday Update: Here are today's numbers with 2 full days of polling post VP debate:

Diageo/Hotline OBAMA 48 McCAIN41
Gallup OBAMA 50 McCAIN 43
Rasmussen Reports OBAMA 51 McCAIN 44
Research 2000/dKos OBAMA 52 McCAIN 40

Also, here is the Obama campaign's preemptive strike against the upcoming desperate personal attacks from John McCain and Sarah Palin:

Vice Presidential Debate Reaction

2008-10-02T22:29:00.000-07:00

I feel that my predication was right on the money. Palin started forcefully, but slowed as the issues caught up with her memorized talking points. Biden was sincere and authentic at his best, and thoughtless at his worst. She did herself a world of good, and most importantly re-energized the dispirited Conservative base, but she didn't do it as effectively as she did in the convention speech. This won't have the same lasting effect.

Post convention polls state that it was an emphatic victory for Biden, but, I think that's yet to be seen. However, while Palin was charming, I think pundits are mistaking that for the type of resonance and informed caring people are looking for. Her tone was just off for me. Overall I think Biden edged it. For reasons I described below, that is actually a big victory for Obama as this is one less game-changing opportunity left on the schedule for the McCain campaign.

The best analogy I can think of to describe Palin is a rookie boxer with naturally good technique and a couple of hard hitting punches. But, as they say in boxing, she is chinny. She is extremely vulnerable to a knockout blow, even when she appears in full control. Where Bush could ride with his mistakes and misstatements as if they were irrelevant (quite masterfully looking back) Palin by comparison is completely exposed. Unlike some of the pundits on cable news tonight I do not think the narrative has been transformed about Palin being unqualified for the Presidency. As John McCain would say "There will be more gaffes, I'm sorry to say. There will be more gaffes." Those gaffes will continue to haunt McCain's ability to control the national conversation.

Finally, Obama had the best possible candidate on his ticket for tonight (and maybe tonight only) because his authenticity negated an area where Palin could have destroyed an overly political Kerry, Hillary, Gore, or Bayh (who I supported as V.P.) with her "realness." Independent and undecided voters in the country tonight will be talking as much about their positive feelings for Joe Biden as they will be about Palin's charm.

Before, the debate I said Obama was essentially up 2 touchdowns approaching the end of the third quarter. I'd say tonight we're heading into the final quarter with McCain/Palin, at best, having to settle for a field goal with their previous possession. The main task of the Obama campaign tonight is to do whatever it takes to disrupt the national conversation being dominated tomorrow by the fact that Palin exceeded expectations. Although, it is quite possible House Republicans will do him a favor on this by voting against the bailout plan again. If the bill fails again, Obama scores, and we head into Tuesday's debate with McCain clearly incapable of leading his own party, let alone the country. Maybe this is just wishful thinking on my part, but we will see.

What Biden Must Do To Win The Debate

2008-10-01T23:15:00.000-07:00

While everyone enthusiastically awaits the Vice Presidential debate, expecting gaffe's, misstatements, and further embarrassment for Sarah Palin, insufficient emphasis is being placed on tomorrow night's importance. There are two major reasons why I believe this debate could hugely contribute towards the eventual victor in this race:

1. John McCain was outstanding in the Presidential debate. He may have lost in every poll and dial meter, but last Friday John McCain was at his best. He brought his extensive assessment of policy issues on the subjects that suit him best politically. He savaged Obama on the issue of Iran and negotiating without pre-condition. He pivoted off the economic crisis and controlled the conversation on earmarks and spending. He emotively reached out to the American people with the substantive promise of victory in Iraq.

And, it didn't work. For the same reason John Kerry managed to win all 3 debates in 2004 and lose that election to President Bush. He wasn't likeable, and on all the issues that mattered, Obama more than held his own. McCain appeared mean, angry, and disrespectful to Obama. He repeatedly derided Obama's lack of understanding and naivety when it was patently clear that Obama had demonstrated an extensive understanding of the issues, and that the differences between him and McCain were a matter of perspective.

The next two Presidential debates will be focused on domestic policy and John McCain can either attempt to learn from his mistakes, being more cordial and respectful to Obama to compensate for his off-putting crankiness (potentially undermining his narrative that Obama is an inexperienced danger to America), or he can continue the attack orientated posture he staked out last Friday, undermining his independent and bi-partisan appeal. Either way, the chances of any game-changing debate moments for McCain have significantly receded. Barring a Reverend Wright style controversy that dramatically puts Obama on the defensive, I just don't see how McCain's debate performances can improve over the coming weeks.

2. Obama is now in a very strong position. It's the equivalent of being up 2 touchdowns, with possession of the football approaching the end of the 3rd quarter. Another touchdown now can leave the opposition with just too much to do. Likewise, failure to score and conceding a touchdown allows the opposition back into the game and turns all the momentum against you. We saw that with Obama and Hillary in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Obama has a national lead average of 5.3% according to RCP, and critically he is hitting 50% in many of the polls that are being released. Make no mistake, this is a significant national lead, and while Obama's support is notoriously soft, time is running out for game-changers like the Republican National Convention. Obama is also now ahead in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, and he is extremely competitive in Missouri and Indiana. Do you know how many of these states Obama needs to win to be victorious on November 4th? If he can hold onto New Hampshire, Michigan, and Wisconsin, Obama needs to win only one of these states. That is how up against it the McCain campaign is right now.

If Biden wins emphatically, and Palin struggles, then an additional boost in the polls for Obama could essentially put this race out of McCain's reach. Likewise, short on opportunities for game-changers, this is a huge chance for the McCain campaign to get themselves back in the game. After all, debate expectations for Palin are about as low as they were before her outstanding speech at the Republican convention in August.

The Obama campaign, ahead of the curve as ever, has brilliantly insisted upon standing lecterns for the debate. This will dramatically inhibit Palin's ability to get folksy and colloqial with Biden and the moderators. The spotlight will be sharper, and there will be a greater requirement for stature.

Biden must be cautious, but authentic. Biden's strength is also his weakness. He has a big heart, he's rhetorically ambitious, and he's very sincere. As a result, sometimes he isn't particularly thoughtful. But, Biden really does care about the issues involved, plus real people and their suffering. That should be his objective, to demonstrate to the electorate his comparative experience and expertise, but to also show middle class Americans that he's on their side. He must not pro-actively engage with Palin, however, if she hits him hard, and at times she will, he can't take it lying down either. He must also leave Sarah Palin to make her own mistakes, rather than forcing them, just like Gore shouldn't have forced the issue with Bush in 2000 making himself look petty and un-presidential while Bush hovered above the fray with his wafer thin populist jargons.

But, as an aggressive tactic I think Biden should take the debate into tangential areas that Palin won't have done her homework on. On foreign policy he should talk about the tensions between India and Pakistan, or the role of Ukraine in the current tensions with Russia (as McCain tried to against Obama). On economics he should talk about the role of China as a burgeoning economic superpower. On healthcare he should talk about people who already have coverage, but can't afford the deductables, prescription drugs, and don't go to the doctor, potentially making their ailments much more severe. On women's issues he should talk about the reality of criminalizing abortion, and the way in which prior to Roe vs. Wade poor women across America risked and lost their lives getting back street abortions. Should a woman who has been raped and chooses to have an abortion be criminalized? That is the reality of Sarah Palin's position and that's the context within which the issue should be framed.

Finally, here are some examples of how effective Sarah Palin can be as a debater.

Here are some examples of how little she knows about national and international issues:

My prediction is that the Obama campaign will have trained Joe well, and after an aggressive start Palin will slow down to be undone by policy issues beyond her breadth of knowledge. George Bush was the great misunderestimated debater, whose political skills and breadth of general policy and world knowledge was actually much more expansive than he was given credit for. This time tomorrow we'll know how well Sarah Palin crammed for this test, and if she has also been underestimated by Democrats.

Of course, a completely different point would be to ask whether any potential President should need to cram for these basic issues at all. Especially, at such a time of national crisis and war.

House Republicans Throw A Tantrum...

2008-09-29T18:17:00.000-07:00

The House of Representatives defeated the bailout plan for the economy today 228 votes to 205. House Republicans voted 133 against and 65 for the plan, dooming its passage to failure in spite of President Bush and John McCain's efforts to the contrary. Was this a principled stand by Republicans against government intervention in a free market society? Were they worried about your tax dollars being wasted on Wall Street welfare? Don't be silly. Nancy Pelosi hurt their feelings in a speech so they bailed on the American people. See here:

It's nice to know that such profound judgment on these matters is executed on behalf of the American people when House Republicans vote.

And our would be President:
"I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so." - John McCain, Wednesday, September 24th, on suspending his campaign and trying to delay the debate.

His senior campaign advisor:
"What Senator McCain was able to do was to help bring all of the parties to the table, including the House Republicans, whose votes were needed to pass this." - Steve Schmidt, Meet the Press, Sunday, September 28th.

His campaign spokeswoman:
"We're optimistic that Senator McCain will bring House Republicans on board without driving other parties away, resulting in a successful deal for the American taxpayer." - Kimmie Lipscomb, Friday, September 26th.

John McCain = The change we need.

Proud

2008-09-27T16:20:00.000-07:00

In last night's debate John McCain really brought it on everything from earmarks, to Iraq, Iran, Russia, and the United States' responsibility in the world. Obama stood toe to toe with him on every issue, demonstrated his fundamental concern for middle class Americans, and explained why our predominant focus on Iraq is having a detrimental affect elsewhere. He demonstrated a breadth of knowledge and understanding, as did McCain, that has been sorely lacking in the White House for eight years.

The moment regarding two bracelets from mothers expressing different sentiments on Iraq was a powerful, culturally significant moment that really said so much about our divisions as a nation.

Only in America can a candidate like Barack Obama be possible. There was no question last night that Democrats made the right decision in making him our nominee.

Unstable

2008-09-26T03:00:00.000-07:00

The country faces a terrible financial crisis. That much is certain.

As a result of Treasury Secretary Paulson's dire warnings, echoed last night by President Bush in his televised address, there is panic cascading through families and businesses nationwide. While the fear mongering maybe a political calculation on the part of the administration to force through their proposal in congress, that doesn't the change the fact that we should be very, very afraid about our economic future: Unemployment is rising, the economy is on the precipice of recession, we have gone from 4 trillion dollars of national debt, to almost 10 trillion dollars during the span of the Bush administration. The deficit is literally exploding and now our financial institutions are in disarray.

We the people need a solution from our leaders. The marketplace requires immediate action and re-assurance. We cannot try to solve all our problems with this current bill. That requires extensive study, debate and leadership and should follow the bailout, in my opinion, along with Hillary Clinton's proposal of a moratorium on housing foreclosures.

What's lacking in our economy is confidence in the fundamentals. There is no confidence in the President, in the treasury, and in Ben Bernanke. The economy is inflating and deflating on nothing but hot air. We need a more solid and less dramatic approach to economics akin to the financial management of Robert Rubin in the 1990's, the informed leadership of President Clinton, and also, to be fair, the fiscal discipline of the Republican congress (before they evolved into closet socialists expanding the role of government and spending beyond record levels).

So given the crisis, and the urgent requirement for a speedy and surefooted solution, what does John McCain do? He panics.

At first he suggests the fundamentals of our economy our strong. Then he opposes the bailout plan, before supporting it. Then after supporting the plan he tries to scupper it in today's meeting with Bush and Obama, so he can come up with a new proposal that he can take credit for. He says that as President he would fire the SEC chairman Christopher Cox, even though a President doesn't have the power to do that.

And, now, as his poll numbers plummet in critical battleground states in Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Indiana, Colorado, and Wisconsin, he decides that what the delicate negotiations between Democrats and Republicans on the hill require is an infusion of Presidential politics. Now instead of focusing on what can be agreed upon by all parties, we are going to have a drawn out procession of political posturing on both sides, jeopardizing the economy even further. McCain says he's suspending his campaign, but the reality is that he's continuing to run ads, send out surrogates, and give interviews to network news.

Ironically, after spending the entire campaign suggesting that Obama puts politics before country, it's McCain that has put his political ambitions above his integrity and the nation at every turn. He opposed the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans precisely because of the exponentially growing national debt, and yet, running for the Republican Presidential nomination he changed his position for political expediency. He promised an honorable campaign without any negative advertising, and then proceeded to run ads about Britney Spears and Paris Hilton at a time of national crisis. He flat out lied about Obama's desire to teach sex education to kindergarten children, while also suggesting, disingenuously, that Obama had called Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin a pig, when McCain had said exactly the same words about Hillary Clinton.

The truth is that Democrats have to do what's in the best interest of the country. If the Republican's won't agree to this urgent deal to assist our financial institutions then I believe they should press ahead and pass the bill without their support. It may not be politically beneficial for Obama, but right now, it's what the country needs.

What President Barack Obama Really Means

2008-09-16T04:49:00.000-07:00

1. A departure from the failed Bush economic theory of tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts for the wealthiest earners. As the Clinton administration demonstrated in the 1990's, a more balanced approach of fiscal discipline, planning, incentives, and investment, can grow the economy from the bottom up, as opposed to creating a volatile boom and bust economy like we have now, employing trickle down Bush-economics.

2. Lower Healthcare costs. Your premiums will cost less than they would under President McCain. Prescription drugs will cost less than they would under President McCain. The healthcare burden for smaller businesses will be less than it would be under President McCain.

3. Better public schools. More teachers. College will be cheaper and students will have the opportunity to earn credits against their loans performing services in their community.

4. A dramatic effort to research and develop alternative fuels that are the only real path to lower energy prices and freedom from our reliance on foreign oil. Under President Obama there will be greater access to hybrid cars, fuel efficient cars, and cars that run on natural gas. Under President McCain nothing is going to change. You'll still be pumping the same gas into your car in 4 years time, domestic drilling will bear no dividens by then, and there will be nothing to stop the constant summer increases in the cost of gasoline that we're currently subjected to.

5. Unemployment will fall. Under President Obama more will be done to incentivize welfare to work with investment and job training opportunities. McCain will simply rely on the failed theory of trickle down Bush-economics, providing tax cuts for the wealthiest earners. This last quarter the economy grew but unemployment went up sharply. Bush-economics are not designed to benefit you. They are designed to benefit the few. John McCain does not care about you, and the economic policies of President McCain will not help you. President Bush has not cared about you, and his economic policies have not helped you for the last eight years.

6. Less domestic jobs will be shipped overseas. More will be done by President Obama than President McCain to discourage US companies from employing low cost labor from other parts of the world at the expense of the domestic workforce.

7. Our military will be re-focused on Afghanistan and defeating the Islamic extremists who threaten the homeland. Under President McCain our troops will be focused on Iraq for many more years to come and it will be more of the same, emboldening Iran, antagonizing Iraqi's with a seemingly endless occupation, and wasting tax payers money on corrupt Iraqi politicians. Under President Obama there will be a more effective approach to the Arab world, aggressively pursuing terrorists and extremists, as well as restarting the peace process between Israel and Palestine.

8. Under President Obama there will be more investment in our domestic infrastructure. We will be better prepared to handle national disasters like Hurricane Katrina as opposed to the disastrous neglect of the Bush Administration.

9. The Supreme Court will remain a balanced forum for resolving our legal disputes. By contrast, under President McCain it will be 7 Conservatives to 2 more modern interpreters of the constitution. Roe vs. Wade will be overturned and abortion will be criminalized in some states. Women will go to jail for having abortions. Doctors will go to jail for performing abortions. Women will have to risk their lives to have underground abortions. If Vice President or President Sarah Palin gets her way this would also apply to situations in which a woman has been raped. The irrefutable reality of overturning Roe vs. Wade is the criminalization of abortion in many states.

10. Finally, there will be no risk, whatsoever, at any point, of President Sarah Palin, leader of the free world.

We cannot keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. We just have to summon the courage to change.

More of the same, more Bush, more McCain, more ugly, nasty partisan politics, more economic instability, more profits for oil companies, health insurance companies, and drug companies, more unemployment, more jobs being shipped overseas, more tax payers money wasted in Iraq, more underfunded government agencies unprepared for national disasters, and even more Conservatives on the supreme court. This is not what America needs.

Let's not make another mistake that we have to wait until 2012 to undo.

A Great Leader Departs Iraq

2008-09-16T04:40:00.000-07:00

General David Petraeus relinquishes his command of Iraq today. During his 20 months in charge, through intelligent and aggressive strategic planning, Petraeus has done much to turn the situation around in Iraq. He is a great American and deserves an enormous amount of credit for bringing the qualities to our mission in Iraq that were so absent during the initial invasion and chaotic aftermath. Less of the sacrifice the United States has made in Iraq has been in vain as a result of Petraeus' remarkable leadership.

Lipstick On A Pig?

2008-09-11T00:19:00.001-07:00

Are you friggin serious? And today McCain goes all out suggesting that Obama was calling Palin a pig releasing an ad to that effect? The guy has ZERO integrity.

What Republicans Really Think

2008-09-03T17:34:00.000-07:00

Palin Debacle: You Tube Round Up 09/03

2008-09-03T02:03:00.000-07:00

Enjoy this monologue from, quite possibly, the future leader of the free world:

Money Quote:
"Pray for that also (the Alaska Gas Pipeline). I think god's will must be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built. I can do my job ... but really that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God."

And on criminalizing women who have abortions, even in the event of rape or incest:

Some great commentary from ForaTV:

Just in case the prospect of President Palin is too much for you to digest, here is some light relief from Lisa Nova and Sarah Benincasa:

Reverend Wright Re-Visited

2008-09-02T19:49:00.000-07:00

"I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."

"And I won’t be buried under their damn flag. I’ll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home.”

- Joe Vogler, Founder of The Alaska Independence Party (the former quote is still on their website).

Unfit To Lead

2008-08-31T19:00:00.001-07:00

Sarah Palin's selection as a candidate for Vice President ultimately reflects on John McCain. The selection was not properly vetted and he had only met her once before choosing her as his running mate. I do not doubt the significant positives to her selection: i) She mobilizes the Conservative base ii) She is well positioned to vigorously defend domestic drilling, which has been a winning issue for McCain iii) She appeals to disinfranchized Hillary voters. However, she is a profoundly flawed candidate, with extreme views on evolution and abortion, and astonishingly there are unforeseen controversies bubbling beneath the surface that I'm sure we will hear more about in the coming weeks.

McCain has repeatedly attacked the culture of "perpetual campaigning" and its ill affects on governance in the Bush White House, however, he has made a VP selection that could only possibly service his campaign and puts the fate of the nation and the world in great jeopardy. She not only has zero foreign policy experience, but she has expressed absolutely no interest or vision in national security issues from Afghanistan to Iraq. In a recent trip to visit troops in Kuwait, her focus was on re-assuring Alaskan National Guardsmen that they would be able to hunt with no restrictions on their return to their native state. It should be noted that McCain just turned 72 years of age.

Faye Palin, Sarah Palin's mother in law said it best: "I'm not sure what she brings to the ticket other than she's a woman and a conservative. Well, she's a better speaker than McCain."

This Vice Presidental pick makes Harriet Myers look like Antonin Scalia.

But, this has been indicative of McCain's flawed judgment throughout this political season. He insisted that his campaign would be honorable and devoid of negative attacks, but, while the economy falters, more homes go into foreclosure, healthcare gets more expensive, and unemployment rises, McCain's focus seems to be on comparing Barack Obama to Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Charlton Heston.

McCain, quite rightly stood up to the sweeping Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that have more than doubled the national debt to almost 10 trillion dollars. However, this campaign season, inspite of the urgent priorities of paying down the debt and reducing the deficit, he has reversed course, and co-signed George Bush's disastrous tax policy for political gain with his own base.

Sarah Palin was a reckless choice that tells us more about John McCain than it does Sarah Palin. He did not spend an extended period of time with her, he did not research her background, and he did not look for somebody he agreed with on the issues. Instead he made a purely political calculation. By contrast, Barack Obama did the complete opposite. He put aside what was in his best political interests by not choosing Hillary Clinton, and looked for someone he shared a personal affinity with instead. He picked a running mate he had campaigned with for many months, and who would bring expertise, wisdom, and experience to the table. He picked a running mate he had confidence could be President if the unfortunate need arose.

What does that tell you, respectively, about John McCain and Barack Obama?

Sarah Palin Laughs As State Senator Is Called a "Bitch" and a "Cancer"

2008-08-31T17:40:00.001-07:00

The Question For John McCain

2008-08-31T16:38:00.005-07:00

After winning the Presidential election, and during your first six months in office, there is an unforeseen and debilitating accident that prevents you from retaining your responsibilities as commander in chief. Seeking to capitalize, Iran makes incursions into Iraqi territory, Hezbollah launches a rocket and missile campaign against Israeli cities, and, according to the C.I.A., there is increased chatter that Al Qaeda leaders are plotting a terrorist attack. Tensions between Russia and Georgia are at an all time high, and there is also hostility brewing between nuclear nations India and Pakistan.

In your assessment, what makes Sarah Palin uniquely qualified to lead the free world as commander in chief of the United States armed forces?

Sarah Palin Quotes:

But as for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day?

I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq?

We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources, which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go.

Does Sarah Palin Believe In Evolution?

2008-08-31T16:18:00.005-07:00

I don't think she does:

From The Anchorage Daily News

Palin said she thought there was value in discussing alternatives.
"It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there," she said in the interview. "They gain information just by being in a discussion."

That was how she was brought up, she said. Her father was a public school science teacher.

"My dad did talk a lot about his theories of evolution," she said. "He would show us fossils and say, 'How old do you think these are?' "

Asked for her personal views on evolution, Palin said, "I believe we have a creator."

She would not say whether her belief also allowed her to accept the theory of evolution as fact.

"I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she said.

Hat Tip: Nashville Post

Can you trust John McCain?

2008-08-14T00:55:00.001-07:00

My second shot at editing a political video. Enjoy:

Evan Bayh for Vice President

2008-08-14T00:22:00.004-07:00

That is my choice. For reasons I explained in this post back in 2005 when he was a prospective candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination. He is a man of moderation, conviction, independence, integrity and contrasts well with Obama. He is not a great campaigner, and that is a weakness, but in terms of governance, I cannot think of a better fit. Additionally, he brings into play the state of Indiana which no Democrat has won since 1964.

Hillary's Rovian Strategy: Divide and Conquer

2008-05-12T00:21:00.021-07:00

“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” Hillary Clinton said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

The implication of these comments is that working class, white voters are more significant than other Democratic constituencies because of their likelihood to be swing voters in the Presidential election. However, the subtext is eerily similar to the Bush campaigns of 2000 and 2004, to stir divisions in the up coming primaries in West Virginia and Kentucky, where Clinton needs to win by huge margins to keep the race going. Her only hope is to have a party that remains bitterly divided, rather than rallying around a presumptive nominee in Barack Obama.

Firstly, I find myself wishing to echo Donna Brazile's sentiments that the very last thing Democratic leaders should be doing is dividing the electorate further, while suggesting that certain types of voters are more important than others. It is so insulting to the many millions of people that have voted for Obama, that somehow super-delegates should consider their votes less important because they are either African American, or college educated, and these are constituencies that the DNC can take for granted in the Fall.

Secondly, yes, Obama has his weaknesses electorally, but so does Hillary. If anything her weaknesses have far graver implications because she directly compensates for McCain's principal weakness, his inability to motivate the Conservative base in his own party.

