Voter Vault

Mourning for America

2007-03-22T09:15:00.000-04:00

As Americans we can disagree about how to proceed in Iraq, how to solve our illegal immigration problem, what to do about our health care crisis, and the list could go on. For the most part, we disagree with respect. Our Congress does not find itself in brawls like some other countries. Our politicians stand on the same stage as each other and can shake hands at the end. Even though the media loves for them to throw stones at each other, they refrain.

Even here at the VoterVault we can disagree, but we do so with the understanding that we are all on the same team. We all want to see a strong and prosperous America; we just disagree on how to best achieve that.

From time to time, though, the good-intentioned disagreement between our citizens becomes more than that. It crosses a line and goes from being a "disagreement" to something much, much worse.

That happened yesterday.

The anti-war movement has been quite strong for a long time. It has been the past six months or so that it has gained significant strength. Since the Democratic takeover of Congress, the anti-war protests have taken on a new fervor. In large part this is due to the high expectations Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders/candidates set in their months of campaigning. They used the War as a rallying cry for both the Liberal base and the moderate vote. Now that reality has set in, and governing has proved harder than campaigning, the anti-war movement seems to be ever-more frustrated. From their perspective it was the evil GOP who was running this war--now Pelosi et. al. have become complicit. They have not cut off the funding for the war, something for which the staunchest anti-war protesters long.

What this has caused in some of the protesters is something for which we should all mourn: they have turned from being anti-war to anti-America.

This was the scene from the protest in Portland yesterday:In case it is hard to make out, that is the the likeness of a U.S. soldier being burned as the crowd cheers and takes pictures.

It is generally easy for me to separate emotions from political analysis. Not with things like this. It doesn't fill me with rage, but with deep sadness for our country. We have lost all boundaries. We have left all decorum and all reason. We have lost respect, compassion, and limits.

Certainly, not all those who fall in the "anti-war" camp are like this. If anything, this makes me respect the Democrats in Congress more; at least they pay lip service to the troops while opposing their actions.

There is obviously a culture war going on in America. What I have failed to realize is how deep it runs. There is a faction in this country (albeit a small one) who thinks that America is essentially bad. We are the evil empire. We are the cause of most of the suffering in the world. They burn our flag, burn our troops, and long for a world where America is brought down so that there is "equality" between nations. They are not anti-war, anti-Republican, anti-capitalist, anti-traditional values. They have gone further than that.

As long as we are all on the same team we can strongly disagree all day long. We can cite our facts, support our side, argue for this policy or that, go back and forth, and ultimately there will either be compromise or one side will win. That is how our republic works.

But apparently some of us are not on the same team. In the name of peace they are becoming militant. In the name of compassion they are filled with hatred. To end what they see as aggression, they use greater aggression. And worst of all, they use the banner of "anti-war" to be anti-America.

Room at the Inn?

2007-03-21T16:09:00.000-04:00

[Editor's Note: Today we have a guest post from freqent VoterVault reader ghbraves. Thank you to all who keep checking in here, and who obviously care about the serious issues facing our nation. Now, on to ghbraves first guest post. End Editor's Note]

Thanks to k. randolph for letting me post

This past Sunday, former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) expressed that he may consider running for the Republican nomination for President. While many have expressed intrigue (there’s actually an online petition to encourage him to run) over the thought of this 6’6” television star running for the Republican nomination, the question remains: Is there room for him in this field?While it is still very early in the campaign season, there are some certainties which exist at this point--certainties that make his announcement interesting.

The trifecta of Democratic candidates are much more well liked by their base than the GOP3 candidates are by their base
Despite the support of various notable (yet random) conservatives across the nation, many conservatives are untrusting and/or unsupportive of Romney, Giuliani, or McCain.
Videos are now being created and shown on YouTube that reveal past statements of these three candidates that contradict statements that they are making today.

After the 2006 elections, I think it is brutally clear that we now live in a YouTube and iMovie political world. Footage of candidates will be reviewed by bloggers, techies, and political junkies for the purpose of creating YouTube ads that will affect the public’s perception of a candidate. This is important because everything we saw in 2006 was just the beginning. In 2008, everything is going to be magnified ten times as much. Candidates' past quotations will be examined, and, unfortunately for many candidates, their statements today will not agree with their statements of the past.

Let me be clear about this. I don’t care for the word “flip-flopper” very much. I believe that the term was created by the Freakshow that is D.C. and its politics. Most of us who frequent the VoterVault don't care for the Freakshow too much.

Having said that, the word flip-flopper harmed John Kerry in 2004. Regardless of whether it was true or not, or whether you liked it or not, it harmed him and definitely cost him many votes. Today, we have a situation where Romney, Giuliani, and McCain all have their flip-flopping problems clearly chronicled on the most popular video site in the world.

For example:

McCain: Several videos detail how he has switched positions on many issues many different times. Someone is really enjoying creating these videos…as it seems like there’s a new video of McCain every week or so.
Romney: Several videos highlight his liberal past, especially as a candidate for the U.S. Senate against the interminable Teddy Kennedy. For him, this is trouble.
Giuliani: Rudy takes the cake with the most troublesome videos. Giuliani is shown criticizing H.W. Bush for his opinion on taxpayer-funded abortions, among other problems that social, fiscal, and small government conservatives won’t like. If elected, he would be the first leader of the free world who has dressed in drag, which is a new video that is now circulating.