I can just imagine the headlines on Drudge and the non stop anti-Hillary barrage on talk radio from August through November if she was the nominee. This will make a huge difference in motivating hardcore Republicans who have problems with McCain on issues like immigration.

The issue for super-delegates should not be who votes for whom, but rather how many vote for whom, and the indisputable reality remains:

Obama is just as competitive as Hillary in national polls against McCain, while he has considerably more room for improvement than she does. He has, so far, won the pledged delegate race, super delegate race, popular vote race, and more states than Hillary. In fact, he has won more votes in a Democratic primary than anyone else in the history of the party.

It is impossible for Hillary to close the gap in pledged delegates. Reports suggest that Obama will at least equal her super-delegate support. And finally, with an 800,000 popular vote margin, and even counting Florida (300,000 votes NET for Clinton) it's almost impossible to see where she can make up that gap.

It is clear that Hillary is willing to utilize any possible metric to establish victory, however, it's incredulous to argue that Obama's electability is any worse than hers. But, the intention of her campaign is not to make a fair assessment of the reality of this race. The intention of her campaign is to inflame the bitterness amongst the electorate and augment her support as a consequence. It's the only way that she can make it to the convention in August.

So as you watch the news over the coming weeks and digest the latest antagonisms from Hillary Clinton keep in mind she has only one objective right now:

Prevent the party unifying around Barack Obama by feeding into and perpetuating the division amongst the voters. It's a strategy right out of the Karl Rove playbook, and ironically, it's a strategy that Dick Morris would probably be proud to call his own.

A Lack Of Clarity

2008-05-02T18:37:00.013-07:00

As demonstrated by my previous posts I am an Obama supporter, and my belief in his potential to transform many of the problems that we face, domestically and around the world, is undiminished. However, these are perilous times for Obama politically, even though he has, essentially, wrapped up the Democratic nomination.

The accepted wisdom is that controversies surrounding his pastor, Reverend Wright, associates like Bill Ayers, and his poorly chosen "bitter" comments in San Francisco have derailed his momentum. Of course, this is true. But, in actual fact, this damage has been considerably exacerbated by the vacuum that is the Obama campaign's national message and their inability to impact upon the press narrative, especially in the bigger states.

Marketing, famously referred to as the "work of Satan" by the late great, Bill Hicks, is not a practice of dishonesty. Marketing is the process of mass communication and creating a clear message that grabs hold and resonates with those you are targeting.

Obama's message, so positive and hopeful, has been sidetracked, not only by the recent controversies, but also by his inability to control the focus of our national discussion.

While his speech on race was, in my opinion riveting, important, historically accurate, and brave... if you stopped ten people on the street in any state and asked them what Obama's race speech was actually about, I don't think that two of them would give the same answer. As a result, even though his sweeping examination of race in America addressed so much, the difference it made to the electorate was minimal.

Simplicity, clarity, directness, and focus.

These are the key elements to successful marketing. Look at the powerhouse brands that populate our culture: Coke, Nike, etc. The simplicity of their marketing tells you exactly who they are. Their only objective is to grab your attention and pre-dispose your choices.

Whether you are selling soda or trying to get elected you MUST respect your target demographic.

We live busy lives, and our attention spans are shorter than ever before. Most of the choices we make as consumers are entirely subconscious. Why do you buy a bottle of Coke at the convenient store and not Pepsi? Why Vitamin Water and not Life Water, or vice versa? Why are you enticed to buy a new beauty product wandering around the isles at Sephora? Since when did Starbucks become a part of your daily ritual?

Every day the political narrative is bursting with polls, momentum, commentary, and bias and, as potential voters, every day our lives are bursting with family, friends, work and taking care of our homes. When our lives aren't bursting our senses are being bombarded with flashy graphics on Entertainment Tonight or Deal or No Deal. When we're not watching TV, Perez Hilton and TMZ.com are appealing to our most trivial inclinations.

Obama's pastor, Reverend Wright, says "God Damn America!" This is news that grabs our attention.

"A young girl is sleeping at 3AM in the morning, but somewhere in the world there is a crisis..." This is a message that grabs our attention.

"Obama is nothing more than elitist liberal." This is a very simple concept that instantaneously defines Obama in the context of controversial issues like gay marriage, guns, and religion.

By contrast, Obama's message, as important to our vital interests on the economy, foreign policy, and healthcare as any of the above, is not grabbing our attention because it lacks clarity. There is too much cerebral indulgence, too much complexity to his arguments, too much focus on talking to the crowd in front of him and not the soundbites that will be taken and edited for the evening news.

When I think back to Iowa I am struck by how the simple slogans linger in my memory: "Change vs. more of the same" and "Yes we can."

In spite of everything he touched upon in that wonderful speech on race, the resonance and depth to those simple words "Yes we can" were far more profound. They were also more politically prosperous.

Memo to David Axelrod: In the heated exchanges of a Presidential primary election, especially in the bigger states, less is always more. Obama needs to crystalize his message and repeat it over and over again until it is drilled into the national press narrative.

A Choice

2008-03-12T02:05:00.003-07:00

My first shot at editing a political video. Enjoy:

The Race Is Almost Over

2008-03-09T19:47:00.019-07:00

It's been a titanic struggle been two political powerhouses: An eloquent inspiration for a new tomorrow and an indefatigable fighter, hell bent on correcting the wrongs of the past seven years. They both have immense political strengths and weaknesses. Obama is inspirational and unflappable, but he has no experience and his message can lack substantive focus. Hillary is tough as nails and a policy expert, but she's also carelessly reactionary, and equivocates on issues (Iraq, Iran, Illegal Immigration, and Nafta) that would naturally be informed by one's core belief system (a problem for Kerry in 2004).

A recent comparison was made on network news to the Thrilla In Manila between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier, because of the back and forth nature of this battle. As a boxing fan, I wholeheartedly agree that it's a valid comparison with many parallels.

Hillary is a lot like Joe Frazier... a rough and rugged brawler who thrives in the thick of things, fighting ugly and battling fiercely toe to toe. Obama is a lot like Ali... skillful, imaginative, elusive, and completely unpredictable. On October 1st, 1975 in the Philippines, after 14 grueling rounds, it was Ali's artful repertoire that won out against Joe Frazier's ruggedly relentlessness assaults.

Similarly, in spite of the national news narrative post Texas and Ohio, after an historic campaign, Obama has all but wrapped up the Democratic nomination.

A brief run down of the states left to vote makes for an interesting read:

Mississippi 03/11 (33 Delegates), Pennsylvania 04/22 (158 Delegates), Guam 05/03 (4 Delegates), North Carolina 05/06 (115 Delegates), Indiana 05/06 (72 Delegates), West Virginia 05/13 (28 Delegates), Oregon 05/20 (52 Delegates), Kentucky 05/20 (51 Delegates), Puerto Rico 06/01 (55 Delegates), Montana 06/03 (15 Delegates), South Dakota 06/03 (15 Delegates).

The primaries ahead look fairly predictable and only in Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico would you favor Hillary Clinton to win. She stands a fighting chance in Indiana and Kentucky but it would be a very big surprise if victories there were acquired by wide margins. Based on any fair assessment of the upcoming votes it's hard to see how Clinton improves her pledged delegate standing against Obama (currently Obama 1378 to Hillary 1223). Optimistically she'll NET 10-20 Delegates out of Pennsylvania, but Obama will NET 5-15 in North Carolina. Obama will win West Virginia, Oregon, Mississippi, Montana, South Dakota, and probably Kentucky and Indiana.

According to a story in the Times of London the Clinton campaign has asserted 3 ways it can win this race. They do not stand up to scrutiny:

1. Re-runs in Michigan and Florida. These couldn't possibly close the pledged delegate gap that will remain, in all likelihood, between 100-150+ Obama.

2. Win the popular vote. The current popular vote total shows Obama with a 600,000 vote margin. In light of Obama being favored to win in 9 of the 11 primaries ahead it's hard to see how this changes significantly. Florida could NET her approximately 300,000 votes (that's what she won NET in January without Obama campaigning there). However, chances are that a new primary in Florida would be considerably closer. Current polls in Michigan put Clinton and Obama neck and neck on 41 points each, so it's hard to see any significant gains in the Midwestern state.

3. Undermine Obama's electability to win the Super-delegate vote. The reality is that the press narrative is fickle. As Obama wins, the national story is one dimensionally unfair to Hillary. Likewise, after Texas and Ohio, everything is seen through the prism of Hillary's regained momentum. But, as the victories continue rack up and Obama continues to win a broader cross section of the electorate, in addition to winning more states, winning more pledged delegates, and winning more votes... it's incredulous to argue that his electability is any worse than hers.

In the 14th round of the Thrilla in Manilla, Frazier was on his last legs. A large swelling had grown on the side of his head and he could barely see out of one eye. Ali was exhausted, but aware that Frazier would keep coming. He summoned enough strength to guarantee victory, but no matter the control he exerted, Frazier wouldn't go down. As the round ended, and Frazier stumbled back to his corner it was up to his trainer Eddie Futch to step in and end the fight. Frazier pleaded, "I want him boss," desperate to fight in the final round. Futch replied, "It's all over. No one will forget what you did here today."

Hillary Clinton will not be Barack Obama's Vice Presidential pick, but when this race is through, she will probably be one of the most important political leaders in the nation, destined to be Democratic Senate leader if she so chooses. No one will ever forget this historic campaign, nor her victories in New Hampshire, Ohio, and Texas when her back was up against the wall. But, if she goes on, and on, and on... in pursuit of her objectives, when the fight is lost, and she only hangs on by the the slimmest of hopes... then she will only be hurting the chances of the Democratic Party this November. If she truly cares about a Democratic approach to healthcare, the economy, the war in Iraq (ideas she largely shares with her opponent) then she should understand that this Presidential race is not about her, Barack, or even John McCain. It's about the country, it's people, and the world at large.

Does Hillary have an Eddie Futch that can pierce her impressive determination with this simple truth:

"It is over, Hillary, but no one will ever forget what you accomplished in this race."

We will soon know.

Questions for a better tomorrow

2008-02-29T18:30:00.000-08:00

Many of the people I know are torn about their choices for the Democratic Presidential nomination. They fluctuate on a regular basis between their head and heart.

The real answer for our future requires a contemplation of both head and heart, contextualized by our challenges. The merits of a particular Presidential candidate aren't exclusively the basis upon which a decision should be made. It's how those qualities are suited to transforming the problems we face in this country and, as leader of the free world, the problems confronted around the globe.

Which candidate can mobilize an industry to provide alternative fuels and energy, creating new jobs for the future, even at the expense of short term economic prosperity?

Which candidate can inspire us to fundamentally change the way our society functions, inspiring even more of us to conserve energy, recycle waste, and drive fuel efficient cars?

Which candidate can transform our failing schools so many more children have opportunities and there is greater social mobility?

Which candidate can address the systematic socioeconomic problems faced by communities all over the country while expanding economic participation?

Which candidate can transform healthcare in United States? Is it the one who is politically divisive, or the one who can reach out to moderates and independents? Is it the one who will mandate health coverage, or the one who will dramatically improve accessibility?

In the middle east, which candidate can re-ignite a peace process between Israel and Palestine that has disintegrated over the past seven years? Which candidate can improve the sectarian divide and encourage the foundations upon which future generations may not be defined by persecution and hatred?

In Iraq, which candidate can breathe life into the political process and build the positive momentum required to escape civil war? Which candidate can inspire the Iraqi people to embrace government as a solution to their problems, as opposed to violence and terrorism? Which candidate can, with credibility, request greater participation from the international community?

In Pakistan and India, which candidate can turn around the dangerous turmoil between two nuclear nations? In the arab world, which candidate can undermine the public hostility felt towards the United States that extremists and terrorists exploit and thrive upon?

In conclusion, the extent of our challenges require a transformative process as a result of the disastrously short sighted, dogmatically ideological, and incomprehensibly incompetent Bush administration. Our choice to transform our economy, our society, our environment, our healthcare, our schools, and the wider world as Democrats is in the possibility of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Possibility is the promise of this process, as it was with John Kerry, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton. Possibility doesn't always translate into actuality. Sometimes we are disappointed. Sometimes we are pleasantly surprised.

But, possibility is the only basis upon which we can choose a better tomorrow. While I think Hillary is tremendous in so many respects, the possibility of President Obama is so infinitely greater in the context of our challenges. That promise is worthy my preference and I encourage everybody to vote for Barak Obama.

Barack Obama for President

2008-02-10T18:28:00.000-08:00

My take for what it's worth. For the reasons I described a considerable while ago below:

Democrats need to start speaking from their hearts

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year

2006-12-28T00:34:00.000-08:00

I just wanted to wish everyone who still perchances upon this place a happy holiday. Due to time constraints at work I haven't been able to update either this space or my personal blog. Seeing as I expect the website to remain closed for the foreseeable future I thought that I'd post a few links to some of my favorite posts from 05, for anyone interested.

I miss blogging very much, but it has meant a lot for me to find focus professionally, while sorting myself out personally. It's been a real struggle in lots of ways, but then you look back over the course of the year and see how far you've come and all of the trials and tribulations feel worthwhile. Happiness, I guess, isn't about being happy. It's about moving forward in the right direction overall. Small steps, day in day out, retaining self belief, while trying to be absolutely honest with yourself. I have people in my life that I care about very much, and for that I couldn't be more grateful this holiday season.

This previous paragraph obviously proves George Will's point that blogging is all narcissism and indulgent/trivial self reflection. But, maybe that's not such a bad thing. It's a bit like Obama. Yes, logically, rationally, and by any fair, objective standard he isn't qualified to be President of the United States. But, emotionally he makes me consider possibilities I'd cynically dispensed with long ago. And, maybe opening up the minds and hearts of the American people once again is more important for the future than the practical act of governance. Maybe it's okay to indulge the idea of President Barak Obama, regardless of the practicalities.

Happy Holidays everyone :).

Graham

Some posts I enjoyed writing:
The Misunderestimation of Post War Iraq
London Attacks: Three Months On
Democrats Need To Find Heart
What is Multi-Culturalism?
Implications for Roe v. Wade
Thoughts On Abortion

Returning to Los Angeles

2005-12-19T03:30:00.000-08:00

Unfortunately, I won't be able to post anything for a little while. I'm returning to Los Angeles and have been rather busy getting prepared, hence my absense from your blogs. Everything should be back into full swing after the holidays, until which time I plan to enjoy Christmas with my family here in England before I say goodbye to them for a while.

I love everything about England. Living abroad for a prolonged period really gives you a completely new perspective on where you grew up. The people here are so down to earth, good humoured, and a lot more fun loving than they realize. They are also cynical and pessimistic as hell... which doesn't necessarily bring out the best in people, but it certainly keeps their feet on the ground. London is vast, brimming with history, as multi-ethnic as anyplace on earth, and as exciting and colorful as any big city. The soccer is great too, which I'll miss very much indeed. It will always be my home.

It's been a difficult period in my life. I left my job and returned to focus on writing, and all I really have to show for it are these protracted political rambles below. Sometimes things don't work out the way you hoped they would, and maybe I'm not cut out to be a writer, which remains my dream. When it comes to life generally, in spite of the many thoughts and feelings that weigh me down, I'm still not sure what I really want to say. Maybe being back in the US again will give me a chance to get involved in something appropriate.

It'll be nice to see my doggy again, be forced to smoke outside bars and restaurants (ughh), eat decent Mexican food, and enjoy the sparkling lights downtown while driving on the freeway. Also it'll be nice to have to tip every single human being that ever serves me anything...(what's up with that?) and better still: Lost, West Wing, ER, Apprentice, Survivor... yey! I'm so tired of downloading episodes via limewire and slowing down my internet connection.

Anyways, I doubt anything will change on this blog, although I've noticed since getting my powerbook back that this design doesn't work so great on Mac's.

I hope you all have a great Christmas, eat lots of food, get rat-arsed drunk, while enjoying the company of those you love. I hope also you get to give and receive some great prezzies. I'm off to see how I can avoid travelling Air France which appears to be the best flight available for me. The french can fly planes right? I wonder what kind of food they serve on a long haul flight...

Fighting Poverty

2005-12-13T17:07:00.000-08:00

In response to my previous post, "Is Greed Good?" discussing the social benefits of free, unrestrained enterprise many people made very pertinent points about the contrasting reality of those that "immorally" get left behind. I've been thinking about it a great deal... I can't deny that a free market society doesn't equate automatically to a perfect meritocracy. I can't deny that the American dream isn't an ideal ubiquitously accessible to every child regardless of race or creed. I can't deny that in the real world, there are real people living in isolated communities, segregated frequently along racial lines, riddled with poverty, crime, unemployment, and inadequate access to basic services.

I have a policy suggestion. I'm no expert, so forgive me the basic impracticalities of my argument. There just has to be a better way to deal with the chronic difficulties that blight equality of opportunity in free market societies. Difficulties that, in my opinion, are unethical to ignore under the banner of convenient abstractions like "personal responsibility" and "welfare dependence."

I believe in individuals. A flourishing society is built bottom up, and not top down, like "supply side" theorists aggressively proclaim to be an absolute truth. When you empower an individual with an education, self-esteem, opportunity, freedom, and role models he/she can aspire to follow, you create an engine for economic growth and social progress that is unsurpassed. That is what makes the United States the most vibrant, diverse, thriving, and dynamic nation on the face of the planet.

RESIDENT PARTICIPATION

A friend of mine works for a company that is involved with trying to regenerate local government housing in the UK. Here in Britain we face different manifestations of the same societal symptoms: huge tenement, council owned housing estates isolating fractured communities that are descending into violence, poverty, and crime. I grew up on one such estate in London, although to be fair, our problems were comparatively tame compared to the drug dealing, gun crime, vandalism, and violent street muggings that some people have to deal with on a daily basis. After I left in 1995 things seemed to get a little worse.

My friend's company facilitates a scheme called "Resident Participation." Local government decentralizes the maintenance of its housing to resident committees (Co-Ops), who receive a large portion of the area's allocated budget, plus get extensive training, and have to meet a basic criteria: A majority of residents must vote to approve the scheme and a significant percentage must participate on a regular basis.

The results are extraordinary:

Resident committees employ their own staff to clean up their condom and needle ridden stairways.
They employ repairmen to be on hand 24/7 to fix broken plumbing or heating problems that afflict elderly pensioners in the winter.
They pay for a Concierge to control access to their estate.
They install CCTV cameras to move drug dealing or gang violence elsewhere.
They evict violent residents
They set up youth centers and play grounds to pre-occupy their children.
They develop IT training schemes to help some of their unemployed residents acquire basic skills to apply for decent jobs.

Click for an official and comprehensive review of the scheme

What resident participation shows is that the only people that can effectively confront systemic social problems are the individuals involved who understand the situation intimately. They know what its like for their kids to journey elevators stained with urine and empty beer cans. They know the unruly minority that terrorizes the law-abiding majority. They know the reasons why their teenagers turn to vandalism and gang violence, and they know exactly what kind of alternatives might lead them in a different direction. When you give individuals the responsibility, power and togetherness to improve their quality of life, suddenly you'll find they're prouder, more responsible, more capable, and invested with a personal incentive in what's at stake.... it's quite a stark contrast to an unelected bureaucrat or a local government official.

I don't think the lesson from this scheme is specific to government housing, I think the reasoning behind its success is far more fundamental.

When John Edwards talked of "Two America's" there was a reason why he resonated. If we want individuals to take personal responsibility... and I know many people on both the left and right are angered by the ways that they think the poorest fail in this regard... we have to recognize that government has the opportunity to endow upon individuals the power to make a difference in their lives. Even if that difference is small, even it just amounts to a cleaner street, or a scheme for local kids... It means and promises more for the future that it was enacted directly by those who stand to personally benefit. And, it isn't just another socialistic government program... with Resident Participation the co-ops disconnected themselves from local government allowing them to raise money privately and transfer their housing stock to private investors, giving them much more flexibility to make further improvements. Clean, crime free streets means that house prices go up, it means that the area attracts shops, businesses, and jobs... it means that self esteem is raised, and kids have role models that aren't criminals to aspire to. But, what it really comes down to is that individuals have ownership of their community. They bear the responsibility and they have the knowledge and power to make a difference.

I'm not an expert, and I'm not saying a scheme like this can cure poverty. I just believe in progress for the sake of progress. When was the last time you heard a Senator talk about fighting poverty? Worse - when was the last time you heard a Democratic Senator talk about fighting poverty? Like I said in my previous post, free markets, and a liberalized economy doesn't mean we need to do nothing but hope enough scraps fall down from the most successful earners so that everyone who struggles can survive. Lifting people up helps stimulate the economy, too. Helping the long term unemployed get back into work helps stimulate the economy. Like I said... when you empower an individual with an education, self-esteem, opportunity, freedom, and role models he/she can aspire to follow, you create an engine for economic growth and social progress that is unsurpassed. In an age of "value" politics, it would be nice to see some politicians getting back to that old fashioned value of helping those less fortunate to help themselves. It seems like a Christian value under a considerably greater threat than the celebration of Christmas.

Tags:
poverty, liberalism, los angeles, socialism, free markets

Is Greed Good?

2005-12-08T18:20:00.000-08:00

Gordon Gekko: "The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms, greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."

Those words were written satirically by Oliver Stone in “Wall Street,” his damning portrait of the 1980's and I don't doubt the validity of his parody. Even those on the right recognize that consumerism as a cultural force in society assails our most basic communal ideals; our traditions, our standards, and our societal bonds between each other.

When I walk into a shoe store and gravitate towards a Nike trainer is it because I intrinsically need that shoe or the specific elements of its design? Or maybe, is it because my predisposition towards Nike, and my recognition of its consistent brand elements, fuel a desire that has been cleverly manufactured via an emotive and long standing marketing campaign?

Isn't that true of a great deal of what we consume? As somebody who has worked in PR and marketing I recognize that everything from candle stores, to fast food, to popular music isn't simply driven by our natural proclivities as consumers. The dirty secret of Capitalism is not that it impoverishes huge sways of the population, but that the fabric of our societal needs and desires are cleverly coordinated by the "manufacturing of demand."

And yet, while I look around the areas where I grew up and see an entirely different world than the one I knew as a child... devoid of active local communities and thriving small businesses, I still recognize the inherent truth of this quote from Churchill:

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."

I recognize that the rapid progress we have made over the past few decades is primarily fueled by enterprise, or, for lack of a better word, greed. The rise in standards of living, cures and treatments for disease, and an individualized world where we retain more, and not less autonomy to determine our own destiny... is a direct result of the freedom's we acquire from a liberalized economy. We increasingly have the autonomy to make our own decisions about our careers, about whether we attend college, and about when we get married and have children. We have earned the internal fortitude to determine our own faith, lifestyle, and political inclination in a way that transcends the traditional social constructs of the past.

I know now that even though I'm 26 I can still effectively be anything that I want to be. I can come up with a business plan tomorrow and search out investment... I can go back to school and gain qualifications to pursue a myriad of occupations. This wasn't the case for my parents or their parents.

From a philosophical perspective, if we recognize that happiness is an individual endeavor that we undertake for ourselves and not a utopian ideal that government provides... we recognize that freedom and opportunity is absolutely essential to our ability to realize our dreams... freedom and opportunity that isn't as manifestly abundant in other nations with alternative modes of governance.

Just consider these three benefits of free enterprise that we take for granted:

1) GDP per capita in the United States is considerably higher than most other nations especially when you take into account the cost of living (PPP). Planned economies that are heavily taxed, regulated, and that subsidize their industries have stagnant growth, higher unemployment, and a relatively poor standard of living.

2) Technological and medical advancements have transformed our lives. Within seconds you can surf online and connect to somebody on the other side of the world. Within hours you can be cured from diseases that 50 years ago would have killed you within days.

3) The interdendence of the global economy promotes peace and freedom. Most nations now depend so heavily on the respective economic successes of their neighbours. Just look at Russia and China or check out this story from Dubai about the way commercialism promotes freedom.

I'm certainly not arguing that free markets equate to a perfect meritocracy, and I believe that government should be involved in rectifying the inequalities and inadequacies of the market. But, in my opinion that involvment should serve to protect our primary and most effective force for progress and prosperity: free, unrestrained enterprise. The benefits for us all far exceed any alternative method of governance, or as Bill Clinton adeptly said, "the era of big government is over." As always, let me know your thoughts :).

An interesting aside which I will explore further in a future column is whether a liberalized economy endowing us with greater self-determination is consistent with the rigid brand of Conservatism that seeks to constrain our natural progress as individuals, freely determining our own value systems, religious affiliations, and expressing our sexuality in ways that are not consistent with our traditions. Perhaps via the force of progress that Republicans stimulate with their economic theories, they create the instability and fear of uncontrollable change that makes some of their aggressive social values that try to constrain progress so appealing.

Tags:
conservatism, liberalism, socialism, free markets

Palestine and the "War on Terror"

2005-12-05T19:55:00.000-08:00

I just watched a documentary where a journalist embedded with Hamas toured the Israel/Palestine borders with militants and their political figureheads. It painted a stark, terrifying picture of a brutal conflict that is spiraling further and further out of control.

One of the highlights was meeting an individual patrol militant, a young man in his early twenties who spoke emotively about the murder of members of his family:

Each and every night he kisses his mother goodbye because he might never see her again, a rather large, smiling woman who sheds a tear as she clutches her son tightly... and then, carrying his machine gun he ventures out onto a patrol carrying missiles and bombs. He loves his gun... with his gun he has protected civilian Palestinians, and helped "liberate" them in the Gaza Strip.

At one stage on the patrol, within a mile of the Israel border, three members of the Palestinian Authority emerge trying to discern whether the militants intend to launch missiles into Israel. Assured that it is a purely defensive mission, they leave laughing happily amongst each other. The Palestinian Authority members are outmanned, out gunned, and have absolutely no authority whatsoever. Neither do they have a political constituency.

The parallels between Hamas and the support the IRA retained in N.Ireland is profound. Election after election is being delayed by the Palestinian Authority because Hamas representatives are projected to win. Hamas is the only effective security force for Palestinian citizens… it provides social work, healthcare, and financial assistance for victims of Israeli bombing campaigns and other forms of persecution. Just like Catholics in N. Ireland had no other place to turn than the protection of the IRA, Palestinian civilians feel exactly the same way. At one point in the documentary a released Hamas prisoner returns to his town, greeted by thousands of celebrating men, women, and children.

The role of Hamas in Palestine is fundamentally informed, not by Islamofascism, or the hatred of the United States, but by their violent conflict with Israel, in which both sides bear some responsibility. The root cause of the terrorist threat we face in the west is not the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and it would be naive to reach that conclusion, but the catalyst, and political fuel for Islamic terrorism begins and ends in Palestine. That's where the infrastructure and political ideology justifying violence and homicide spreads from. The problem for peace and progress is that the leaders of Hamas are cynically capitalizing on the weakness of the Palestinian Authority. Why are we not funding this legitimate government properly? Why are we not providing them with everything they need to assert their authority?

N.Ireland proves that deep seated hatred informed by decades of conflict is irresolvable. Paisley and Adams detest each other as much today as they did in early 90's or 80's. But, via the political process, and the commitments to ceasefires and the laying down of arms, the circumstances that future generations will be born into will be different... a child in 2020 will not grow up with bombs and persecution. The deep seated hurt on both sides can only be healed within that context by future generations.

You cannot defeat Hamas. You cannot kill every Hamas terrorist. The more you kill, the more innocent people get hurt, and in the long run the more terrorists you create. You have to establish a functioning political process and show people that their grievances can be far more effectively expressed and resolved without the need to resort to violence. But, for this to be effective we have to think beyond moral absolutes, sacrifice absolute justice, and give people reason and security to lay down their arms.

Because, in this picture below, it is the weaponry and commitment to violence ... not the expression of faith… that we are at war with.

Tags:
palestine, terrorism, israel, hamas

The Road to the Whitehouse

2005-12-05T18:45:00.000-08:00

Comments: McCain has a considerable lead amongst registered Republicans in the polls, but George Allen has all the momentum, and it's hard for me to believe that McCain will be able to overcome the difficulties he encountered in 2000. Wesley Clark and Joe Biden just fall short on the Dem side. I'm not sure whether Clark will run with Hillary Clinton in the race, considering he will be hoping for a cabinet post if she wins, and it's hard to envision, at this stage, Biden being anything other than what Dick Gephardt was to the 2004 race: a passionate, aggressive voice, without any real substantial appeal.

The point of this post is that I'm interested in what you think. Republican and Democrat, please vote in the poll and let me know your thoughts on the potential candidates in my comments section :).

C-Span videos:
Hillary Clinton, Mark Warner, George Allen, Evan Bayh, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Russ Feingold, Newt Gingrich.

Tags:
george allen, rudy giuliani, election 2008, hillary clinton, john edwards, mark warner, john mccain, evan bayh, john kerry, newt gingrich, russ feingold

The "Misunderestimation" of Post War Iraq

2005-11-27T11:29:00.000-08:00

President Franklin D. Roosevelt: "I have seen war. I have seen war on land and sea. I have seen blood running from the wounded. I have seen men coughing out their gassed lungs. I have seen the dead in the mud. I have seen cities destroyed. I have seen 200 limping, exhausted men come out of line—the survivors of a regiment of 1,000 that went forward 48 hours before. I have seen children starving. I have seen the agony of mothers and wives. I hate war."

On March 20th, 2003, American missiles hit Baghdad signaling the start of the Iraq war. Since then we have all seen 2100 US forces and 100 UK forces killed. We have seen 15,000 US troops injured, maimed, and in some cases seriously and permanently disfigured. The estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths range from between 20,000 and 30,000.

Whether you supported or were against the Iraq War, on many levels you should hate what it entails. Beyond the sentimentality of victory and the fear of defeat... beyond the idealism of our quest to install a system of democracy... beyond our hope that the resulting ripples of freedom and liberty might spread throughout the region... the reality of what we have lost demands an earnest and honest appraisal of what we have truly earned.

THERE WAS NO POST WAR PLAN:

By any assessment, the operation to topple Saddam from power was one of the most expedient and bloodless military actions in the history of human warfare. Precision bombing and a massive ground troop invasion exposed the Republican Guard and Saddam's precarious grip on power. The expected WMD onslaught was nowhere to be seen. But, what now seems clear is that beneath the veil of the Pentagon's devastating and effective invasion strategy was a pitifully naive assessment of what the reconstruction of Iraq would actually entail:

From the Financial Times: "Undersecretary of Defense, Douglas Feith led a group in the Pentagon who all along felt that this was going to be not just a cakewalk, it was going to be 60–90 days, a flip-over and hand-off, a lateral or whatever to . . . the Iraqi National Congress. The Department of Defense could then wash its hands of the whole affair and depart quickly, smoothly and swiftly. And there would be a democratic Iraq that was amenable to our wishes and desires left in its wake. And that’s all there was to it."

From Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell: "Here's what the plan was: The plan devised principally in Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith's office, and I have to believe, if Rumsfeld is the controller, the leader he says he is, that he was fully cognizant of this, and I don't think he would have been cognizant of it without the blessings of the vice president either. The plan was to put Jay Garner, General Jay Garner, in his organization, called ORHA, on the ground in Iraq for maybe 90 to 120 days, install Ahmed Chalabi and his INC colleagues, or some other look-alike, in control, and then leave, withdrawing most of the major military force in the process, if not all of it, in a very short period of time. This is ineptitude and incompetence of the first order."

In a post 9/11 world, it is astonishing to think that there was virtually no recognition of the political consequences of a United States occupation in the Middle East. They did not think that there would be a prolonged, sophisticated insurgency. They did not think that the Iraqi population would broadly resent US forces, in turn facilitating and strengthening militants interested in undermining the path to Democracy. When, in the lead up to war, General Shinseki stated that several hundred thousand troops would be required to guarantee stability in Iraq Paul Wolfowitz branded him "wildly off the mark." Such was the Administration's fervent belief in the power of freedom that they dogmatically construed US forces would be greeted as liberators. Upon that flawed premise they took everything else for granted.

PAUL BREMER'S DE-STABLIZING ECONOMIC REFORMS:

On September 19th, 2003, US Chief Administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer enacted Order 39 which announced that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatized and that foreign firms could retain 100% ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories. It also allowed these firms to move 100% of their profits outside of Iraq.

By any measure of free market reforms these are some of the most instantaneously dramatic in the history of the civilized world. At a time when the stability of a divided nation emerging chaotically from the violent order of a brutal dictator was most prescient, and upon that stability rested the lives of US soldiers, UK soldiers, and innocent Iraqi civilians... a dramatic restructuring of Iraqi society was undertaken.

Even putting all altruistic notions to one side... even if all the Administration cared about was US corporations reaping billions and billions of dollars, how could they not have recognized that the security of Iraq was an essential prerequisite to its ability to function, let alone prosper?

The result of these reforms was a devastating 70% level of unemployment sparked by public sector layoffs and an Iraqi labor force in disarray, transitioning to an entirely new set of alien circumstances in which nothing, not even their most basic necessities, were guaranteed. In addition, Iraq's borders were suddenly opened for trade, putting even more pressure on the way in which Iraqi's had previously attempted to make money, acquire goods, and feed their families. In an effort to win hearts and minds, is it really the most sensible course of action to undertake reforms that make 70% of the population unemployed?

Contrary to popular belief, Iraq is not Afghanistan, it is a comparatively developed society. Do you think an unemployed factory worker would have wanted his nation's industries privatized to companies who can take all of the profits they reap elsewhere? Do we restructure Iraqi society on his behalf because we know better? Is that the democracy we seek? Will the government that is elected in December retain the power to kick out US companies, re-nationalize its industries, or invite investment from nations that the US has shut out like France and Germany? If not, what kind of credibility do we think that a picture like this...

...sends to an unemployed Iraqi flirting with the insurgency, or a citizen in Iran, or Syria, from whom with admiring eyes democracy is supposed to spread.

The point is not whether these reforms work, the point is isolating exactly what our mandate in post war Iraq is. John Murtha accurately identified that US forces have become the primary focus of the insurgency. While insurgents seek to blow up civilians, and undermine the Democratic process, it all serves their primary political purpose of attacking their enemy - their "Imperial occupiers, masquerading as liberators." And while this pretense may be nothing more than clever political posturing, it still underpins their ability to flourish and strengthen with the wider support of the Iraqi people.

A secret poll undertaken for the British Ministry of Defense showed that 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks against Allied Forces and fewer than one per cent think Allied involvement is helping to improve security in their country. Just like the I.R.A. in N. Ireland, or Basque separatists in Spain, or Hamas in Palestine, perceived political oppression facilitates the notion of a political war... and unadulterated fascists like Zarqawi can emerge as freedom fighters and heroes to millions in Iraq and across the Arab world.

When we condone torture, when we laud democracy but reshape Iraqi society ourselves, when we put too few troops on the ground, and disband Iraq's only security infrastructure, the Republican National Guard... when we appoint an incompetent, politically inappropriate Chief Administrator, Jay Garner, and then need to replace him after only two months (Brown as head of FEMA and Miers as the most qualified SCOTUS nominee aren't isolated mistakes)... when we've planned to attack civilian journalists working for Al Jazeera in an indiscriminate bombing campaign... when we do these things we arm the insurgency with its most potent weapon... the widely held perception of US imperialism, and the abdication of our greatest strength... the nobility of our cause.

MISTAKES THAT WE MUST LEARN FROM:

Considering all the money that we have spent, and all the money that has been invested, it is difficult to comprehend that the conditions in Iraq were considered worse than under Saddam in a detailed survey conducted by the United Nations. When stability and security are at a premium, and our war against the insurgency is a battle for the hearts and minds of individual Iraqi's, I cannot believe the accessibility to basic provisions like water and electricity are still at such low levels (chart above).

We currently have a U.S. Administration that has no concept of accountability. Troubles at home or abroad are invariably a political calculation from which they must emerge... not troubles for individual Americans, or Iraqi's for which they must atone. They've decimated tax receipts with ineffectual tax cuts while allowing spending to grow at a faster pace than under any President since Lyndon Johnson. The deficit is out of control and the national debt is currently at 8 trillion dollars while still growing. The Administration has neither the stern, unwavering inclination to address this, nor a sincere concern for its after effects: The national debt will compromise future generations ability to pay back their loans and mortgages, it will hinder their ability to pay for social security or to weather the cost of another war or a disaster like Katrina... or even, god forbid, another terrorist attack.

And, yet the White House barely seems to possess the understanding, let alone the requisite backbone to adjust its course and correct its calamitous, singular and simplistic domestic agenda.

But, it is in Iraq, via military and civilian casualties, and vacuous preparation and planning failures that its incompetence has been most costly. The prosaic sentiments of President Bush and his "strategy for victory," and the notion that troop morale is harmed by public scrutiny, neither levels with the American people, nor demonstrates the capacity to meet this exacerbated challenge.

Alleged "lies" about WMD's remain conspiratorial speculation. Personally, I forgive George Bush's motives for emphasizing the worst case scenario in the build up to war. I still continue to believe Saddam Hussein had sophisticated weapons programs, and would never, under any circumstances, have fully co-operated with U.N. Inspectors. I also don't think you can call this an illegal war, and not say the same about the war in Kosovo undertaken by President Clinton when Russia performed the exact same obstructionist role on the UN security council as France, refusing, under any circumstances to sanction military action.

But, the decision to remove Saddam required a comprehensive plan to win the peace. In my opinion it is this Administration's incompetence, and not their malicious intent, and certainly not the scrutiny of the Main Stream Media or Democrats in Congress, that has really put the armed forces of the United States in harms way, in addition to thousands of UK forces too, deserving of mention that they rarely receive. Unfortunately, for the next three years, unless there are sizemic electoral shifts in the 2006 mid-terms next November I don't forsee things significantly changing. For now we must place our faith in the Iraqi people, and the power of Democracy as an ideal. Beyond the sluggish training of Iraqi forces that seems to be the extent of the Administration's post war reconstruction policy in Iraq.

Tags:
iraq war, terrorism, paul bremer, saddam hussein, lawrence wilkerson, united nations, george bush

The Anniversary of John F. Kennedy's Assassination

2005-11-22T10:35:00.000-08:00

John Murtha's recent comments on the Iraq war, and his subsequent emergence as a sincere and earnest voice adeptly diagnosing the costs of our military misjudgments has reminded me how far behind we have fallen from the prestige and self-sacrifice of past generations. Where politicians in the 1950's had invariably met the greatest challenge, fighting in real wars, fighting against fascism and totalitarianism, risking their lives and limbs and sons and daughters for the future of the nation... by contrast our small minded, self-serving political representatives today can't sacrifice a tax cut or a pork barrel project to not leave our children in trillions of dollars of debt.

Where John Murtha's generation was consumed by war, our generation is consumed by rhetorical warfare, too busy branding each other extreme in the constant hope of retaining power or regaining it, to be invested in the truth, or humble enough to recognize mistakes like the post war planning, or lack of it, in Iraq.

John F. Kennedy was the man who brought the world back from the brink of self-destruction a year before he was assassinated. When all of his advisors called for the invasion of Cuba, after Soviet missiles were discovered hidden there via Satellite photographs, Kennedy reached out to Soviet Premier Khrushchev and found a different solution, publicly agreeing never to invade Cuba while secretly agreeing to remove ballistic missiles from Turkey within a six month time frame. As a result, the missiles were removed from Cuba by the Soviet Union and a war that would have resulted in a ground battle for Berlin, possibly escalating into nuclear exchanges throughout the world was prevented.

Domestically, John F. Kennedy was the man who transformed civil rights, personally enforcing the 1954 SCOTUS ruling outlawing racial segregation, while proposing the civil rights act that was implemented after he died. He also proposed one of the biggest, and most successful tax cuts in US history, while investing heavily in schools, hospitals, and care for the elderly under the banner of the "New Frontier." One of his first acts as President was to create the Peace Corps to help spread freedom around the world via non-military means.

But, for me what made John F. Kennedy a great President was the eloquence, precision, and timeless, everlasting truth of his words. His Presidency challenged the world to focus upon what we shared when we were at our most divided and fearful:

"For in the final analysis, our most basic common link, is that we all inhabit this small planet, we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children's futures, and we are all mortal."

So much of what he said is applicable to the world today. To Israel and Palestine, to N. Ireland, to Kashmir and tensions between India and Pakistan, to the growing threat of terrorism around the world and the ever expanding divide between the West and Arab world.... perhaps we should try and always remember this:

"Too many of us think (peace) is impossible. Too many think it is unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable, that mankind is doomed, that we are gripped by forces we cannot control. We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade; therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings... World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor, it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever."

The World, not just the United States, lost a great leader on November 22nd, 1963, and the Democratic Party lost the man whose spirit will continue on in perpetuity defining what its Presidential hopefuls should aspire to.

R.I.P. J.F.K.

Tags:
john kennedy, john murtha

Bush falls off the "Laffer Curve"

2005-11-18T08:20:00.000-08:00

Treasury Secretary John Snow: "Millions of Americans have benefited from these important tax policies either directly through lower taxes or indirectly through new and better jobs and greater economic security for families."

The Laffer Curve is the theory most frequently used to explain how supply side economics benefits government spending. It says that if tax rates rise beyond a certain level they actually discourage economic growth, thereby reducing government revenues. By contrast, as can be seen in Continental Europe, excessive taxation and regulation stagnates economic growth, reduces revenues, undermining government's ability to meet its citizen's needs.

So what is the ideal amount of federal taxation as a percentage of GDP in the US? 25%, 20%, 15%? Under the Bush tax cuts we have gone from 20.09% to 16.3%, a dramatic tax cut. As a result, we were told that government revenues would exponentially grow, just like under Ronald Reagan...

Frequently these days, you will hear Bill O'Reilly say something like this: "President Bush then came in and cut taxes for everyone. And guess what? Federal tax revenues will be more this year (2005) than at any time during the Clinton administration."

This is a completely disingenuous statement. It's like saying economic growth in the 1990's was faster than the 1980's simply because GDP was higher each year. You have to make an adjustment for inflation. Somebody please explain this to O'Reilly if you get the chance.

Inflation adjusted tax receipts during the Clinton Administration and Bush Administration can be seen here:

The key is not just that government revenue is well below the relative levels that the Clinton Administration had impressively built towards. It's not just that government revenue growth isn't sustained. The key is that in spite of this, in a Republican controlled Congress, Federal Spending continues to grow unabated. In 1992 Russ Perot ran one of the most successful Independent Presidential campaigns in US history on a platform of paying down the national debt. In 1992 the national debt was around $4 trillion. Since Bush came to power the national debt has sky-rocketed from $5.5 trillion to $8 trillion with predictions that the debt will reach $10 trillion by the end of his Presidency.

A five year old can cut taxes, raise spending and get the economy to grow rapidly in spits and spurts. But the risk is inflation, high interest rates, and a recession, all of which loom large over the next three years. The challenge is to create secure, stable, lasting economic growth which guarantees prosperity and opportunity, and also the fiscal integrity of government spending. This economy might grow at 4% in the next quarter and create 500,000 jobs, but in the next employment might be down, and after that we could be facing a recession... things are that unpredictable. In the interim, growing deficits and the national debt compromises everything from our ability to fight wars, guarantee social security, cope with national disasters like Hurricane Katrina, or recover from a terrorist attack.

To respond to Treasury Secretary John Snow, economic security is exactly what families do not have right now.

Related Links:
Tax Policy Center: Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary.
Previous Article: Lyndon Dubya Bush.
Hat Tip: Talking Points Memo.

Tags:
federal deficit, john snow, george bush

Alito and Anti-Abortion Judicial Activism?

2005-11-13T12:25:00.000-08:00

Update from The Washington Times: Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., wrote that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" in a 1985 document obtained by The Washington Times... "I personally believe very strongly" in this legal position, Mr. Alito wrote on his application to become deputy assistant to Attorney General Edwin I. Meese III. The document is among many that the White House will release today from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito voted with the majority on the third circuit court in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey to uphold restrictive abortion related measures passed by the Pennsylvania state legislature... measures that included a 24 hour waiting period and parental consent for minors. But, controversially, he dissented that the majority were wrong to strike down a statute effectively requiring women to obtain consent from their spouses before terminating their pregnancy. In this matter he was the lone dissenting member of the court. The reality for women of this interpretation is expounded upon powerfully here by Kate Michelman in the LA Times.

Alito wrote that forcing a woman to notify and effectively require her husband's consent for an abortion did not constitute an "undue burden," and could be justified as a "legitimate state interest," which is the only basis, set out by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services, by which the state can legislate abortion restrictions. If a law does place an "undue burden" then it can only be justified by a "compelling state interest," which Alito conceded was not justified by Spousal Notification.

O’CONNOR’S "UNDUE BURDEN" TEST

To prove that Spousal notification did not place an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion Alito used Sandra Day O'Connor's written opinions to emphasize how extremely restrictive a law must be, in his opinion, to place an undue burden on a pregnant woman. Read a summary of the quotes he used from O'Connor here. Alito's interpretation of Sandra Day O'Connor's writings was that anything short of the most severe restrictions on abortion was constitutional, which flagrantly undermined the letter and spirit of Roe vs. Wade.

To me this indicates an activist intent to frame the argument and serve an already predetermined conclusion. Originalism, textualism, and literal interpretations of the law are nothing more than a conceit if you apply Samuel Alito's writing in this opinion. Sandra Day O'Connor did not agree with Alito's assessment of her rulings... and if a circuit court judge claims to adhere rigorously to the letter of the law, and the intent of the law..... reading history books like Antonin Scalia to identify the original intent of the founders in the writing of the constitution... then doesn't it matter that he accurately reflects the intent, spirit, and meaning of the rulings that he refers to in his opinions. If you are a circuit court judge, following and CITING a Supreme Court Justice, and you claim to be a rigid textualist, then doesn't it matter that you accurately reflect that Judge's opinion? Sandra Day O’Connor thought that Samuel Alito was dead wrong. Can someone explain to me why this doesn't qualify as judicial activism?

I am convinced it would be just as easy to craft from O'Connor's writings an opposing point of view about what constitutes an undue burden. If I was a Senator on the Judiciary Committee that is exactly what I would do... from the opinions of O'Connor that Alito used I would write a summation of her intent, substantiated by alternative quotes, that by contrast created a lesser "undue burden" standard. I would read it out to Alito in the hearings and ask him to explain how he thinks his claim to strictly interpret the law is manifest in his conclusions about Justice O'Connor's rulings... the implication being that his references were a selective distortion.

A LEGITMATE STATE INTEREST

To establish that Spousal notification was a legitimate state interest Alito argued in his opinion that the state has a justified commitment to further a husband's interest in the fetus, citing Skinner vs. Oklahoma.

Skinner vs. Oklahoma was about whether states could sterilize men after they had committed three crimes or more in the 1940's. Now I'm not a lawyer… I never went to law school… and I know absolutely nothing about the law... but how does a man's right to preserve his fertility relate to his rights in an individual pregnancy that he is partly responsible for? Aren’t they two completely separate things? Last time I checked, women having abortions without the expressed consent of their husbands does not leave those men permanently sterile, incapable of ever having children. Please tell me if I'm wrong.

Alito then referenced Michael H. vs. Gerald, to justify a husband's interest in the fetus, which states that a father who is willing to participate in raising his child has fundamental rights in the child's welfare. But, the law as it stood then and stands now does not consider the fetus a child or a human being. Samuel Alito may think that a fetus is a child, but the letter of the law that he proclaims to strictly adhere to disagrees. An abortion is not murder... a fetus is not a child under the law. How exactly is an argument legally justifying a husband's interest in a fetus, or in his wife's pregnancy, by comparing it to his established legal interest in his children not judicial activism?????

IN CONCLUSION
Planned Parenthood vs. Casey was not simply a question of minor abortion restrictions. The case went to the Supreme Court and the arguments put forward by Ken Starr, which identically echoed Alito's dissent, did explicitly seek to undermine Roe vs. Wade, and distort Sandra Day O'Connor's undue burden test. So much so that Sandra Day O'Connor, along with four other justices re-affirmed Roe vs. Wade in three parts:

Guaranteeing the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability.
Allowing the State to restrict abortions only after fetal viability and only if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman’s health.
Recognizing that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child.

As a result the Pennsylvania measures were ruled unconstitutional.

I supported John Roberts. George Bush won the 2004 election and earned his right to nominate a Conservative judge. I criticized Democratic minority leader, Harry Reid, for voting against Roberts' confirmation, while praising Senator Feingold for voting for it. But, while my interpretation of Alito's opinion in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey is obviously elementary... it does seem that anything short of putting a gun to a woman's head for the duration of her pregnancy would have failed to meet Alito's undue burden standard. Is this what we want from a Supreme Court Justice? Is such a mistaken interpretation of Sandra Day O'Connor's intentions and rulings not a form of judicial activism considering this?

If Samuel Alito intends to overturn Roe vs. Wade the American people think he shouldn't be confirmed by 53% to 37%. I'm still undecided but maybe the time has come for the Democrats to make a stand.

Related Links:
PP vs. Casey: Alito's dissenting opinion in full.
Previous Article: Implications for Roe vs. Wade.
LA Times: This time it's personal.

Tags:
abortion, samuel alito, supreme court, roe v wade

UK Terror Vote: Politics or Principle?

2005-11-10T15:03:00.000-08:00

Yesterday Tony Blair suffered his first defeat in the House of Commons since he became Prime Minister in 1997. By a margin of 31 votes MP's voted not to grant the UK police the authority they requested to hold terrorist suspects for 90 days without charge... a measure which Blair had aggressively lobbied for before watching his 66 seat majority dramatically disintegrate with a final vote tally of 322 to 291.

The notion that this heralds doom for the Prime Minister is completely untrue... there is widespread support for this proposal in the wake of the July 7th attacks, Blair's popularity is likely to sharply rise amongst the British electorate for the first time in four years, and MP's voting against the measure have already been publicly decried as treasonous in the tabloid press. The latest You Gov poll says 72% of the British people support the 90 day law.

But the most notable facet of this defeat, at least to me, is that the largest proportion of those who voted against 90 days were members of the Conservative Party, including both aspiring Tory leaders, David Davis and David Cameron, who remain locked in a narrowing leadership election. Current Conservative leader Michael Howard remarked upon it as an illiberal law which threatened to exacerbate malcontent amongst British Muslim’s, potentially creating more terrorism... certainly not the type of argument you'd expect to hear from a right wing party.

While Tony Blair has successfully negated the vile and debilitating tabloid campaigns against the Labour party in the 80's and early 90's by governing as an authoritarian on crime, and a hawk on foreign policy, this step towards a more libertarian brand of Conservatism from the Tory party is something new... indicative of David Cameron's proposed brand of "Compassionate Conservatism." But, is it sincere? If the Conservative Party was in power would they really have taken this position on 28 days instead of 90? Would the self described law and order party have refused the requests of police because they were illiberal? I don't think so. Instead, on an issue that directly affects our ability to fight terrorism in the UK, a political calculation from the right was made to inflict upon Tony Blair his first parliamentary defeat. To me, at least the Labour rebels were voting on a point of principle. The Tories, by comparison, just wanted the opportunity to create a plethora of news headlines like these.

I support the 90 day law. Unlike using torture to interrogate terrorists, currently a big issue in the states, which I incidentally oppose, I don't think this law is an inhuman practice. I don't think we hurt our fundamental values by its implementation. As a stipulation every seven days a suspect is taken back to court to justify his or hers continued detention to a Judge. In all likelihood there would have to be substantial evidence suggesting they were planning to assist with or commit a mass atrocity against innocent people.

Personally, if the police say it takes 90 days to sift through information and computers, while tracking a suspect's connections abroad, and their links to religious institutions that are notoriously insular and difficult to penetrate... if the ability of the police to disrupt terrorist activities will be improved and the streets of London will be safer... I don't see how we can refuse to grant them these powers... at least for a predetermined time period pending review in something like twelve months.

If after that time there was an abundance of egregious incarcerations I could understand a vote like the one that took place yesterday. But, as things stand, I can't help but feel the "principled stand" we saw taken by Labour, Conservative, and Liberal MP's was in fact nothing more than petty party politics in disguise, directed at Tony Blair. To me, considering what's at stake, that's a pretty sad state of affairs.

Related Links:
BBC: Vote disappoints police.
BBC: Howard calls for Blair to resign.
Andrew Sullivan: Blair's case.
Times: Blair suffers wounding loss.

Tags:
tony blair, british politics, david cameron, michael howard

Do Democrats have traction?

2005-11-08T14:14:00.000-08:00

KAINE WINS VA, CORZINE WINS NJ

10.50 PST: Kaine brings it home in VA 52% - 46%, which indicates that most of the polls leading up to the election underestimated his margin of victory. Perhaps undecideds broke for Kaine, or Republican turnout fell sharply... although I'm not sure what could have been the cause. Good news also in California, my home away from home, with parental notification for a minor's abortion being voted down (the state shouldn't legislate to safeguard family rights when there are so many abusive familial pressures potentially placed on a child in that predicament), along with all of the Governator's initiatives. I like Arnie and feel bad because I sincerely believe he's trying to bring about change. Voting for Democrats in the state legislature in California is invariably like voting for Jimmy Hoffa.

5.14 PST: We find out tonight if the Democratic Party has gained traction since 2004. Politics might be local, but local politics has exhibited national trends leaning in the direction of the Republican Party for the past three years. Inspite of Doug Forrester's brutal last minute attack advertisements I believe Jon Corzine will win by at least 5 points in New Jersey. The race in Virginia will be a far more insightful indiciator about what is currently possible for Democrats looking ahead to the 2006 midterms.

You can prejudge tonight's result from two perspectives. Democratic candidate, Tim Kaine is against the death penalty, Virginia is a red State, only second to Texas in the number of executions it has carried out, and Jerry Kilgore, former VA Attorney General should be winning comfortably. By the same token, Tim Kaine is riding the coat tails of popular Democratic Governor, Mark Warner, and his impressive platform has negated the political impact of his personal feelings on the Death Penalty. Kaine: "I'm Catholic - I'm against the Death Penalty and I'm against Abortion."

Having watched their debate a couple of weeks ago on C-Span when Kilgore enjoyed a small lead it was obvious that Kaine had the capacity to close the gap, regardless of changing national trends. To me at least (and I am certainly not a typical Virginian voter) Kaine is smiling, warm, direct and authentic, plus perfectly placed in terms of his experience. Kilgore, by contrast, isn't an impressive candidate.

The White House have gambled that their last minute support of Kilgore will be the final boost his campaign required. Either that or internal tracking polls showed a solid Republican swing that allowed the President to tip his hand. Regardless, because of his decision to get involved this race really will be a measure of where the President currently stands with the American electorate. The key question: Will Republican turnout be strong, the consistent factor in all of their recent, closely fought election victories?

Prediction: Corzine 5%, Kaine 1%.

N.B. Nothing is more important right now to the Democratic Party than winning in 2006.

Tags:
jon corzine, doug forrester, jerry kilgore, tim kaine

Democrats need to start speaking from their hearts

2005-11-02T07:54:00.000-08:00

In the space of three short months the political landscape has dramatically shifted. The Republican Party and specifically members of the Bush Administration have been fundamentally re-branded as weak, incompetent, corrupt, or divided. And yet, nobody should be in any doubt that this wasn’t achieved as a result of a re-invigorated Democratic voice. This second term slump, punctuated by historically high disapproval ratings for the President and Republican controlled Congress has transpired via the President’s poor leadership during the Katrina crisis, the speculation leading up to the indictment of VP Chief of Staff I. Lewis Libby, the failed nomination of Harriet Miers, and the continued post war violence in Iraq. As Democrats we still have a long way to go.

We have to find our voice and do it fast. But, not within the context of the partisan battle in Congress, or critiquing this Administration, or exposing the hypocrisy of Republicans as so many do well online… but within a new context...the context of our values, talking about what we stand for and why this offers hope in the possibility change. Hope that can’t be reduced to a two dimensional Republican smear campaign, or mischaracterized by attacks branding us extreme.

Democrats are fighting with their heads, and doing it well, analyzing, exposing, and contradicting the mistakes of their opponents. But a vote cast in any election is rarely a rational calculation... it isn’t a process of reasoning or logical deduction... It’s something you feel, an instinctive proclivity, a resonance of values… that’s what won elections for Bill Clinton in 1992, and Jimmy Carter in 1976, and a lack of emotional resonance is why Al Gore and John Kerry lost in 2000 and 2004 respectively.

What really unites us as Democrats isn’t our hatred of Republicans... it’s our love of liberty, and belief in social justice. It's our desire for fairness for everyone, and an aspiration for dignity as well as strength in the way that we deal with the rest of the world. What unites us as Democrats isn’t outmoded social models of massive government spending, or 80% levels of taxation for the successful, or passivity in the face of growing threats from abroad. What unites us as Democrats is that we’re not afraid to boldly believe and dream for the betterment of our society and the human race as our most prized principle. Poverty at home or abroad isn’t a necessary fact of life for us, the ills of society are our challenges to confront.

This desire can easily be characterized as unrealistic, and individual responsibility at home or African gov't corruption or UN bureaucracy abroad can easily be proffered as an excuse to justify our inaction… but in spite of what the right says about our unrealistic promises, our goal as Democrats isn't to eradicate poverty or hardship or war singing to John Lennon's "Imagine," smoking dope around the camp fire. It is merely to be better today than we were yesterday… to progress... to be cogniscent, always, that free-markets and the American dream alone don’t equate to ubiquitous opportunity for all miraculously by themselves. As Democrats we believe that the deficiencies of the market, and our failings as people, are our responsibility, and that's what engenders us with meaning, day in and day out, informed by a sense of all of us in this together, not competing with each other like a pack of animals for what scraps fall from on high from the very richest, and most successful.

Yeah, we want a more peaceful world.
Yeah, we want a more just society.
Yeah, we want less discrimination and even more opportunity for everybody, and then, after that, even more opportunity, and even more and even more.
Yeah, we want all of our schools to be wonderful conduits for the growth of our children’s minds... and yeah we want to pay our teachers really well.
Yeah, we don’t think it’s ok that 40 million people don’t have health insurance.
Yeah, we think it's unacceptable that a child born into illness is punished by the failures of his or her parents or the failures of society.
And yeah, just like Roosevelt said during WW2, we hate war. We don’t feel prideful about killing, even when it’s necessary. But we’ll fight harder and longer for our freedom and the freedom of others around the world because what we understand is that freedom isn’t an abstract ideal. We love freedom because we're willing to do something about it, not just grant a tax cut and wait for our economic theory to work miracles. We understand freedom because we recognize it isn’t a blanket that covers fortunate nations in perpetuity, guaranteed by military might… it is the imperfect reality of free individuals, their rights protected by law, working together so all of us can be better.

These are our values. We’re not progressives because we believe in a specific policy. We’re progressives because we don’t settle for the status quo, or conserving the past like the Republican Party. We're progressives because we strive to be better today than we were yesterday.

And while the right argues that our values are flighty and don’t correlate into good governance because we want to spend too much money and threaten the fiscal stability of the nation, by contrast what are they doing with their historic monopoly on power? Massive growth in non-defence discretionary spending not seen since the days that Lyndon Johnson was President... turning a surplus into record deficits... taking the national debt to 7.9 trillion dollars. What exact measure of responsible governance do they apply to our values when they burden our future with debt, and throw the surplus away like another lies just around the corner if only we keep cutting taxes over and over again, no matter the cost of the war on terror, or the Iraq war, or the cost of their irresponsible spending.

Its okay Democrats... it really is. We needn’t run away from what we believe in anymore. We don't have to hide from our ideals or ambitions. Clinton’s legacy is that we prize fiscal discipline, we are credible and taken seriously in the matters of economic governance because we earned that right in the 1990's and the Republican's have driven it home via their incompetence since the turn of 2001.

As 2006 looms, and 2008 after that, we need to start expressing our values to the American people. That's what they're searching for right now as an alternative to this Administration, and the dire mess Republicans have created in Congress. And while we shouldn't go around making unrealistic promises, we shouldn't give up on the notion of promise. Because promise and progress and hope is what defines our party.

Democrats need to start speaking from the heart.

Tags:
democratic party, bill clinton, harriet miers, george bush

Bush picks Scalito

2005-10-31T04:03:00.000-08:00

Bush has nominated Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. "Scalito" was a nickname his law clerks gave him because of his similiarity in judicial philosophy to Justice Scalia.

It doesn't look good...

Case History: A dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), arguing that a Pennsylvania that required women seeking abortions to inform their husbands should have been upheld. As Judge Alito reasoned, "[t]he Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems--such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition--that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion." Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent from the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision striking down the spousal notification provision of the law quoted Judge Alito's dissent and expressed support for Judge Alito's reasoning.

Planned Parenthood vs. Casey basically tried to undermine the basic tenets of Roe vs. Wade. In fact, with the help of a last minute reversal of Anthony Kennedy, Roe vs. Wade was re-affirmed in three parts. Information about the case and its implicatons for SCOTUS and Abortion can be found in my post: Does the Miers nomination mean the end of Roe?

I didn't think it was fair to criticize John Roberts on ideological grounds because he represented himself so effectively as being non-ideological, and trustworthy. His qualifications were impressive, and he deserved to be Confirmed by an even wider margin than he was, in my opinion. It is difficult at this stage to discern the response that Samuel Alito warrants, or whether his ideology would constitute the extreme measures outlined by the Gang of 14... this might justify and enable a fillibuster.

Like I said in my previous post, with the Miers withdrawal the triumvirate of rock solid Conservative judges: Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas just became a quartet. Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts is a very intimidating prospect for a considerable amount of time. Only Breyer, you feel, could possibly compete with that intellectual weight from one particular POV. Conservatives should be rightfully ecstatic. Like I repeatedly argued.... suddenly Harriet Miers doesn't seem so bad after all.

I also apologize for my sucky sucky short list, but I hope it helped set the legal landscape and context for this choice.

Listen to Scalito argue in front of the Supreme Court: FCC v. League of Women Voters of California. He argues that Public broadcasting doesn't have a right to editorialize.

Tags:
samuel alito, abortion, harriet miers, supreme court, roe v wade

Miers nomination: Harriet's Legacy

2005-10-28T08:22:00.000-07:00

I originally posted this photoshop doodle of mine on Friday but took it down because I thought it was an excessively partisan way of expressing my point. Ruminating on it over the weekend, I still feel very strongly about what I was trying to say... This for me is the real legacy of the Harriet Miers debacle:

Bush said this when he announced her nomination:
"I believe that senators of both parties will find that Harriet Miers' talent, experience and judicial philosophy make her a superb choice to safeguard the constitutional liberties and equality of all Americans."

How can the very same people who so effectively campaigned against the Miers nomination now enthusiastically return to wholeheartedly supporting this President? How can you criticize Bush's judgment for concluding that Miers was the best qualified person to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the one hand, and then retain confidence in his judgment in every other aspect of his governance?

Can someone explain that to me, because I don't get it... Is it a good thing that he was forced into ceding to the superior judgment of Conservative columnists and his party base? Is it a good thing that if Bush gets it wrong they can just aggressively articulate the error of his ways and change the course of Administration policy?

If the President sincerely believed in Harriet Miers as a Supreme Court Justice then what does the decision to withdraw her nomination say about his confidence in his own reasoning? A great leader stands up to his base, takes the political hit, and pursues what he/she believes is right, because results, and not politics are what matter in the end... it's one of the reasons that I believe that Tony Blair is a great Prime Minister in the UK.

That's what should give everyone pause for thought, regardless of their political leanings... We have a President who hasn't used a single veto, while non defense discretionary spending has soared, and the national debt has risen to almost eight trillion dollars. We have a President who took no initiative to consider and plan for the broader consequences of regime change in Iraq... who allowed the Republican Guard to be disbanded, dramatic, unhelpful economic reforms to be implemented, and who, after three years has been unable to find alternative solutions and make changes to failing strategies. We have a President who has done nothing to address the changing world, our environment, and future energy needs... at least not with the requisite vigor, and foresight. We have a President who in the midst of a national crisis, Hurricane Katrina, did nothing to exercise leadership, binding the nation together in determination and grief... like Reagan would have... like Giuliani did in NY.

Many of those who criticized Miers said that it wasn't a question of ideology, it was a question of her credentials and qualifications. But, ironically, haven't most of these people turned a blind eye to the President's failings simply because his ideology is so in keeping with theirs?

Isn't that the real legacy of the failed Miers nomination... The poor judgment and inadequacies of this President... that jeapordize the US economy, its safety, its foreign policy, and the integrity of world affairs, only really matter to his supporters when he disagrees with them. And even then, such is the President's lack of belief in his own reasoning, those who pulled the strings to incentivize the Miers withdrawal are confident that if required they can easily assert their influence in the future...

Maybe Bush will prove me wrong and nominate Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court... the man that HE always wanted to... but, I seriously doubt it.

Buzz words for Democratic Congressman here, here, here.

Tags:
ann coulter, charles krauthammer, bill kristol, rush limbaugh, george bush, harriet miers

Miers Withdraws!

2005-10-27T06:01:00.000-07:00

Charles Krauthammer predicted the exact exit strategy, using Senate requests for Executive Branch records and materials as an irresolvable dispute. Check out his WP column here. It's also perfect political timing. With the announcement of Indictments tomorrow this embarrassing story will be quickly swept out of the headlines.

Now the real fight begins, and President Bush has an opportunity to fire up his base during a period when he will desperately be relying upon their support. The Miers replacement will probably be an explicitly Conservative Judge, with a clear track record delineating a staunch originalist judicial philosophy.

Ironically, considering the recent controversy surrounding the Miers nomination, I believe this is potentially a sad day for the future of the Supreme Court. The triumvirate of rock solid Conservative judges: Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas... in all likelihood just became a quartet.

The Shortlist to replace Miers:

J. Michael Luttig:
Briefly worked in the Whitehouse before serving as a law clerk to Conservative judge, Antonin Scalia. He was appointed to the Fourth Circuit of Appeals by George H.W. Bush in 1991. Frequently mentioned by Conservative pundits as a reliable nomination with a proven track record in originalist judicial philosophy. If Bush wants to satiate his base as a means of re-invigorating his ability to win public arguments, plus improve his public standing, Luttig would be the most obvious pick, and a worst case scenario for Democrats.

Two years ago, he struck down the Violence Against Women Act, writing an opinion that Congress had overstepped its authority in establishing the legislation. Years prior he upheld a ban on partial birth abortion, reversing a lower court ruling, + also allowing Virginia to require parental notification before a teenager could obtain an abortion.

The main controversy surrounding Luttig is the fact that his father was shot and killed in a car jacking, which also involved his mother in the driveway of their Texas home. Defense attorneys have in the past asked him to recuse himself from capital cases because of the personal tragedy he suffered. He is an ardent, long time supporter of the Death Penalty.

"His reputation is one of an extremely smart, hard-line conservative," said Heather Gerken, an assistant professor at Harvard Law School, "even those on the left, who disagree with his politics, really agree that he is very, very smart."

J. Michael Luttig = Scalia mark II, and would create a powerful and intimidating Conservative alliance, alongside Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts that would surely threaten Anthony Kennedy's uncertain position in support of Roe vs. Wade.

Priscilla Owen:
Nominated to the 5th Circuit, Court of Appeals, where Democrats successfully filibustered her nomination. She would be one of the most divisive and controversial picks, however, if Bush is really looking for a fight, which many Conservative Republicans have called for, then he really need look no further:

Her views on abortion: She supported the elimination and narrowing of buffer zones around reproductive health care clinics in Houston. + In every judicial bypass case that came before the Texas Supreme Court(bypass allows a young woman to obtain an abortion without notifying her parents if she proves her maturity to a judge), Owen voted against granting the young woman that right.

She supports "stricter interpretation" of the state law that Bush signed requiring girls younger than 18 to inform their parents before obtaining an abortion. She has been criticized as being on the "far right wing" of the Texas court, further to the right than Bush's own appointees to that court when he was governor.

The biggest controversy surrounding Owen involves Enron donating $8,600 to her successful 1994 bid for the Texas Supreme Court. Two years later, Owen wrote the majority opinion that reversed a lower court order and reduced Enron's school taxes by $15 million. Since 1993, Enron contributed $134,058 — more than any other corporation — to Owen and other members of the Texas Supreme Court.

Personally, considering the political turmoil currently surrounding the President, even considering the Conservative lust for a great judicial battle, I would be shocked if he nominated Owen. She provides Democrats with criticisms that could be far more resonant publically than those they could level at Luddig or others.

Edith Brown Clement:
Clement also has a reputation as a Conservative jurist, and a strict constructionist, only with a less controversial track record. In fact her track record is so thin, in terms of opinions, that she could conceivably meet with a less than enthusiastic response from the Republican base if she is nominated by Bush to replace Miers. Many thought that she was very close to being nominated last time out... her nomination would paralell Miers in its ambiguity.

Interesting: According to The Orlando Report, "MSNBC is reporting that Clement has acknowledged that Roe v. Wade is settled law and within the constitutionally protected right to privacy. She apparently stated this at her last confirmation hearing."

Arguably, this is the nomination Bush should have made instead of Miers, applying the same "stealth candidate" criteria. The difference is that now the game has changed, and so has what the White House are looking for. Edith Brown Clement would not provide Conservatives with as extensive a judicial track record as other prospective nominees. I think Laura would like her though...

Edith Jones:
A Reagan appointee in 1985, Edith Jones is an outspoken Conservative judge, frequently mentioned by Conservative pundits, like Bill Kristol, that have opposed Miers, suggesting her extensive track record is much more in keeping with the campaign promises that Bush made to his supporters. In her opinions, she has questioned the legal reasoning which legalized abortion, advocated streamlining death penalty cases, invalidated a federal ban on possession of machine guns and advocated the toughening bankruptcy laws.

Her most well known case, could be the center of an enormously divisive national debate if she is nominated: In McCorvey vs. Hill, which was a request by the original plaintiff of Roe v. Wade to vacate that finding, Jones joined the Fifth Circuit in rejecting the petition on procedural grounds, but took the unusual step of filing a six-page concurrence to her own opinion. The concurrence credited the evidence presented by McCorvey and sharply criticized the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe, calling it an "exercise of raw judicial power."

She said: "That the court's constitutional decision making leaves our nation in a position of willful blindness to evolving knowledge should trouble any dispassionate observer not only about the abortion decisions, but about a number of other areas in which the court unhesitatingly steps into the realm of social policy under the guise of constitutional adjudication."

The nomination of Edith Jones will put the abortion debate at the front and center of her confirmation hearings, with a fairly clear, outlined position on her part that Roe vs. Wade is untennable and should be overturned. Edith Jones is definately the anti-Harriet Miers.

Alberto Gonzales
The contrarian point of view is that the nomination Bush would like to have made to SCOTUS is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and that, resenting the right wing sabotage of Harriet Miers, he will take this opportunity to push through his personal preference in spite of his supporters, instead of directly appealing to them. Republican Senators were already extending themselves today suggesting that Gonzales would not be appropriate, for similar reasons that they gave for doubting Miers. It seems sad that in many ways the core of the Republican Party have drifted so far to the right that they cannot support a moderate Conservative like Gonzales, even when he is the President's ideal nominee.

Admitedly his nomination is highly unlikely, but it is not all together impossible. It could form part of a calculation to reach out to the center and political mainstream ahead of the 2006 mid terms, upon which Bush's legislative agenda for his second term rests heavily. The Gonzales nomination, like Colin Powell and Condi Rice before, would be an historic step towards the diversity of the nation being reflected at the highest level of the land... Although, to be fair, this strategy hasn't exactly improved the Republican standing with African American voters.

Maureen Mahoney:
From my perspective, Mahoney is the best possible nominee that I can expect as a Democrat. She has a great deal in common with John Roberts, serving beside him in the Solicitor General's office, plus clerking for Chief Justice Rehnquist. She is now a leading appellate litigator for the Washington, D.C., firm Latham & Watkins. Her credentials are impeccable.

Mahoney has been referred to as one of the finest oral advocates of SCOTUS... which I have to say sounds kinda kinky to me. She has a reputation as a judicial Conservative, and yet she successfully represented the University of Michigan Law School in 2003 in a case in which the Supreme Court upheld diversity as a rationale for affirmative action. Asked in a 2004 interview with the University of Chicago Magazine why she had taken the case as a staunch Republican, Mahoney said that her personal views weren't relevant but added, "I certainly was very comfortable with Michigan's position."

And yet, she has a solid Conservative track record:

From "Underneath Their Robes":

She was previously nominated for a federal judgeship under Bush I (but President Clinton took office before she could be confirmed).

She is Republican, and she was on the Bush II transition team (and made the maximum contribution allowable under federal law to President Bush's 2000 presidential campaign).

She was reportedly considered by the Bush Administration for the post of Solicitor General, before Ted Olson got the job, and also for a seat on the D.C. Circuit.

She was picked, presumably by the White House Counsel's Office or the DOJ's Office of Legal Policy, to testify on behalf of Judge Roberts at his recent confirmation hearings.

Nina Totenberg has described Mahoney as "a very, very conservative woman Catholic."

I think the subtext of being a "very, very conservative woman Catholic" means that she's pro-life... although, where I'm from being a Conservative Catholic usualy means drinking only four pints of Guiness as opposed to eight at the local pub... but I'm digressing.

Very impressive: Listen to her oral argument in the affirmative action case GRUTTER vs. BOLLINGER.

In conclusion, when assessing the type of Justice Harriet Miers would have been you have to apply a different context in assessing her personal views than that you might typically apply to a politician. On the Supreme Court, asserting dogma, or politics, requires an ideology with the integrity to withstand the scrutiny of intellectual heavyweights like Breyer and Scalia. In ten years time, when the political climate of the nation might be entirely different to today, do you really think that someone like Miers, who has supported Gay rights, affirmative action, social activism, etc... upon her honest, searching introspection would consistently resort to an entrenched Conservative judicial philosophy? A philosophy she has never has never articulated once in her entire career.

Of course she wouldn't have... With Harriet Miers the opportunity existed for another Souter, or Sandra Day O'Connor, hence the Conservative outcry, not from the Republican Party base, but from its most elite thinkers like Kristol, and Krauthammer, and George Will, all too aware of the potential for Miers to not fulfill Conservative expectations on the bench.

Perhaps the Miers nomination was doomed from the beginning, but in my opinion, Democrats could have, and should have done more to ensure her confirmation, making her withdrawal from the process more difficult. Relinquishing their requests for her Presidential records could have been a start. Instead of Miers the best we can now possibly hope for, in my opinion, is a more moderate Conservative coalition between Roberts, Kennedy, and hopefully Mahoney... a die hard originalist quartet of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and J. Michael Luddig would have disastrous implications for the rights that we believe the constitution guarantees as Democrats.

Related News Articles:
Pat Buchanan: Miers withdrawal saves Bush.
WP: Conservatives will regret Miers withdrawal.
WP: Focus shifts to next nominee.
NY Times: Why the right was wrong.

Tags:
harriet miers, politics, supreme court, whitehouse, george bush

Miers nomination: The implications for Roe?

2005-10-22T00:14:00.000-07:00

As the Miers Senate Confirmation Hearings draw nearer, and political pressure builds on the Administration, very little attention is being paid to the fact that Abortion law as we know it rests precariously in the balance. John Roberts replacing Chief Justice Rehnquist didn't really shift the internal dynamics of the court. The implications for Harriet Miers replacing Sandra Day O'Connor are much more dramatic.

So the looming specter of Roe vs. Wade being overturned becomes increasingly more tangible... thanks in large part to the White House emphasis placed upon Miers' Pro-Life/Evangelical beliefs. And yet, for all the speculation, are we really examining where the Supreme Court currently stands on the issue of Abortion? Are we even considering, with specificity, how things are likely to change?

Answers can be found in the 1992 case, PLANNED PARENTHOOD vs. CASEY.

Planned Parenthood vs. Casey asked whether the state of Pennsylvania could require women who wanted an abortion to obtain informed consent, wait 24 hours, and, if they were minors, obtain parental consent, without violating their right to abortions. The rights of the state legislature to restrict abortions, and apply a "rational basis" for those restrictions, brought back into question the fundamental principles of the Roe vs. Wade ruling.

Roe vs. Wade was re-affirmed in the case 5-4 in three parts:
1) The right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability.
2) The State may restrict abortions after fetal viability if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman’s health.
3) The State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child.

What does this all tell us about where we stand today?

Well, two of the four dissenting justices remain on the court: Justice Thomas, and Justice Scalia. Chief Justice Rehnquist stated in the dissenting opinion, joined by Thomas and Scalia: "We believe that Roe was wrongly decided, and that it can and should be overruled consistently with our traditional approach to stare decisis in constitutional cases."

Rehnquist, of course has now been replaced by this guy...

...who said: "Justices are like Umpires... I will remember it is my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat."

The subtext to John Roberts' quote from his Senate Hearings is that he is an Originalist. He believes that the role of a judge is stick to the original text of the US constitution strictly, with as little, if no subjectivity. Originalists believe that nowhere is it specifically stated in the constitution that Abortion is a fundamental right, and that none of the principles that it articulates were ever originally intended to provide that right. Hence it is the responsibility of respective states to legislate on the issue, effectively meaning that Abortion can be criminalized.

Others, like myself, believe that the US Constitution is a "Living and breathing" constitution, growing and evolving through time in our interpretations, embodying principles that bear a different significance upon society as we change via cultural standards, + new technology, etc. For example: What does a right to privacy mean in the age of the internet, and online commerce, and emails, and CCTV potentially on every street corner... How could the founders' original intentions preclude a modern assessment of what the right to privacy really means today, in the modern world?

As I quoted in my previous post, Roe vs Wade relies upon the fourteenth amendment:

ROE vs. WADE, 1/22/73: State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.

Nowhere in the fourteenth amendment does it explicitly state that the right to an abortion is guaranteed. It articulates a right to privacy... and it is a judgment call about whether privacy encompasses female productive rights. So, it is safe to conclude from Roberts' originalist judicial philosophy that he will be a passionate advocate of overturning Roe vs. Wade.

So where do the others stand?

By my mind, there are four justices that can reliably be expected to vote against Roe: Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Miers, or her replacement if she steps down or performs badly in her hearings. And there are also four justices, who can reliably be expected to vote to uphold Roe: Souter, Breyer, Stevens, and Ginsberg.

One Justice remains a question mark... the pivotal vote in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey... and that is Justice Anthony Kennedy:

Now, there's a lot of cause for optimism... Justice Kennedy co-wrote the opinion upholding Roe vs. Wade in Casey vs. Planned Parenthood. He also, more recently, wrote the opinion in a case outlawing the use of Capital Punishment for minors, citing foreign law, which makes it absolutely clear that he is not a die hard originalist like Scalia or Roberts... meaning that he can be swayed by the notion that changing times, and values should be reflected in the interpretation of the principles that the Constitution sets forth.

However there also remains a great deal of uncertainty surrounding him:

"Recently released private court records of Roe vs. Wade architect Justice Harry Blackman tell the story of how close the 1973 landmark came to being overturned in 1992. The records are accompanied by an oral history recorded by Blackmun, and show that Roe's overturn was imminent until Kennedy changed his mind and voted to uphold Roe. Blackmun's commentary reveals that Kennedy, a Catholic, originally voted to support the Pennsylvania abortion restrictions challenged in the case, but changed his vote after vigorous lobbying by Blackmun."

Contrary to common misconception, Sandra Day O'Connor was not the swing vote on Abortion... Justice Kennedy was. Nobody knows what exactly made him change his mind... and nobody can say whether it was a concrete and permanent change of heart, or whether his vote is once again up for grabs. There is some comfort in knowing that Blackmun has been replaced by Breyer, an intellectual heavyweight more than capable of standing up to Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts, who are sure to form an intimidating triumvirate. And, the fact that Kennedy co-authored the opinion re-affirming the three principles of Roe vs. Wade also is cause to be hopeful that Miers or someone worse, replacing Sandra Day O'Connor, won't mean the end of female reproductive rights in the United States as we know them.

All is not lost, perhaps, as I had feared. But, with another nomination to the Court looming (Justice Stevens is 85 and prey to God going strong) the 2008 election takes on even more importance. Hopefully, by that time the Democratic Party will have a leader with the conviction to fight the battle of ideas that we have been forsaking to Conservatives for too long. An Originalist doctrine of the US Constitution is not reflective of modern, mainstream American values, no matter how many times Hannity, Limbaugh, Fred Barnes, et all say so.

Related Links:
Case History: Planned Parenthood V Casey
Oral Arguments: Audio
On the Issues: Anthony Kennedy on Abortion
NPR: Blackmun's Papers
Blackmun: Roe nearly overturned in 1992

Tags:
abortion, harriet miers, supreme court, roe v wade

The Criminalization of Politics

2005-10-21T15:09:00.000-07:00

Many Conservatives are claiming that the indictments handed down against Tom Delay, and the current investigation into the role of the White House in the outing of CIA Agent Valerie Plame, plus the allegations of Insider Trading against Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist, are all reflective of a sudden, unparalleled attempt to criminalize political opponents. Are they suffering from short term memory loss?

Did everyone forget this guy:

Here are some of the highlights of Ken Starr's investigation into the Whitewater affair:

1. Starr held Monica Lewinsky without a lawyer for eight or nine hours. (She was technically free to go, but coerced psychologically with threats of 27-year prison sentences.)
2. Starr tried to force Marcia Lewis, Lewinksy's mother, to testify against her. (She became ill as a result.)
3. Starr's investigators were bearing guns when they interrogated Lewinksy's brother.
4. Starr tried to pressure Whitewater witness Steve Smith to testify falsely, according to Smith.
5. Starr threatened Whitewater witness Sarah Hawkins with indictment without any evidence of wrong-doing.
6. Starr subpoenaed a sixteen-year old boy at his school to intimidate him.
7. Starr subpoenaed Robert Weiner for making a phone call from his home.
8. Starr kept Susan McDougal locked in jail for eighteen months and tried to get her to testify to an imaginary affair.
9. Starr subpoenaed White House aide Sidney Blumenthal for talking with the press about his investigation.
10. Starr subpoenaed a Little Rock home decorating store where Webster Hubbell shopped.
11. Starr subpoenaed bookstores where Monica Lewinsky shopped, trying to learn her reading habits.
12. Starr has subpoenaed Secret Service agents to testify against the president.
13. Starr tried to dig up dirt on the president's sex life long before the Monica Lewinsky allegations.
14. Starr's investigators harrassed White House Interior Department liaison Bob Hattoy about recruiting gay people to work in the Clinton Administration.
15. Starr considered running for a Republican Senate nomination in Virginia.
16. Starr was co-chairman of an unsuccessful Republican congressional campaign (Kyle McSlarrow, 1994).
17. Starr contributed $5,475 to Republican political candidates in the 1993-94 election cycle.
18. Starr spoke at right-wing televangelist Pat Robertson's Regent University while working as independent counsel.
19. Starr spent nearly $40 million to smear the president and has found no evidence of wrong-doing anywhere, except for the cover-up of a sexual affair.
20. When Starr appeared before the House Judicial committee, he answered at least 30 times with statements like "I can't recall…" "I don't remember…" even for momentous events like when he learned about the Tripp tapes.

More here: 68 reasons why Ken Starr's investigation was erroneous.

Related News Articles:
Weekly Standard: Criminalizing Conservatives.
America Blog: The Normalization of Treason
Think Progress: FNC pushing "Criminalization of Politics."

Tags:
karl rove, politics, joseph wilson, valerie plame, indictments, whitehouse, george bush, judith miller, ken starr

Miers Nomination: The Future for Abortion

2005-10-16T20:23:00.000-07:00

ROE V WADE, 1/22/73: State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.

Fourteenth Amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

One of my closest friends growing up was my cousin. Every other weekend we would spend our Saturday or Sunday together playing computer games and sharing our respective passions for soccer, and WWF Wrestling, usually bantering and teasing each other into the evening, while enjoying marathon gaming sessions on his Commodore 64. These times are some of my fondest childhood memories.

My cousin suffered from a congenital degenerative muscular disease that confined him to a wheel chair for most of his life, and after a period of illness he passed away in 1993. Without wishing to romanticize my relationship with him, which is the last thing my boisterous, cocky and down to earth friend would have wanted, he remains a very significant part of my soul, and he is always in my thoughts.

The nature of his congenital disease exists in my father's lineage and can be passed down by women born from that side of my family, but only to their sons. After the extent of his disease and suffering was clear (and he did suffer greatly), his parents tried again, hoping to have a girl who could, with certainty, not inherit this genealogical trait. Twice they conceived boys who, tragically, both exhibited characteristics of my cousin's disease and in both instances they chose to have abortions. They did this firstly for the sake of themselves, after their immense, brave, and eventually grief strickened struggle with my cousin, and secondly, because of their intimate first hand knowledge of the quality of life ahead for a child with this disease. This was their calculus in making their choice.

Recently, a friend of mine related to me a story of a close companion she knew who had chosen to have an abortion because of her age, and economic circumstances. It just wasn't the right time in her life, and she wasn't in a position, along with her partner, to cope financially with the burden of rearing a child. Her partner had absolved himself of responsibility for the decision by simply stating he would be supportive of her choice, regardless, which wasn't helpful. And, after the passage of time she grew more and more traumatized by the choice she had made. With deep sadness, guilt, and sorrow she could not forgive herself for ending a life force that she felt powerfully in her heart. The memory of the fetus that she aborted became quite human in her mind.

My point: Abortion is not just an abstract, two dimensional political debate. Those who have abortions are not evil-doers, and those who believe abortion is wrong are not religious fundamentalists. This is real life. The practical implications of criminalizing abortion has real life consequences that everybody, regardless of their point of view, should take time to reflect upon.

I find myself with a lot of personal doubts about my own views on abortion. I come from a nation with a clear cultural consensus on the issue and when I play Devils Advocate with my own belief system, usually in the midst of listening to right wing talk radio, or reading the columns of my favorite US Conservative writers, abortion is the one subject where I find myself consistently reaching ambiguous conclusions. All I know is that the famous "Violin Player" analogy resonated with me when I was at college studying philosophy and that ever since I've passionately felt that within a reasonable time period a woman should retain rights over her own body... Intuitively, for reasons that transcend my political views, that still means everything to me.

There are three main questions I have:

Is abortion ethical?
What are the practical consequences of criminalizing abortion?
Is the qualified right to an abortion guaranteed by the US constitution like Roe V Wade states?

As a side note, if you're not interested in my own ideas on these questions, which are quite lengthy and detailed, I would still love to hear your POV in my comments section.

ETHICS
By what criteria can we make an assessment of whether a fetus is deserving of rights that override the reproductive rights of the mother? Is the fetus a human being and what does it really mean to be human?

I've always felt that human life is defined fundamentally by our sentient awareness of ourselves... our open eyes receiving, digesting and being transformed by our environment, and our cogniscence, even on a basic level, that this process defines our existence. But when you think about it, I'm wrong... was I endowed with sentient awareness when I immediately exited the womb? Was I immediately sentient when I entered the physical world for the very first time?

I have no memories of being one month old, or six months old, and if I had to speculate, I would say that I didn't grasp my life, birth, and death, till much later. Isn't sentient awareness a process our mind takes, adjusting, and involving itself with others and our surroundings? Isn't it something a human being arrives at after it is born?

If that is true sentience cannot define what it means to be human. A newly born baby is still human despite its lack of psychological development. Hence, how can a lack of this be the basis upon which we say a fetus is not human? It can't be.

So what is it then? What is the criteria for determining at what stage life overrides the right to an abortion, if that right ever exists in the first place?

Is it God and the Bible? To many I'm sure it is, and while I respect their perspective it isn't the basis upon which I can determine my own value system. I can think and reason for myself, and this is how I like to arrive at my principles.

Is it the physiological dependence that the fetus has upon its host/mother? Is it the physical development of the fetus... the size of its heart, the appearance of fingers and thumbs, its ability to feel pain? I know... it's not an easy question.

The only way to answer it in my opinion is to work backwards...

To criminalize abortion you are legally compelling a woman to bring a fetus/child to term, because the legal rights of the life inside her womb override her reproductive rights. Hence, abortion is killing. Abortion is murder.

Is the “morning after pill” killing? Has a woman who swallows the “morning after pill” ended a human life? I imagine many people reading this, like me, would conclude "no" to that question. But why? The egg has been fertilized by sperm. The pill works only by preventing a woman’s ovaries from releasing that egg, and by affecting her womb lining to keep it from embedding there.

For me this is the huge question to ask if you honestly want to reflect upon your own beliefs on abortion. Does a woman have the reproductive right to stop a fertilized egg embedding itself in her womb? Is it murder? Does she have the right to consider her own life, studies or economic circumstances and ability to provide for a child etc, at that stage, and chose to swallow that pill and potentially end what could eventually be a child?

There are many who think she shouldn't and that the morning after pill is murder, and I totally respect that point of view? But, I personally don't think that, and I don't believe the majority of Americans think that.

So if we can establish upon consensus that the morning after pill is not murder, we are concluding that human life does not begin at fertilization, and we can begin to look ahead...

Does human life begin when the fertilized egg embeds itself in the womb? Is an action to terminate the pregnancy at that stage murder? The majority of people who are against abortion would say yes at this stage. But ask yourself, what difference is there between the fertilized egg before it embeds itself in the womb, and a few moments after? Virtually nothing. There is no immediate change. The difference is that the womb facilitates the physical development of the fertilized egg into a fetus. It's the DEVELOPMENT of that fetus, and not its position in the womb, which should characterize our decision as a society about female reproductive rights...

After spending the last week or so re-considering my views, and talking to the people around me about their experiences and ideas, the conclusion I’ve reached is this:

Abortion is fundamentally a judgment we have to make about when the physical development of a fetus compromises a woman's reproductive rights. And as a society, we have to face up to this reality... there is a time frame to be determined... be it modern scientific standards... be it twenty weeks, twelve weeks, eight weeks. I understand how emotive the sight of an aborted fetus is, and some of the pictures I've seen online reading about this issue will be burned in my brain for quite some time... But, I recognize that it is irrational to call a woman who has an abortion a murderer, or the act itself killing, while thinking that the stage of her pregnancy doesn't makes any difference to the ethical questions involved. Of course it does, unless you believe life begins once the egg has been fertilized.

CRIMINALIZING ABORTION

What are the real life practical consequences of criminalizing abortion?

Should my uncle and aunt have been prosecuted for murder for having abortions after their experiences with my cousin? Should a young woman studying at University attempting to create financial security for the sake of the children she will have be prosecuted for saying now is not the right time? Should a single woman, unemployed, be prosecuted for deciding that she is not in a financial or emotional position to bring a child to term, nor raise it?

Their possible punishments: Jail sentences up to life in prison + the Death Penalty.

A Pro-Life supporter might say:“Surely if you take the risk, there are consequences that are your responsibility, and if you don't want those consequences you possess the power to avoid them.”

And yet, in terms of the criminal implications, it's interesting how this responsibility rests solely upon the shoulders of women. I am sure that if Roe V Wade gets overturned you won't see any men, just as responsible for the act in question, being held legally accountable for an abortion that has taken place.

Criminalizing abortion basically comes down to criminalizing female sexual behavior that doesn't correspond to childbearing. It serves to de-sexualize them again in a society, where finally, they've emerged from the shackles of domesticity to freely express themselves in ways that they should never have been ashamed of in the first place. In a state where abortion is illegal the message will be clear to all women: SEX = motherhood or jail time or something potentially worse...

Would you even want to take a 2% risk when the stakes are that high?

THE NON-EXISTENT DEMOCRATIC DILEMMA

I hope that even if you reach different conclusions to my own this post will help provoke a re-examination of your values, and the impending reality of abortion's criminalization in certain states. For instance, do you really think my uncle and aunt should have to defend themselves in a court of law for the choices they made? Aren't we just returning to an age of backstreet abortions, in terrible conditions for the poorest women in the nation?

Harriet Miers is passionately pro life and almost certainly will vote to overturn Roe V Wade. The SCOTUS will now say that abortion as a right is not guaranteed by the US constitution and, consequently, it will return the power to states to criminalize abortion if they so choose.

The truth is that I'm not in a position to judge whether the constitutional right to privacy guarantees a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy as stated by Roe V Wade. I learned everything I know about the Supreme Court from the C-Span archives, I'm not well informed, and this is something I would definitely appreciate your viewpoints on...

But, what I do know well is politics... I know that from a Democratic perspective supporting Harriet Miers serves the party’s political aspirations for the 2006 mid-terms… I know it puts President Bush at greater risk with his own party at a time when he’s publicly struggling for the very first time.

I also know that Harriet Miers is the best justice Democrats can possibly hope for, and that if her nomination fails, she will be replaced by a more strident, intelligent, confident, and experienced Conservative who will undoubtedly wield more power in the context of the Supreme Court’s collegiate process.

The reality is that this battle has already been fought… and it has already been lost.

There is no question to me that in 2004 the Democratic Party failed the millions of Americans who will suffer if Roe V Wade is overturned. I have always been supportive of John Kerry. I supported him two years before the 04’ primary and I still support much of his platform as the best alternative to some of the problems we are currently experiencing. But, his failure, and the Democratic Party’s failure to articulate to the American people the reality of criminalizing abortion, while fairly discussing the constitutional issues surrounding Roe V Wade, and the ethical issues surrounding abortion… has threatened the liberty and privacy of millions of women in the United States.

Do you not think this was an argument Democrats could have won? And if we had lost, would it not have been better to have at least fought, and lost, rather than to now watch powerlessly on as the cultural foundations of the nation are transformed for a generation.

Democrats have an awful dilemma ahead of them with Harriet Miers. I'm sure it will weigh heavily on Democratic Senators over the coming weeks. But, the sad reality is that the choice they make doesn’t really matter now. It doesn’t really change anything... It is a non-existent dilemma. What really mattered isn't even in play.

Because when it really mattered on the issue of abortion and women's reproductive rights in the United States… the Democratic Party didn’t even put up a fight. We didn't even make an argument. We didn't even try.

George Bush ran in 2000 and 2004 to make appointments to the Supreme Court in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, to overturn Roe V Wade and return the power to states to criminalize abortion...

...I believe history will remember that Democrats didn't even call him on it when they had the chance.

Related News Articles
WSJ: Assurances to Conservatives that Miers will oppose Roe.
Daily Kos: Dobson and Miers.
Rush Limbaugh: Holding Court.
David Brooks: In her own muddled words.

Tags:
abortion, harriet miers

The next British Prime Minister?

2005-10-14T11:27:00.000-07:00

After this brooding Scot of course...

For those unaware, in the UK we are currently in the midst of a Conservative party leadership contest, the most remarkable aspect of which has been the unusually impressive caliber of the candidates. Ken Clarke: popular former Chancellor... David Davis: right winger with an almost Presidential physical stature... Liam Fox: thoughtful, articulate, and principled MP from the religious right of the party. But, the most notable candidate has been the one pictured above, David Cameron, a young, modern centrist, and a sincere compassionate conservative.

I will be a Labour party supporter until the day I die, and yet, I can't help but feel satisfied with Cameron's inevitable leadership victory. For this reason...

From my 7/16 post on consensus politics:

In the UK, the last twenty six years has seen four successive Conservative terms in office, followed by three successive Labour terms. The reasons behind this are that 1) the respective parties in power both attained a high degree of success in implementing their policies, and 2) their respective opposition parties struggled to drag themselves back from the political extremes on the left and right... where, notoriously, the British electorate rarely dwell. What good is it for us to simply sway between competing political visions, like this?

Well, for me, I believe it's about progress through consensus. The Conservative party liberalized the British economy dramatically in the early 80's which transformed our society for good and bad. The test of their accomplishment, or of any political accomplishment in my opinion, is the response the opposition takes to regain support and power, and of course, what it does when it gets into power. Margaret Thatcher's reforms had so many positive benefits that slowly but surely the Labour party was required to reposition its economic vision. The Labour vision remained distinct and unique, with elements of increased taxation, and more gov't activism, but they were suddenly forced to acquire a pragmatic conviction in the positive benefits of free markets domestically, and abroad.

Progress through consensus. The public's recognition of what constitutes progress redefining the electoral landscape.

David Cameron's ascendence in the Conservative party, while quite possibly dawning a new era of success for his party, marks undoubtedly, a dramatic shift in the political landscape of Britain. The success of New Labour, under Tony Blair, has been to define the public discourse in terms of progressive values, the quality of our schools, hospitals, lifting people out of poverty, and intervening in society for the benefit of those who require a helping hand. Margeret Thatcher famously said "there is no such thing as society." Finally, that abhorent, divisive notion that had such a negative impact upon my country has been put where it belongs, on the extreme periphery of British politics.

David Cameron will soon be elected Conservative leader, and, in spite my many disagreements with him, I recognize that when this happens British politics will have taken a huge step forward.

UPDATE: Oh bugger... Cameron embroiled in drug scandal. I still think he'll win.

Official Site: Campaign for Cameron
Daily Telegraph: Cameron stakes his claim
BBC: David Cameron profile

Tags:
david cameron, british politics, ken clarke, david davis, liam fox, tony blair, gordon brown

The White House at war with itself?

2005-10-11T18:48:00.000-07:00

From Hardball with Chris Matthews:

HOWARD FINEMAN, NBC, CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT:
That‘s the point of the lance of this whole thing.
Right now, my sense, in reporting this, Chris, is that the Bush family, political family, is at war with itself inside the White House. My sense is, it‘s Andy Card, the chief of staff, and his people against Karl Rove, the brain.

MATTHEWS:
Right.

FINEMAN:
And that runs through a whole lot of things, whether it‘s Harriet Miers or Katrina. But it all starts with Iraq.
And some submerged, but now emerging divisions within the administration over why we went into that war, how we went into that war and what was done to sell it. There are people are out for Karl Rove inside that White House, which makes his situation even more perilous.
My understanding, from talking to somebody quite close to this investigation, is that they think there are going to be indictments and possibly Karl Rove could be among them, if not for the act of the leaking information about Valerie Plame, then perhaps for perjury, because he‘s now testified four times.

...End of Transcript.

Can you believe it gets worse? From the Huffington Post:
The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg are working on stories that point to Vice President Dick Cheney as the target of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name.

What's interesting about Cheney's name being brought into the equation is that it was originally his request to the CIA that started this. He asked the CIA to investigate British Intelligence claims that Iraq had attempted to purchase enriched Uranium in Niger, and that inturn instigated the involvement of Joe Wilson. What I also find interesting is the role of Scooter Libby, Cheney's Chief of Staff, who has been such an intense focus of Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury. Are we really expected to believe he could have acted completely independent of his boss in attempting to smear Wilson via discussing his wife's position at the CIA?

From the National Journal:
In two appearances before the federal grand jury investigating the leak of a covert CIA operative's name, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, did not disclose a crucial conversation that he had with New York Times reporter Judith Miller in June 2003 about the operative, Valerie Plame, according to sources with firsthand knowledge of his sworn testimony.

The problem with this story is that it is immensely complicated. Yes, it exposes the extent of the smear tactics employed by this Administration. And to that end, yes, an undercover CIA operative was outed by White House political staff to Bob Novak, Time Reporter Matthew Cooper, and also New York Times Journalist Judith Miller (although she did not report it). But that's not just what this is all about...

George Bush, 2003 State of the Union:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. ... Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."

This claim by George Bush, and the specific basis for Dick Cheney's repeated assertion of Saddam's Nuclear capability in the lead up to war, was debunked by Joe Wilson, and two other CIA operatives. Yet the Administration still chose to refer to this Intelligence in the 2003 State of the Union address, with the approval of then CIA Director George Tenet. It was when Joe Wilson made his findings public that the smear campaign ensued to undermine his credibility, and the criminal act of exposing his wife's undercover CIA status was committed by the White House political staff.

It will be interesting to see how this all develops during the coming weeks...

Related Posts:
Plame Indictments Imminent.
The ten steps that have implicated Karl Rove.

WSJ: Focus of CIA Leak Probe Widens
Hat Tip: Crooks and Liars, America Blog

Tags:
karl rove, politics, joseph wilson, valerie plame, indictments, whitehouse, george bush, judith miller, matthew cooper, dick cheney, andrew card

Three months on...

2005-10-08T16:39:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was the three month anniversary of the terrorist attacks in London... made all the more poignant by the news that New York authorities had received specified threats against their city's subway system. It now seems clear that regardless of our continued military efforts to thwart Al Quaeda and its decentralized network of indoctrinated militants, this threat will remain in our lives for years if not decades to come. Extreme Islamic terror in our largest cities around the world is unquestionably here to stay.

It still feels like only yesterday that the chaos of that morning ensued in London... the explosion of images, muddled reports, and a desperate concern for relatives and loved ones. The immediate aftermath where it was swiftly explained that the apparent seven explosions were in actual fact only four. And then, in the days that followed we saw the faces of those responsible. Human beings all. One, a loving father and teacher, others too young to legally drink alcohol in the United States. A story emerged that the parents of one of the suicide bombers had tipped off the police by inquiring about whether their son had been a victim in the attacks. I can only begin to imagine their shock.

What occurred on July 7th made me immensely proud of my home city, and our inviolate spirit forged by the Blitz of World War 2 and the IRA bombing campaign in the 1980's. If the object of terrorism is to terrorize, then those ultimately responsible for these attacks utterly failed. There has been no outbreak of anti-muslim violence here, no dramatic political upheaval like that witnessed as a consequence of the Madrid bombings. They did not damage our economy, nor our willingness to continue on in pursuit of what they fear most of all - a free society, comprising people of all religions and creeds, fostering self determination, individualism, equality of the races, sexes, and different sexualities... and, of course, most fundamentally, the liberty to dissent without fear of retribution. It's our way of life that ultimately poses the greatest threat to Islamic Extremists who, by contrast, require the violent enforcement of scripture to retain the perpetuation and longevity of their power and control.

I don't know whether or not the nature of the potential threat posed to NYC two days ago demanded full public disclosure. None of us are in a position to make an informed judgment about that because we do not know all of the facts. All I know is that we need to prize even more highly our way of life. Every possible precaution sometimes doesn't serve our larger battle against terrorism in my opinion, and, I couldn't understand why some people responded to the NYC tip off with an almost vitriolic, eager excitement to remind us all that it is good to always be afraid... to always be fearful, as if it was a bad thing that New York had began to move on from the trauma of September 11th.

It is good to not be afraid. To be undaunted. To be unmoved. Ask yourself this: When those responsible for the London bombings saw the city's commuters flood back onto underground trains the very next day, how powerless must they have felt? When those planning to attack see public figures promoting mass hysteria, by contrast, how powerful must they feel?

To qualify this post I am a foreign policy hawk. I believe in preemptive action where appropriate. I'm not singing kumbaya around the campfire, while preaching appeasement, and ignorance. It's just sometimes I think people need to be reminded exactly what it is we are fighting for... our way of life. It's our way of life that threatens terrorists' grandiloquent fascistic designs... it's our way of life that they want to destroy... and its our way of life, consequently, that we should prize most highly of all.

Related Posts:
When the unthinkable happens...
Why did the terrorists attack?

Plame Indictments Imminent...

2005-10-05T16:34:00.000-07:00

Rumours suggest 22 Indictments are about to be handed down in the Valerie Plame investigation.

Here is my post on the case from July 11th: The ten steps that have implicated Karl Rove.

I've also read online that Ari Fleischer will be indicted for perjury.

Radar Online: Indictments Imminent.
Reuters: US officials brace for decisions in CIA leak case.
The Raw Story: Rove has been missing from White House events.

From my 07/11 post: "What we do know now is precisely what was responsible for the Whitehouse leak of Valerie Plame's undercover CIA Identity: A concerted, co-ordinated smear campaign against Joseph Wilson, of which Rove was at least involved.

Tags:
karl rove, politics, joseph wilson, valerie plame, indictments, whitehouse, george bush, judith miller

Bush nominates Miers

2005-10-03T06:30:00.000-07:00

Is it really possible that we will have a Supreme Court that will be less and not more Conservative as a consequence of Bush's nominations? It's early days, and there's much that we do not know about White House Counsel Harriet Miers. But we do know this already:

In the aftermath of Nov 04, I don't think anybody could have expected two such moderate and, at least prosaically, non-ideological nominations to the Supreme Court. John Roberts, in spite of his past political affiliations, explicitly demonstrated a willingness to be objective and open minded as a fundamental personal philosophy. Harriet Miers, it seems, has first hand experience confronting discrimination, and her political contributions to Al Gore and Lloyd Bentsen show that she retains the capacity to truly appreciate arguments from both sides of the political spectrum.

These choices, at least on the surface, are completely inconsistent with Bush's governing philosophy... which has been to aggressively pursue a Conservative agenda, no matter the cost, completely abdicating the politics of consensus. Perhaps this nomination is symptomatic of a White House that is seeking to reclaim the political center in the wake of dire recent events. So far it has been Liberal pundits expressing almost unconditional support for Miers, while Conservatives like Bill Krystol and Fred Barnes have been left to vent, disappointed. I wonder if this was the desired intention. I wonder also if Bush has independently asserted himself in opposition to his political staff in making this nomination.

The truth is that Harriet Miers appears to be a perfectly suitable replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor. It's just highly ironic that after five years of dogmatic partisanship, the Bush Administration has sacrificed its opportunity to permanently alter the Judicial landscape for decades. Astonishingly, while many Democrats will be crossing their fingers, hoping for a relatively expedient confirmation process, Conservatives might, by contrast, be strategizing to derail her nomination. Who would have thought? It seems that Harriet Miers has taken everybody, on both sides of political spectrum, by complete surprise.

(UPDATE) 10/04/05:
It keeps getting better and better. Miers supported civil rights for Gays and Lesbians in 1989, + Aids education programs for the city of Dallas. That's pretty impressive even for a Conservative Democrat back then. Even if she completely disavows these views, they contribute to the burgeoning civil war amongst Conservatives.

RNC Chairman: "Miers was a Democrat throughout the 1980's..."
Bill Krystol: "I'm Disappointed, Depressed and Demoralized"
David Frum: "Miers nomination... is an unforced error"
MSNBC Profile: A Pitbull in Size 6 Shoes
Hat Tip: Wonkette

Tags:
george bush, harriet miers, john roberts

Delay's indictment might only be the beginning...

2005-09-28T17:21:00.000-07:00

(UPDATE) 09/29/05: In all of the interviews that Tom Delay gave last night why did nobody ask him this question: Did you at any time, specifically discuss, plan, or co-ordinate in emails, phone conversations, or anything else... the process of the $190,000 contribution to TRMPAC being sent to the national party to be then turned around to Texas state campaigns? Isn't this obviously the basis for the conspiracy charge... and wouldn't finding out if he can publically deny any evidence that Ronnie Pearle might have to support this indictment... be the most important question to ask? But, instead Delay gets to claim the activity is not really a crime (which it is) and then ambiguously state that in these specific instances he wasn't even aware it was taking place until after the fact (which was subjected to absolutely no serious journalistic scrutiny).

09/28/05: You have to admire the Republican attack machine, even when it's on the defensive. Tom Delay was indicted twelve hours ago and already Texas Prosecutor, Ronnie Earle, has been publically reduced to a mean spirited, narcisistic political hack, puppeted by the DNC. To substantiate this smear Delay has cited a Democratic fundraiser Earle spoke at openly discussing the case with the crowd (which would indeed seem highly inappropriate)... plus Earle's conduct in a previous indictment against a Republican Senator, where, after a year of "mudslinging," he eventually refused to try the case in court, deciding instead to divulge all of the evidence to the local media in his hotel room.

And yet, I don't think that there is any question Delay was heavily involved with the "laundering" of corporate donations. Nor that he helped to send corporate money to the Republican Party in Washington, so it could then be returned to state legislative candidates. I don't think that anybody would dispute that this practise, while widely employed by both Democrats and Republicans, is an illegal practise in the state of Texas. Consequently, isn't the real pertinent issue not whether this charge is politcally motivated... as convenient as that might be for Delay and the FNC to focus on... but on exactly what grounds can it be proved that Delay conspired to facilitate this crime? I mean, from what I could discern from his interview on Brit Hume Delay's defense in court is going to be nothing more than "the Prosecutor's a Democrat", and "everybody else does it your honor."

From the Religious Freedom Coalition, Delay's opponents have an impressive list of alleged grievances:

Promised a role in drafting legislation to a corporate donor
Tried to coerce a Congressman for a vote on Medicare
Allegedly used corporate money given to his PAC to finance Texas campaigns in violation of state law
Used Homeland Security resources in a dispute with Democrats in Texas
Diverted funds from a children's charity for lavish celebrations at the Republican convention
Threatened retaliation against interest groups that don't support Republicans
Stacked the House Ethics committee with representatives who have contributed to his legal defense fund
Accepted trips from corporations and later helped kill legislation they opposed
Accepted trips from the lobbyist for a foreign government in violation of House rules
Crippled the effectiveness of the House Ethics Committee by purging members who had rebuked him
Pushed for a rules change for the House Ethics process that paralyzed the panel
Sought a rule change that would have no longer "required leaders to step aside temporarily if indicted"
Paid family members more than $500,000 out of campaign contributions

The truth is this indictment couldn't have come at a worse time for the President...

Seven days ago it emerged that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist sold all of his stock in his family's hospital corporation... two weeks before the price fell 15 percent after it had issued a disappointing earnings report. From the WP: On June 13, Frist instructed the trustee managing the assets to sell his HCA shares and those of his wife and children. Both the Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission are now looking into the sales, + the accusations of insider trading.

And next month Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's report on his investigation into how Valerie Plame's undercover CIA identity was exposed will be published. Karl Rove has been heavily implicated, alongside other White House political aides, and George Bush is on record as saying, "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is...and if the person has violated the law, that person will be taken care of."

As implausible as it sounds, it's now entirely possible that the final months of 2005 will see indictments handed down against the House Majority Leader, the Senate Majority Leader, and also members of the Executive branch. Although, I think that this is probably just wishful thinking on my part... hee hee :). Regardless of any eventuality, difficult times are most certainly ahead for the President and the Republican Party.

Tags:
george bush, tom delay, bill frist, karl rove

Lyndon Dubya Bush?

2005-09-22T13:18:00.000-07:00

Statistical comparisons between the 36th and 43rd President's of the United States make for interesting reading. From my post on 09/09 outlining what I think the Democrats need to do to win in 2008:

In the next 1153 days the economic theory of tax less and spend more will be perpetuated. The national debt will be paid down, if at all, by attempts to manufacture rapid economic growth, and in turn increased gov't revenue, through the short term stimulus package that comprises nothing more than dramatic, costly, and all encompassing tax cuts.

It's a risk fueled, ambitious strategy that exacerbates market instability and unpredictability (we call it boom & bust economics in the UK). Correlate this approach to your personal finances for one moment. Imagine if you were in debt that could potentially spiral out of control. Imagine that you had growing expenses and responsibilities that you were committed to like a large mortgage, and your children's education. Imagine if your outgoings, including discretionary items that while valuable, were not 100% essential, continued to exceed your outgoings. Would the remedy be to spend more money, speculate, invest, take chances, upon the purely theoretical notion that this will increase the money you make, eventually covering your expenses and allowing you to pay down your debt? Or would it be wiser to manage your expenses, spend only what you can afford, meet your essential responsibilities, and not expend money (RISKY TAX CUTS) speculatively to raise income when you knew that around the corner a disaster could strike (9/11, KATRINA) that could systematically undermine your ambitions.

What happened to the macro-economic management, "invest and grow" strategy, and fiscal discipline of the 90's, that mitigated debt, and deficits with a stable, planned, secure approach to the nation's finances. Republican's are so fast to absolve the Clinton Administration and Robert Rubin of any responsibility for the economic stewardship during this period, instead celebrating the influence of the Republican controlled Congress, but where are these values of fiscal discipline right now, when they are in complete control of all branches of government? Where is the smart, long sighted planning of the 90's that redressed the huge deficits and national debt incurred by two successive Republican Presidents who both possessed the power to keep the then Democratic Congress in check?

Now it seems that in his first term in office George W. Bush managed to exceed Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson, creator of the "great society," in the growth of inflation-adjusted discretionary spending. Here are the statistics in depth on Reason.com. The growth in inflation-adjusted discretionary spending is currently 35.1% for GWB's first term.

Ann Coulter is right, George W. Bush is just an old fashioned "Great Society," "New Deal" Democrat. He's socially conservative, but he believes in the power of government. He believes in government activism. There is just one principal difference between LBJ and GWB....

... instead of taxing a larger proportion of GDP to pay for his big government spending, Bush taxes less across the board on the basis that it will generate enough revenue to cover the bill incurred by his expansive government activism. Many Republican's might mention 9/11, the Iraq War, rising gasoline prices, and Katrina as contributory factors to these defecits, but in actual fact, its these very same tragic occurrences that highlight exactly why the Bush economic doctrine is so flawed. It's precisely because of an emergency, attack, or war that it is incumbent upon the President, and Congress to manage the nation's finances with the greatest amount of care and discipline. Perhaps, if things had been done differently over the past five years, meeting the government's responsibility to the city of New Orleans, the state of Louisiana, and those displaced by the terrible flooding, wouldn't have such perilous implications for our economy. Maybe if weren't stretched so thin we'd be in a more flexible and secure position to meet the needs of the American people.

This might have something to do with it.

Peggy Noonan WSJ: Is Bush's big spending a bridge to nowhere?
Slate: Pity the poor fiscal Conservative
Hat Tip: Andrew Sullivan

Tags:
george bush, lyndon johnson, discretionary spending, hurricane katrina

Russ Feingold rises above partisanship...

2005-09-22T13:03:00.000-07:00

Special mention to Senator Russ Feingold, who I've previously criticized on this blog for his position on the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Today, IMO, he did the right thing and unexpectedly voted yes on the Judiciary Committee in favor of John Roberts' confirmation to the Supreme Court. It's a shame that at a time when political posturing has cost the Bush Administration so dearly, the Democratic Leadership could not also take the initiative to rise above the politics while making an objective assessment of Roberts' nomination... taking into account precedent, past nominees, and paying no mind to the implications for Bush's next nomination to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Scalia, after all, was a much stauncher ideological Conservative than Roberts, and he received 98 votes in the Senate.

The question those that disagree with me should ask themselves is if Roberts was a liberal, and a nominee by Clinton... If he had served under Carter and espoused views during that time in his twenties about Gay Marriage and perhaps vague references to a controversial subject like Reperations... would we, as Democrats, seriously think a No vote was justifiable under those parallel circumstances? The standard we would expect to be applied to nomination by a Democratic President is exactly the standard we should be applying to John Roberts.

Transcript: Senator Russ Feingold's statement on John Roberts

Tags:
russ feingold, john roberts, supreme court

Reid's misjudgment to oppose Roberts...

2005-09-20T18:35:00.000-07:00

It appears that Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic Leader, will come out against the confirmation of John Roberts on Wednesday. The following quote is from his prepared remarks available in full on The Raw Story:

"The question is close, and the arguments against him do not warrant extraordinary procedural tactics to block the nomination. Nonetheless, I intend to cast my vote against this nominee when the Senate debates the matter next week.”

Reid cites a collection of memos from John Roberts' years in service to the Reagan Administration in which he was less than enthusiastic about the advancement of Affirmative Action and "derided" the concept of comparable worth between women and men in the workplace.

To me this is absolutely absurd. Roberts' position on equal rights wasn't compromised by these statements, and his rebuttal to Senator Feinstein in committee when she raised the subject of these memo's was comprehensive. He passionately expressed his dedication to equal rights, explained the underlying nuances of the issue as it related to his comments on comparable worth, and backed it all up with the fact that he'd married a working woman, grown up with three sisters who were working women, and would settle for nothing less than an outstanding career for his own daughter. Now maybe there is more beneath the surface, but presumptuous intimations and deductions are not the basis upon which Roberts' confirmation should be refused.

Reid states in his prepared remarks:
“Nonetheless, I was prepared to look past these memos, and chalk them up to the folly of youth. I looked forward to the confirmation hearings in the expectation that Judge Roberts would repudiate those views in some fashion."

What does he need to repudiate? The Reagan Administration policy on Affirmative action? The complex questions involving the particular case he was referencing in regards to comparable worth? The fact that he said there should be less lawyers, and not less female lawyers?

I agree with Reid that the Administration should have released the documents that Roberts had written when he served in the first Bush Administration, and I absolutely agree that Roberts has been less than forthcoming in the Judiciary Committee hearings, and that this is a cause for concern. After all, there are people on both the left and right worried as a result of how difficult it is to discern what kind of Chief Justice John Roberts will be. But, lets face it... he is following a precedent that has been set by his predecessors. Yes, some kind of mechanism should be in place to identify and scrutinize the subjective manner in which any nominee interprets the law... But, ultimately this is a criticism that relates to the process and not to the nominee, whether we like it as Democrats or not.

I have expressed many concerns about Roberts: Does Roberts have the seniority, or track record in leadership positions to fulfill the role of Chief Justice. His obfuscation in response to Feinstein's JFK quote about the "absolute" separation between Church and State. But, to be perfectly honest, if these are the grounds upon which Roberts' confirmation is refused, in addition to Reid's objections, then, from this day forth, there probably isn't ANY sound basis upon which you could expect a Presidential nominee to the Supreme Court to ever be confirmed.

This is obviously a politically calculated move on the part of Congressional Democrats to send the President a message about his next nomination to the SC. Maybe Reid has received word that Bush intends to nominate a truly staunch, ideological conservative to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, and her pivotal swing vote. For me it's just a shame that when political posturing in response to Katrina has cost this Administration so dear in the opinion polls... and when, for the first time in his Presidency, George Bush is struggling to re-gather the confidence of the American people... the Democratic Leadership are sending exactly the wrong message about the type of alternative that we are offering as a party. Where the disenchanted electorate look for sincerity and integrity we are now simply perpetuating the political cynicism they have grown to despise.

I agree with the Gang of 14: George Bush's election victory earned him the right to nominate a Conservative to the Supreme Court... and only the most extreme circumstances should necessitate this type of partisan intervention. The plain truth is that nothing Harry Reid will say on Wednesday equates to circumstances that are extreme. Today's LA Times editorial impressively presents the case for Roberts' confirmation.

Tags:
harry reid, john roberts, supreme court, dianne feinstein

Rove reveals what the White House really thinks...

2005-09-18T18:26:00.000-07:00

It appears that Karl Rove, the lightning rod for the antipathy that currently surrounds the Administation, has just given his political adversaries a very early Christmas present...

From The Huffington post:

Karl Rove, President Bush's top political advisor and deputy White House chief of staff, spoke at businessman Teddy Forstmann's annual off the record gathering in Aspen, Colorado this weekend. Here is what Rove had to say that the press wasn't allowed to report on.

On Katrina: The only mistake we made with Katrina was not overriding the local government...
On The Anti-War Movement: Cindy Sheehan is a clown. There is no real anti-war movement. No serious politician, with anything to do with anything, would show his face at an anti-war rally...
On Bush's Low Poll Numbers: We have not been good at explaining the success in Iraq. Polls go up and down and don't mean anything...
On Iraq: There has been a big difference in the region. Iraq will transform the Middle East...
On Judy Miller And Plamegate: Judy Miller is in jail for reasons I don't really understand...
On Joe Wilson: Joe Wilson and I attend the same church but Joe goes to the wacky mass...
In attendance at the conference, among others were: Harvey Weinstein, Brad Grey, Michael Eisner, Les Moonves, Tom Freston, Tom Friedman, Bob Novak, Barry Diller, Martha Stewart, Margaret Carlson, Alan Greenspan, Andrea Mitchell, Norman Pearlstein and Walter Isaacson.

There is nothing here that is really incendiary... however, calling Cindy Sheehan a clown when, politics aside, she has made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the nation via the death of her son in Iraq, seems to me undignified and inappropriate behavior for the White House Senior Political Advisor (+Deputy Chief of Staff). Behaving spitefully towards Joe Wilson, while the Special Prosecutor's investigation is still ongoing is also unbecoming of the President's closest aide IMO.

The most telling comment, however, is the remark made about the White House response to Katrina. To suggest that not overriding local government was the only mistake of President Bush, while possibly true, is completely at odds with the tone Bush attempted to strike in his recent addresses to the nation, accepting full responsibility for the many different mistakes that cost so many lives and created such chaos and carnage. The explicit implication now is that Bush's words have been politically contrived, above and beyond the predictable accusations of his political opponents, and general cynicism. It makes it look like the President doesn't really think that he did anything wrong.

Of course these reports could be false, or taken out of context, and that should be taken into consideration. It will be interesting to see how, if at all, this story develops over the coming week.

Tags:
karl rove, joe wilson, cindy sheehan, hurricane katrina, george bush

Bush stepping up?

2005-09-16T09:25:00.000-07:00

With last night's address and today's speech leading the nation in a day of prayer, the Bush Administration, finally, pro-actively confronted their leadership responsibilities. In the direct aftermath of the hurricane and storm, when many were laying into Bush, I sincerely felt the criticisms were inappropriate. In my opinion the office of the Presidency was the beacon of hope, above and beyond the recriminations... from which Bush, like his predecessors Reagan and Clinton, might display the requisite compassion and humility that would reflect the nation's state of mind and bind everyone together.

I wrote this: "Bush will rise to the occasion"

My expectations were not met. The President's tone throughout this crisis has been misjudged. He has displayed frivolity at inappropriate moments... he has failed to embody a powerful sense of initiative, drive, and finding solutions at any and all costs, characteristic of real leadership... and, up until last night, he hadn't connected with the depth and breadth of this tragedy in his words.

Many might respond such things are frivolous compared to the important practical work of rescuing what is left of New Orleans, and I understand. But, at times like this we need our leaders, regardless of our political affiliations. September 11th showed us that. What has angered me more than anything is the manner in which the Administration allowed political self-preservation to cloud what should have been an absolute, uninhibited devotion those in peril and the truth, regardless of any political cost to themselves.

How can the Administration wage a political campaign of talking points to deflect criticism by discussing the "blame game" with greater frequency than the tragedy itself? How can these talking points be so effectively disseminated and publically expressed by Administration officials, the head of FEMA and the DHS... when, by comparison, two weeks ago their level of co-ordination was so poor I wouldn't have trusted them running a school girl soccer game, yet alone the response to a catastrophic national disaster? Why is there a discrepancy in their effectiveness when it comes to saving lives as opposed to their political credibility? How can those very same proclaimers of what constitutes 'a game of blame' then happily resort to blaming local and state officials every chance they get to divert negative attention away from themselves?

And even now, after everything that has transpired, there is a sense that these speeches have been mistimed. The emotional tragedy of Katrina that Bush is attempting to resonate with is no longer at the forefront of the national discourse. At this time, are people looking for the spiritual leadership of Giulliani during 9/11, or Reagan's emotive address after the Challenger exploded like they might have been when in the initial grip of this humanitarian disaster? Or are they now beginning to ask the tough questions about the failures at all levels of government concerned about the nation's preparedness for another disaster or something worse?

The truth is that we should all be glad that Administration is finally engaging Bush with his ultimate responsibility as Commander In Chief - to lead. I'm just left with one question:

"What took you so long, Mr President?"

Tags:
hurricane katrina, george bush

John Roberts cleverly deflects scrutiny...

2005-09-13T19:59:00.000-07:00

I have been impressed by John Roberts via what I've been able to enjoy of the hearing via the wonders of C-Span. He's bright, amiable, and deeply thoughtful, with an apparently balanced perspective. The fundamental position he has taken... to be an open minded, objective, and independent enforcer of the Constitution... is especially appealing at a time of such deep ideological and partisan divisions.

But, a couple of things have given me pause.

The first, trivially, has been the excruciating, vomit inducing, lecherous flattery of Senator Sessions... ughhhh! What a smug, self satisfied, party goon, ironically employing none of the adept political skills that Roberts has slickly demonstrated throughout the proceedings.

The second problem I have is the sporting analogy Roberts used in his statement on Monday: "Justices are like Umpires..." he remarked, "I will remember it is my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat."

Evocatively put and certainly worthy of a News Soundbite... but the role of the Supreme Court isn't simply to enforce the constitution, independent of the other branches of government, as important as that role is. It is also its role to ultimately interpret the constitution... for justices to apply their faculties and perspective to cases, laws, and precedents, and their relevance. It's this degree of interpretation and personal perspetive, no matter how small, that is inherently subjective and deserving of serious scrutiny. I mean... doesn't it defeat the whole purpose of these hearings for Roberts to fundamentally define himself as someone who will objectively uphold the constituion... as if that precludes scrutiny of the way in which he subjectively interprets law?

What frustrates me is that nobody has been able to scythe through this political posturing and get to the heart of the matter... these hearings should provide an explicit demonstration, in the most general terms, of the type of Justice that Roberts will be... and I don't think that is taking place.

There are some other smaller niggles that I have. Does Roberts really have the seniority and experience to be Chief Justice? I am not familiar enough with the role of Chief Justice and its history to have a real sense of the required qualities, but Rehnquist struck me as someone who asserted himself in the position and led the court. By comparison it seems like Roberts' age and good health is more of a factor than his ability to lead. In fact, thus far, I haven't detected any leadership qualities in Roberts at all... is there a reason why nobody is challenging this?

And then Dianne Feinstein's probing questions about the role of Church and State, quoting JFK as regards the "absolute Separation..."

Roberts seemed to take issue with the word "absolute" citing the complexity of recent Supreme Court rulings. But, when Feinstein expressed the history and importance of the law, the affection for its role in building the type of society that America is, and that these factors were the intended result of what the founders tried to accomplish, Roberts sharply countered. He stated that those who originally came to the US were fleeing religious persecution, and that this ultimately informed that element of the constitution. The two statements aren't really even mutually exclusive, but Roberts actively sought to disagree with Feinstein's attempts to laud "separation," which I found to be a little disconcerting.

I'm not saying that any particular point of view on Church and State might discredit him, and for sure, whatever is discussed should never compromise cases he might hear in the future... but in that brief exchange with Senator Feinstein, Roberts identified why the role of an "Umpire" is more complex than his analogy of "calling balls and strikes." I just wish we didn't have to depend upon such ambigious speculative inferences to have an idea of where John Roberts really stands on these issues. I wish, via some kind of mechanism, this process of confirmation wasn't such a blind act of faith. I mean... what is the point of having hearings at all? As things stand everyone might as well just sit around and give a speech in turn. The dialogue is redundant.

Right now, I don't see any basis upon which Roberts shouldn't be confirmed. I agree with the "Gang of 14" that President Bush has earned his nominations to the Supreme Court via election victories, and only the most extreme of circumstances should deny him this. No extreme circumstances have arisen as of yet.

Personally, I just wish we were getting to know the type of Justice Roberts will be a little better. I just wish we weren't witnessing such a polished political display more appropriate of the questioning Senators than a Supreme Court nominee. I just wish Roberts would be more forthcoming and willing to share his perpectives and subjective analysis of law with the American people.

Special mention to Roberts' son, who never fails to bring levity to this esteemed process:

Tags:
john roberts, supreme court, jeff sessions, dianne feinstein

How The Democrats Can Win in 2008

2005-09-08T17:09:00.000-07:00

By my estimation there are 1153 days to the 2008 US Election. Three years in which the Democratic Party has a long, difficult journey to traverse in pursuit of electability and the fruition of its dreams for change.

For reasons beyond my comprehension, there is a bullishness and self assuredness amongst Democrats that is completely unjustified. The climate of the late 80's/early 90's... of self reflection and honest analysis... of the DLC and our search to reconnect with the political mainstream.... has been completely absent from our internal discourse. There is an arrogance we exhibit looking ahead to 2008, that all we need to do as Democrats is speak louder, and with greater conviction, as if the American people could not discern for themselves our policy platform in 2004. Do we need a repeat of Dukakis and a third successive Presidential election defeat to finally wake up to ourselves?

For me at least, the memory of Election night 04 still powerfully lingers on...

Those early exit polls showing Kerry winning in Florida and Ohio by a couple of points. Bill Kristol and Mort Kondrake chastising Bush precipitously on Fox News for a lackluster campaign as the Kerry victory consensus began to form. Howard Dean giving a victory interview on MSNBC, praising his former adversary, as word emerged from the Democratic campaign that Kerry was "ahead in the third quarter," and the election was now theirs to lose.

I remember some French dude my ex-girlfriend had an affair with writing her an email saying, "French Television has just announced that Kerry has won Ohio... It's 100% official." Naturally, all was forgiven by me and my cries of "Vi va La France!" boomed loudly from my balcony to bemused passers by. My ex-girlfriend was not impressed.

That was when it all started to go horribly wrong...

Drudge prophetically wrote "Enough of the Exit Polls... let's focus upon the only poll that really counts!" And sure enough, like clockwork, early results from West Virginia and North Carolina indicated the exit polls had significantly under-estimated the Republican turnout across the board. Bill Kristol and Mort Kondrake adeptly shifted gears, and began to laud Bush's Presidential achievements, and a potentially historic second term. In vital voting districts in Ohio and Florida Kerry was doing worse than the results Al Gore recorded in 2000. The press began to speculate that Bush was preparing a very public photo call with his family and campaign staff. Karl Rove, it seemed, had received information that left him assured of George W.'s victory and re-election.

My heart sank and I begun to hate France all over again. John Edwards gave an undignified statement about a recount in Ohio, as Democrats desperately grasped for the ghosts of Florida, hanging chads and voter disenfranchisement. The truth, however, was quite plain this time around. We lost. And it hurt.

I concede that maybe it's too early for Democrats to be focusing upon 2008. Maybe there are more prescient battles to be fought like the future of the Supreme Court, Social Security, stability in the middle-east, and the welfare and future of the war torn and disease ravaged continent of Africa. But, I ask you to consider this:

What do we know for sure about the next 1153 days?

George Bush will be President. That much is certain. We will have a new Supreme Court Chief Justice, and he will be a staunch, if uncontroversial Conservative named John Roberts. John Bolton will, in all likelihood, remain as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. A man who has explicitly stated that no international initiative, anywhere, has legitimacy or purpose without the expressed involvement and approval of the United States. A man who thinks international diplomacy hinders and not helps cooperation amongst nations addressing the world's most pertinent problems like Terrorism, Palestine, Kashmir, Global Warming, and Africa, for example. A man who thinks that multilateralism, as a concept, is not the harbinger of peace and unity, but is instead an outmoded, naïve, unworkable ideal that threatens U.S. International Supremacy and in turn its domestic security.

In the next 1153 days the economic theory of tax less and spend more will be perpetuated. The national debt will be paid down, if at all, by attempts to manufacture rapid economic growth, and in turn increased gov't revenue, through the short term stimulus package that comprises nothing more than dramatic, costly, and all encompassing tax cuts.

It's a risk fueled, ambitious strategy that exacerbates market instability and unpredictability (we call it boom & bust economics in the UK). Correlate this approach to your personal finances for one moment. Imagine if you were in debt that could potentially spiral out of control. Imagine that you had growing expenses and responsibilities that you were committed to like a large mortgage, and your children's education. Imagine if your outgoings, including discretionary items that while valuable, were not 100% essential, continued to exceed your outgoings. Would the remedy be to spend more money, speculate, invest, take chances, upon the purely theoretical notion that this will increase the money you make, eventually covering your expenses and allowing you to pay down your debt? Or would it be wiser to manage your expenses, spend only what you can afford, meet your essential responsibilities, and not expend money (RISKY TAX CUTS!!!) speculatively to raise income when you knew that around the corner a disaster could strike (9/11, KATRINA) that could systematically undermine your ambitions.

What happened to the macro-economic management, "invest and grow" strategy, and fiscal discipline of the 90's, that mitigated debt, and deficits with a stable, planned, secure approach to the nation's finances. Republican's are so fast to absolve the Clinton Administration and Robert Rubin of any responsibility for the economic stewardship during this period, instead celebrating the influence of the Republican controlled Congress, but where are these values of fiscal discipline right now, when they are in complete control of all branches of government? Where is the smart, long sighted planning of the 90's that redressed the huge deficits and national debt incurred by two successive Republican Presidents who both possessed the power to keep the Democratic Congress in check?

What Clinton said on the campaign trail in 1992 is true in 2005. We are in the grip of a failed economic theory. Trickle down economics is fine, but it doesn't account for the fact that we are in a rapidly changing world and people are being left behind. The era of big government is most certainly over, but the Clinton Administration proved that you can have a lean brand of government activism designed to offset the deficiencies of the free market, invest in struggling communities, invest in entrepreneurship, invest in young people who don't have opportunities, invest in welfare to work schemes, etc.

For Democrats, the answer to the continuing decline of the manufacturing industry, and the impact it has on unemployment can not be to withdraw from international trade agreements and assert a new form of protectionism. The answer is for our politician's to show some imagination, and economic foresight... like Clinton did. An appreciation of global trends and the way in which Western Nations need to evolve. The truth is that American manufacturers will not be able to compete with companies from countries were there is a comparatively cheap labour market. Nothing productive can rectify this. The remedies to the situation need to be long term. As a nation, collectively, we must intervene, and seek to offer retraining for individuals in need of new skills, and incentives for companies to prosper and offer alternative employment opportunities in areas where they do not already exist. This takes time, admittedly... but for once we desperately need politicians selfless enough to plan ten/fifteen years into the future, beyond a four or eight year Presidential term. The truth is that the hollowness, and ideological rigidity of this Administration's economic policy will continue on for the next three years, and the many problems that the market by itself cannot resolve, will remain unresolved... in spite of a group of unoriginal Democrats self-servingly proselytizing nationalistically in stump speeches, town hall meetings and debates about job's being shipped overseas. We have to break this cycle.

In the next 1153 days healthcare will cost more and not less for most Americans.

Child Poverty will go up and not down.

More people will own guns, and more people will own more dangerous guns.

Public school's won't experience any significant improvements, and nobody seems to really mind that they haven't already for the five years that this Administration has been in office.

The nation will remain as bitterly divided as it has been in 2000, and 2004, as this Administration continues to disregard the politics of consensus in favor of a policy tentatively titled by me, "we're right, you're wrong... do it our way, or we'll deride you as obstructionists."

In the next 1153 days very little will be done to begin the long, difficult journey towards a new way of fueling our society.... for the purposes of protecting this earth from the impact of Global Warming, and freeing us from our dependency on foreign oil, + all of the security issues this entails. If Democrats need one centerpiece issue by which they can define themselves as an enigmatic, imaginative force capable of confronting the nation's problems, there is no greater, more pertinent issue than that of "Energy for America in 21st Century." There will be no better time to have the courage to get serious with the American people about Environmental concerns than now, with gas prices spiraling out of control, and the impact of global warming being felt all over the planet. Again... an energy strategy will take time... building a new economy in renewable energies will take time to grow and flourish... yes, the changing world demands that jobs will be lost, but that shouldn't be the basis upon which we avoid confronting our problems until they can no longer be rectified. In the end, if we do nothing, the price we pay will be far dearer.

What I'm basically trying to say is that for the next 1153 days there is virtually nothing that Democrats can do about any of this. I'm sure this will make many of those with an alternative political persuasion to my own very happy indeed :). No matter our focus, objections, recriminations, or frustrations, as Democrats, it doesn't change the fact that unless there are seismic losses for the Republicans in the 2006 mid-terms, nothing we do or say really matters. The truth is that our battle to change the course of America, for at least a large portion of the next 1153 days, is an internal battle, and one we have to fight amongst ourselves.

There are many lessons we need to learn from 2004. Kerry's insincerity hampered him from the moment he won the Democratic nomination. But, we should never mistake the nation's desire for sincerity with conviction for conviction's sake. As I've written extensively in the past, our aim is to directly resonate with the electorate on the issues they are interested in. It is not to descend any further into partisan bickering, and snide slurs against Republicans, and Republican voters, as has been the hallmark of Howard Dean's stewardship as party chairman. Republican's are not all racist, as Dean has stated... and as anyone can discern from perusing my blogroll, they are certainly not all stupid: See NYGirl and Insane Hippie.

What is the face of the Democratic Party we are projecting? We are not fighting Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Michele Malkin... we are fighting to resonate with the electorate, and address their concerns with our ideas and solutions. We have to stop indulging our bruised egos in response to Ann Coulter and Fox News. We have to stop "fighting back," with offensive, like-minded diatribes, like Mike Malloy on "Air America," saying all Republican's are abnormal people... abnormal people that he doesn't care to talk to. When Howard Dean bellowed in his Presidential stump speech that the U.S. flag wasn't the property of John Ashcroft, or Rush Limbaugh... who was he talking to? The voters across the nation? Is that what is really going to bring them hope of better opportunities, cheaper healthcare, gas prices, and a more stable economy?

And yes, we need to connect with Republican voters at a level that is above and beyond their party affiliations. We have to speak to their minds with engaging ideas substantiated by our impressive record in the 90's, and we have to speak to their hearts with real, sincere compassion and hope... in a way that Kerry failed to do.

In the 1153 days before the 2008 election, we cannot afford to indulge our idealism, or our bruised ego's. We can not simply indulge our animosity at the President, and call him names. We can not define ourselves by the likes of Howard Dean and Russ Feingold who offer solutions to problems like the unworkable, immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq... solutions that under the scrutiny of a General Election will never be taken seriously. We have to choose to be relevant to the majority of Americans. We have to speak to them about a vision for a better tomorrow. We have to speak to their heart and give them something to believe in again in this cynical... cynical age.

The biggest mistake we can make as Democrats would be to afford another Republican President, potentially as right wing and ideologically dogmatic as George Bush, another 1461 days in power after the next election three years from now.

The time for self reflection is now. What choices do we want to offer the electorate as Democrats in 2008?

Related Articles:
THE CASE AGAINST HOWARD DEAN
SOLUTION'S IN IRAQ
MULTILATERALISM IN PERIL
THE ERA OF BIG GOVERNMENT IS NOT OVER
A SHATTERED CONSENSUS

Tags:
bill clinton, politics, russ feingold, howard dean, george bush, election 2008, john kerry

Katrina Press Coverage: Powerful Sentiments

2005-09-04T16:27:00.000-07:00

Here is a quick round up of some of the most interesting press coverage on Katrina over the past few days, with video clips and transcripts:

FOX NEWS - SHEPARD SMITH & GERALDO RIVERA:

This is a harrowing and yet brilliant piece of journalism by Geraldo Rivera and Shepard Smith as they document with sadness and anger their frustration at the sights they have witnessed in the aftermath of Katrina. The website is a little busy so you might have to wait about 30 seconds or so for the video to come up... (stick it out - it's worth the wait!!!).

Video: Geraldo and Shep' on Hannity and Colmes

NBC - MEET THE PRESS:

On Meet the Press today Tim Russert effectively clobbered Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff on the issue of accountability. Using a damning article from the Times Picayune in 2002, which essentially predicted the tragic events that have transpired, Russert demanded to know why such huge underestimations were made by the Federal Gov't... and why people were taken by surprise by the extent of the flooding. Here is the eerily spooky quote from the 2002 article Russert used:

"...A major hurricane could decimate the region, but flooding from even a moderate storm could kill thousands. It's just a matter of time. ... The scene's been played out for years in computer models or emergency operations simulations... New Orleans has hurricane levees that create a bowl with the bottom dipping lower than the bottom of Lake Pontchartrain. ...the levees would trap any water that gets inside-- by breach, overtopping or torrential downpour--catastrophic storm. ... The estimated 200,000 or more people left behind in an evacuation will be struggling to survive. Some will be housed at the Superdome, the designated shelter for people too sick or inform to leave the city. ...But many will simply be on their own, in homes or looking for high ground. Thousands will drown while trapped in homes or cars by rising water. Other will be washed away or crushed by debris. Survivors will end up trapped on roofs, in buildings or on high ground surrounded by water, with no means of escape and little food or fresh water, perhaps for several days."

Full transcript from today's "Meet The Press"
Video: Tim Russert Interviews Michael Chertoff

CNN - ANDERSON COOPER:

And finally, as I previously posted in the comments section of the last thread, Mary Landrieu, who I think has been outstanding throughout this entire crisis, was aggressively challenged by Anderson Cooper for complimenting her political colleagues at a time when people were continuing to suffer. Anderson, too, wanted politicians to focus on accountability for the appauling errors that have been made:

Video: Anderson Cooper Interviews Senator Mary Landrieu

As I said in my last entry I feel very strongly that criticism... especially politically motivated shots at the President, is counter productive at a time when the nation needs to be united. People are still stranded in New Orleans desperately requiring political leadership. A post on a right leaning blog called Voice Potential demonstrates the dangerous road we begin to take if we allow the current dialogue to descend into partisan bickering from either side. This is not a time for attacking each other.

The implications are stark for where we might be heading. Liberals aren't exploiting a national tragedy for political purposes as the Voice Potential article contends... at least the majority of them aren't. Liberals are donating money, and volunteering, and doing everything they can to help people still down there. As are Republicans, and people of no political persuasion. Everybody is in this together. Unity is the essential pre-requisite for the expediency and efficiency that was initially lacking in the relief effort. I don't want politicians blaming each other, like Anderson Cooper seemed to be demanding. I want them working together to save lives as swiftly as possible.

It is easy, and perhaps not entirely helpful to frame the journalistic discourse in terms of the dramatic failures that have cost thousands of lives and subjected almost a million people to misery and violence. But the more challenging journalistic responsibility will be in the weeks and months ahead, when the situation is under control, and Hurricane Katrina is no longer a ratings winner on Cable News. I hope then, when it really matters, journalists like Geraldo, Shepard Smith, and Anderson Cooper retain their compelling passion and aggression to thoroughly investigate the events that have contributed to this terrible disaster. I hope eventually then, we can begin to understand why the people of New Orleans were so dreadfully let down by all levels of their government.

Tags:
hurricane katrina, mary landrieu, fox news, politics, geraldo rivera, shepard smith, anderson cooper, tim russert

Hurricane Katrina: Bush will rise to the occasion

2005-09-01T10:03:00.000-07:00

It's hard to fully appreciate the human cost of this awful tragedy. Almost a million people are stuck in soaring temperatures, struggling with the reality of what they've lost and the uncertainty of the future. As if things couldn't get any worse it seems that they are now threatened with the prospect of criminal violence and shootings from unscrupulous looters. It's in times of a national crisis like this that people look towards their political leaders for strength and inspiration.

Already criticisms have been directed at the Administration...

Despite repeated warnings that a catastrophic hurricane could hit Louisiana, the Administration and Congress denied full funding for hurricane preparation and flood control. Recently released figures show that $27 million was requested by the US Army Corps of Engineers to pay for hurricane protection projects around Lake Pontchartrain, which was countered by the Administration with a miserly offer of $3.9 million. Congress eventually provided $5.7 million. Michael Parker, a former Republican Mississippi congressman who headed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, from October 2001 to March 2002, has said of the funding shortfalls, "I'm not saying (New Orleans) wouldn't still be flooded... but I do feel that if it had been totally funded, there would be less flooding than you have."

In addition to the issues of underfunding there are broader implications for the manner in which the Administration has tackled Climate change. I was in Los Angeles earlier this year when California was subjected to record levels of sustained rainfall. Climate change is no longer just a scientific debate, or an abstract prospect for our children's children in the distant future. It is a manifest reality, now, that we can witness with our own eyes. And while there is no scientific proof that hurricane frequency is linked to global warming, environmental issues are clearly going to be the primary consideration as people search for a tangible explanation to such a terrible natural disaster.

But, there is a more pertinent criticism of the President being prominently expressed... his ability to stand up and give hope to those in need, leading the nation during such a tumultuous time of crisis and chaos.

Many people do not recall that in the immediate aftermath of September 11th similar questions were being asked of George Bush. Former Republican Congressman and TV Host, Joe Scarborough, has famously stated that he seriously questioned whether the President was up to such a momentous task directly after the WTC attacks. At Bush's initial press conference he struggled to hold back tears that sent a message of vulnerability when people were looking to be strengthened by his resolve. A televised phone call with NY Governor Pataki, and Mayor Giulliani depicted the President dumbfounded and incoherent as Giulliani repeatedly seemed to be covering for the Commander in Chief's shortcomings.

But, while I passionately disagree with so much of what this Administration stands for... its perpetuation of a failed economic theory, and its reckless approach to international affairs and the importance of multilateralism... that doesn't deprive me of recognizing George Bush's strengths, and hoping for them in abundance at a time when so many require their abundant display. Strengths that I believe will be there for all to see tomorrow when the President tours the damaged Gulf Coast region, traveling through some of the hardest hit areas by helicopter and then spending time with people at less hazardous locations on the ground.

Almost a million Americans are stranded without electricity... their lives shattered in the wake of this terrible disaster. Thousands, according to Senator Landrieu, might be dead. Those who are already sharpening their knives, convinced that the hurricane and floods will exacerbate the President's recent political demise should tread very carefully indeed. While there remains immense fear and insecurity, frequently descending into outbreaks of anger and resentment... it doesn't change the fact that there is a vacuum of leadership that we all need to be addressed.

George Bush, whether you love him or hate him is a very normal, sincere, emotionally accessible man, capable, on the most basic level of immeasurable compassion and empathy. He remains the man who felt and articulated people's feelings so effectively at Ground Zero with that bull horn in his hands. He remains the man that gave one of the most impressive addresses I have ever seen to the United Nations in the lead up to the Iraq War, when so many expected him to fall on his face. He remains the man that out pointed Al Gore in three successive Presidential Debates, and came back against John Kerry effectively after a disastrous first debate. Those who seek to capitalize on Hurricane Katrina for political ends are simply setting themselves up for the most consistent truism of Bush's political career: When expectations are at their lowest, George Bush often blows people's expectations away with the earnestness of his humanity and the extent of his competence. When it really matters, as a political leader, very rarely does he fail to rise to the occasion. Hence, why so many people of my political persuasion find him to be such a nightmare to wrap their heads around. As much as I have, very strongly, disagreed with his policies on this blog, and will continue to do so during the long journey to 2008, I hope that I have always been, and will remain, honestly respectful of his strengths as a politician.

As bad as Bush's approval ratings are (and they are very bad indeed) those who are precipitously making accusations should be wary of committing the same mistakes of Bush's past adversaries. They should also recognize that perhaps now is not the time to employ such a rigorous level of scrutiny in an attempt to apportion blame. The time for that will soon be here... mistakes will be highlighted, and those responsible should be held accountable. But, right now people are in serious trouble, and it looks like they're going to remain that way for quite a period of time. Somehow, at least in the short term, we need to pull together and hope that the President can convey a sense of national unity, and compassion, that will leave those who are stranded and hopeless with the indisputable sense that they are not alone... That everybody, regardless of our political affiliation and our disagreements with the President, are in this together for the long haul.

My best wishes go out to anyone who remains involved in this terrible tragedy.

Donate To The Red Cross Here

Tags:
hurricane katrina, george bush

A Rising Democratic Star...

2005-08-30T13:46:00.000-07:00

In the midst of the terrible tragedy of Hurricane Katrina I wanted to draw attention to the wisdom and foresight of Democratic Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu, and comments she made two months prior to this awful natural disaster. Her insights relate to claims that the erosion of the wetland and shrinking Louisiana Coastline has exacerbated the impact of the flooding.

From the Guardian via the WP: Two months ago, Senator Landrieu told an audience of congressional staffers and scientific experts that more federal funds were needed over the next 20 years to restore Louisiana’s wetlands. She "warned that intentional rerouting of the Mississippi river over the past century, coupled with rising sea levels due to climate change, had eroded Louisiana's natural buffer against massive storms".

"This is not Disneyland. This is the real deal," Landrieu said, and in the event of flooding, "The French Quarter could be under 18 feet of water. It would be lost forever."

Her prescience and far-sightedness is deserving of the coverage it has received in the national press.

Landrieu has struck me as one of the shining lights of the Democratic Party ever since the 2002 mid term elections, during which she single handledly out debated a collection of four Republicans who decided to run seperately to take Landrieu's vote share below 50% (automatically forcing a run off with the best placed runner up).

Come election time, I get very nerdish indeed, and in Nov' 2002 I spent many long nights up until the early hours of dawn on C-Span.org watching Senate and Gubernatorial debates... learning about idiosynchratic policy disputes from Vermont to Arkansas. The Louisanna race was always one of the most compelling looking back.

Landrieu polled 46% to the closest Republican Suzanne Terrell who received 27%, and in the subsequent run off, despite the full backing of a triumphant Bush Administration still basking in 70%+ Approval ratings for her opponent... despite Susan Terrell receiving all of the votes from her Republican adversaries... and despite the election taking place in a southern red state, Landrieu still emerged victorious in the only real, stand out Democratic success during the 2002 mid terms.

From what I have seen of Landrieu, her strengths are her intelligence, and moderate, balanced disposition on a range of issues. She is precise and articulate, yet warm and accessible. She is hawkish on foreign policy and staunchly disciplined on fiscal matters. In 1999 she became the first Democratic woman to serve on the Senate Armed Services commitee and her list of legislative achievments is quite remarkable.

Right now, I just find it sad that in the staunchly patriachal society we continue to exist in... an individual as capable as Mary Landrieu isn't even being mentioned in the mix for the Democratic race in 2008, while party ideologues like Russ Feingold and Howard Dean are championed extensively simply because they support the unworkable policy of immediately withdrawing troops from Iraq. It's easy for Hillary because of her raised public profile.

Mary Landrieu is undoubtedly a rising Democratic star and someone I don't doubt that you'll be hearing much more about in the coming months and years. Personally, I'd love to see her on a ticket alongside Evan Bayh to give him a fighting chance against Hillary in 08'.

Mary Landrieu's Senate Website

Tags:
mary landrieu, election 2008, hurricane katrina, politics, iraq war

Bush is hemorrhaging support...

2005-08-24T16:54:00.000-07:00

This was George Bush today at an address to members of the National Guard in Idaho. In spite of the growing consensus that Cindy Sheehan has been politically ineffective in her protest at the President's Crawford ranch, garnering little respect from the American electorate as a consequence of her extreme world views... the political strategy employed above explicitly suggests otherwise.

What you can see is an initiated attempt to contextualize Sheehan's aspersion, that Bush has recklessly risked and lost the lives of thousands of US soldiers, and worse, betrayed their families in the pursuit of war, by contrasting it, quite fairly, with the images of those families who stand firmly and passionately behind the President. This staged event makes it clear that Karl Rove and other White House political aides recognize that the situation in Iraq is now beginning to comprimise the Administration's public support. War is no longer George W.'s political gravy train.

The latest polling data on the President's approval ratings are stark:
Rasmussen, 8/21 - 8/23, APPROVE: 45%. DISAPPROVE 54%
American Research Group, 8/18 - 8/21, APPROVE: 36%, DISAPPROVE 58%
Harris, 8/9 - 8/16, APPROVE 40%, DISAPPROVE 58%
SurveyUSA, 8/12 - 8/14, APPROVE 41%, DISAPPROVE 55%
CNN/USA Today/Gallup, 8/8 - 8/11, APPROVE 45%, DISAPPROVE 51%

It should be noted to mitigate these results that the President won his second term in office with an approval rating of in between 48-50%, and a disapproval rating of around 45%. It should also be said that the ARG polling result is highly suspect. A 36% approval rating is verging on the catastrophic, and despite the fact that in June and July, ARG's data was broadly in line other polling organizations... I am convinced these latest figures must be some kind of mistake.

And yet, even removing the ARG poll, and contrasting the figures with President Clinton's Approval Ratings from his second term in office, you begin to grasp the electoral plight of the current Administration. Clinton's approval ratings hovered on average between 58-63% throughout his second term, roughly 12-14 points ahead of George W. leading up to an election that the Democrats proceded to lose.

My biggest concern at this time is that the Democrats' overall exasperation with the war's progress will simply drive the party to define itself in terms of a dramatic withdrawal agenda, reflective of popular opinion. A position that will surely crumble under the scrutiny of a General Election. One of the contenders for the Democratic Nomination, Senator Russ Feingold, is already leading the way. And yet, the answer to Iraq's woes is not withdrawal at this time. Withdrawal would simply leave the nation on the verge of civil war, as competing religious factions confront their divergent views on how their society should evolve, as demonstrated by the present difficulties faced in implementing an Iraqi constitution. Their primitive security capabilities and disharmony will leave their battle to confront the terrorist insurgency a perilous one, potentially frought with decades of violence and infighting. How can anyone ethically justify leaving Iraq in complete turmoil likes this?

The answer to Iraq's problem, in my opinion, resides in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1546. The UN resolution which endorsed the Iraqi interim government and called on all nations to offer financial and military assistance in the rebuilding effort. And yet, nothing of note has materialized from the world community. It is of urgent importance that the efforts in Iraq be internationalized. This would undermine the widespread perceived impression of a US Occupation in the middle east, and it would deprive the terrorist insurgency of their political masquerade, battling against that "Occupation."

Two things need to be addressed. Firstly, the idea that the will does not exist in NATO, or the United Nations to provide this type of assistance in Iraq. After all, the trends point in the opposite direction, with Spanish troops having been pulled out in the aftermath of the Madrid bombing, and their General Election. But, are we really focusing on creating the incentives for global participation in Iraq? Are we really doing everything that we might to entice other nations to shoulder some of the responsibility?

John Kerry correctly stated in October 2004, "(George Bush) should offer potential troop contributors specific but critical roles in training Iraqi security personnel and in securing Iraqi borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process. Now, is this more difficult today? You bet it is. It's more difficult today because the president hasn't been doing it from the beginning."

This should be a prideless endeavor because so much is at stake: the lives of American soldiers, British soldiers, Iraqi civilians, the potential for Civil War, and further instability in the region. I ask you of all the potential remedies available, to continue on this present course, in the hope that an Iraqi Security force can be established to maintain civil order... or to withdraw and leave Iraq in complete chaos... of all these remedies, with an open mind, can someone explain to me why an internationalized rebuilding effort in Iraq isn't clearly the best possible solution available to us right now?

The second thing that needs to be addressed is that many who did not support the war, I know, find such a discourse infuriating. "How did this happen? This was a mistake! Someone should be made to pay for the innocent dead!" are all valid, if not entirely comprehensive appraisals of the situation. But, at least in the Democratic party, we cannot afford to be seen to let such things define the policy platform we stand for. Because the most important thing for the troops in harms way is not the impeachment of the President... it's not calling him a liar, and elaborating Ad Nauseum about Neo-Con conspiracies... the most important thing at this time is the future of Iraq, and the potential for a better way forward. Let the effective Peace Keeping operations that have worked so successfully around the world, maligned by George Bush as Nation Building in 2000, and manned by Nato and UN forces... be a legacy of peace that eventually we can no longer ignore.

Tags:
iraq war, terrorism, cindy sheehan, politics, george bush, united nations, russ feingold, john kerry

Political inspiration...

2005-08-23T03:00:00.000-07:00

I decided to put a compilation together of three political video and audio files that I find to be inspirational.

I've been feeling rather unenthused by the recent crop of political news stories. Judge Roberts is a redundant issue, regardless of his viewpoint... Bush has earned his mandate and as Democrats, within reason, we should respect that. We await with anticipation Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald's report on the Valerie Plame incident come October. Cindy Sheehan has now merely metamorphosed into another conduit via which the left and right can demonize each other as a respective threat to national security. Prospective nominees are aplenty for 2008, and without fail, they are all uninspiring.

Around the world there's an election in Germany next month, and, if you can believe it, a female, East-German, right winger is likely to be elected Chancellor. The brave step taken by the Israeli government in the Gaza Strip will hopefully be one small step on the long road to peace and reconciliation. Poverty, disease, killing, corruption, and terrorism thrives in the parts of the world our eyes aren't typically trained upon.

Two recent posts gave me pause for thought. One by Gert, and a particular point he made about Tony Blair's democratic mandate for the Iraq war, and the other by Alice, on the need to focus upon specific issues, and problems, while scrutinizing potential candidates not simply in terms of who might win, but also in terms of what they stand for.

Both comments left me with the same sense of purpose looking forward to 2008. Politics is the means by which we can make a difference. But at the very best of times politician's lift us up, not the other way around... They educate us, unite us, and remind us that our greatest strength resides in what we can accomplish together.

In the spirit of recognizing this precious role here are three, particularly special moments in political history from both the left and right. If you have half an hour to kill at work or at home and you want to be reminded why the political process plays such an important role in influencing change then I highly recommend checking out these clips:

MARIO CUOMO - 1984 DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION ADDRESS

CLICK FOR SPEECH

This is an audio file, including pictures, and a transcript of the text. If anyone can locate a link to the video let me know and I'll swap it round. This is a towering, idealistic speech, that is both eloquent and thematic... Cuomo doesn't always carry the emotion of his audience quite as expertly as the next two individuals, but the speech is so beautifully written, the words themselves take you on powerful journey.

RONALD REAGAN - 1964, SPEECH FOR BARRY GOLDWATER

CLICK FOR SPEECH

This is a Real Media video file. This was Reagan's first real noteworthy address, and it is one of the most compelling, passionate evocations of the role of liberty and individual freedom in people's lives and the threat that government can pose. Reagan was so charismatic because he cared so much about the principles that he stood for.

BILL CLINTON - 1992, SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

CLICK FOR SPEECH

This is also a Real Media video file. This features a pivotal much talked about moment when Bush Snr. is pressured by a member of the public asking a question about the way in which the nation's economic troubles have affected his day to day life. Bush is, for a moment at least somewhat at a loss. Clinton's clever and iconic response was to ask the questioner, "How have (those troubles) affected you?" And with that, according to Primary Colors author, Joe Klien, his election victory was sealed. The most notable thing about this clip is that when Bush gains his stride, he actually doesn't do that badly. But just look at the difference in the questioner's eyes as Clinton talks to her as opposed the President. Note also the way in which he parses the big theoretical economic questions of the time into terms that everyone could grasp. What I love so much about Clinton was that he never, ever, insulted the intelligence of his audience.

Tags:
bill clinton, election 2008, ronald reagan, politics, mario cuomo

The Republican 2008 Quandary...

2005-08-19T20:58:00.000-07:00

I've already elaborated upon the huge undertaking ahead for the Democratic Party leading up to the 2008 election. And yet I believe it will be the Republican's who face the most challenging task in sustaining their centrist, mainstream pretensions to the American people... in the shadow of President Bush's pending departure.

While many Democratic activists, scorned by Kerry's nomination, and failed Presidential campaign, are currently entertaining some staunchly partisan, potential candidates, as evidenced by Senator Feingold's rising popularity in a poll on the Daily Kos, I remain hopeful that the lessons of 2000, and 2004 will be learned, and a candidate of substance, sincerity, and moderation will emerge as the Democratic nominee. As I've stated, thus far, my favorite is Senator Evan Bayh.

But in this Primary battle... in this battle against partisanship, a battle against the likes of Howard Dean slurring all Republican's as racists, a battle against the kind of protectionist insanity that would see us re-negotiating vital trade agreements, a battle against the extreme and FOR a relevant, moderate, electorally viable platform and the political initiative... Democrats will not be alone.

Bill Frist, a man whose political ambitions were highlighted a couple of days ago by Trent Lott, has had an interesting few weeks to say the least. To be clear, in my opinion, Bill Frist will not be the Republican nominee. Governator Schwarzenegger has about as much chance as Bill Frist (i.e. none). But it's interesting to study Frist's recent political maneuverings as a general reference for the challenges that lie ahead for the Republican Party.

Firstly, on July 29th, Frist gave a speech highlighting his support for Stem Cell Research, in what was perceived by many to be a courageous move in opposition to the President's stated policy. Frist declared aspirationally ;), "A Cure today may be just a theory, a hope, a dream. But the promise is powerful enough that I believe this research deserves our increased energy and focus. Embryonic stem cell research must be supported. It’s time for a modified policy -- the right policy for this moment in time."

The more cynical amongst us recognize the application of political triangulation when we see it. Frist was asserting his own moderate credentials to set out his stall as a viable Presidential candidate, capable of appealing to both Democrats and Republicans. But, in demonstrating this tactic of moderation, Frist was clobbered with an instantaneous response from the Evangelical right, the cornerstone of the Republican Party base:

EVANGELICAL CLOBBERING!

So, after this very public dressing down, it came as no surprise yesterday, when Frist passionately came out in favor of "Intelligent Design," and its teaching in the classroom alongside the theory of Evolution. A policy that is wildly popular with the religious right. The transparency of Frist's contrived positioning may been poor electioneering on his part, but, to be fair, that doesn't necessarily reflect, exclusively, upon the Senate Majority Leader. There is a basic expectation in the Party, quite understandably, that there is no need to drift towards the center when Bush has won two successive elections on a socially conservative platform.

But there in lies the rub for Democrats... the success of this Administration has not been, regardless of what many would like to think, the result its socially conservative policies. The success of this Administration has been the responsibility of one man... a supreme political heavyweight, whether you like it or not...George W.

Successive election victories clearly underline Dubya's qualities. His greatest strength is his ability to transcend policy discussion, the nuance of debate, the rationale, and logic, and simply appeal, in a very human way, to people's gut. He represents a right wing platform but appeals to the nation as a moderate, sincere and trustworthy Commander in Chief. There is a vacuum of electability that his departure creates. This will be exacerbated, of course, if John McCain... a man with more crossover appeal than any other politician currently in office... chooses to run again... because he will inevitably lose, and further entrench the notion that the Republican's have abdicated the center ground. The only man that I can see who can possibly bridge the divide between Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and electoral success as well as George W. Bush is Rudy Giuliani, ironically a social liberal... and that is purely down to his unquestionable reputation earned in the aftermath of September 11th. And yet, it is highly unlikely that Giuliani will run.

Many names have been put forward already... Bob Woodward is convinced that five heart attacks a day won't stop Dick Cheney from running... there's Mitt Romney from Massachusetts... but, its early days yet, and an unknown face could soon emerge. Irrespective I contend the battle against the respective extremes in either party during the primary campaign will be where the next election is won. And even though Republican's might not care to recognize it, it’s a lot easier to earn the respect of the Democratic base from the center than it is to codify the Religious right and win their support.

Interesting times ahead leading up to 2008 on both sides of the political spectrum... and plenty of reason to believe this election will be just as close as in 2000 and 2004.

Tags:
bill frist, election 2008, russ feingold, politics, george bush, trent lott, dick cheney, mitt romney, john mccain, rudy giuliani

Who do you want to win the 2008 Presidential Election?


Free polls from Pollhost.com