I think it’s clear that these three candidates currently have several large issues with the Republican party base. Here’s where Fred Thompson comes in. He’s seemingly more conservative than the GOP3, he has political experience, and most importantly, he’s likable AND nationally known. So at this point, there may be room for him in the field.

Perhaps Thompson has looked at the situation and believes that these three gentlemen have little chance in this wired world. We’ll have to see where he goes from here, but as of now, he has very little negative footage on YouTube.

What about Thompson and YouTube? At the time of this post, there are only 13 videos relating to the former senator, none of which are meant to be negative.

In fact, the worst footage overall that you’ll find of Senator Thompson is his average performance as a private investigator in the remake of Cape Fear. And I don’t think that will hurt his chances too much. After all, if you can work with Nick Nolte, you can work with anyone.

Posted by ghbraves

Lies and Stats

2007-03-19T16:33:00.000-04:00

Media bias has become a term so frequently used, and a concept so routinely batted about by those of us in the conservative community, that it is often not even worth mentioning. Other times, however, it should not be ignored.

For the most part I actually think the media does a good job of not tipping their hand. When I watch Brian Williams on NBC his inflection and expressions are almost always consistent. They do often (if not always) at least give a quote or two from both sides of an argument.

The kind of bias I find most grating and bothersome is the most subtle kind. NPR is blatantly biased, and everyone knows it. Fox News is biased, and everyone knows it. The bias of those two is less troublesome because it is known, accepted, and (to a certain degree) acknowledged.

The kind of bias that is the most detrimental to intellectual honesty is the kind that hides in the guise of objectivity. Take for example a poll conducted last week by CNN. The question posed was "Do you think the U.S. can or cannot win in Iraq?" Here are the results:Now let's use this chart and play a little game. The game is called "create the headline". It works like this: look at the chart, and make a headline that accurately tells the reader what this poll concluded. Go ahead and play now.

Okay, here's what I came up with: "Americans Divided Over U.S. Prospects in Iraq".

Perhaps you came up with something similar. If you did, good for you. Unfortunately, headline writers don't always like to be objective and honest. Here is the actual headline from CNN.com:Factually accurate? Yes. Intellectually honest? I would argue not. The larger problem with biased decisions such as these is that they exploit the reality that most Americans don't read the article. They read the headline, get the gist, and move on.

Obviously, people can use stats to lie. CNN, in this case, used the data to create a headline that falsely leads people to the conclusion that over half of Americans think we cannot win in Iraq. CNN's survey had other questions in it, too. The data from those questions could have been used to bias the data in the other direction if they so chose. For example, they could have reported that only 21% of Americans support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Or they could have reported that support for the troop surge is increasing. While both of those are factually honest claims, they both represent biased selection of data (see the poll results for yourself).

It is a great irony that in our age when there is more information available at our fingertips than ever before, people are still generally uninformed. If Joe American took the time to read the headline, CNN's bias would become as blatant as that of NPR or Fox News. Instead, news outlets like CNN know they can go on under the guise of objectivity and slant their presentation to influence the audience. Sadly, the average American doesn't even know what is happening to them.

[Editor's Note: Thank you to all who expressed concern for me during this prolonged absence from posting. No, I am not dead, nor am I in the infirmary. I just hit a patch of days at work wherein I left my house at 5:30am and got home around 9:30pm. We all know that when that happens, some things have to give. The first one, quite sadly, was the VoterVault. Back in the saddle. End Editor's Note]

Courts Over Country

2007-03-05T13:30:00.000-05:00

[Editor's Note: This post is, in part, a follow-up to one of the
VoterVault's earliest (and most read) posts. For more background and thoughts on this matter, go back and check it out. End Editor's Note]

And so it was in November of 2003 that the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in a 4-3 decisions, sparked one of the great controversies of the Culture War by institutionalizing gay marriage. This year, three more Supreme Courts will take up the issue: California, Connecticut, and Maryland.

Let's put this up front: this post is not about gay marriage. It is about the courts. It remains my contention that the Supreme Court of the United States--and the Supreme Courts in the states have followed their lead--has overstepped the bounds intended for it by the Founding Fathers. The Founders intended for the Courts to be the weakest of the three branches. Congress was to have the most power, followed very closely by the President, and coming up in a distant third was the judicial branch. That is why Article I of the Constitution deals with the Legislative branch, II the Executive, and III the Judicial. That was the intended order of importance.

In modern American, the Courts now dominate.

The reason gay marriage is worth discussing in this context is that it shows, quite clearly, the immense power contained in the hands of Supreme Court justices. It was in 1996 that the issue of gay marriage first entered the national spotlight. A state judge in Hawaii became the first to rule on the side of gay marriage. The voters in the state then reacted by amending their Constitution to wrest control over who defines marriage from the court's hands. Only their state legislature may define who can and cannot receive a marriage license.

Fast forward to 2004, and the now famous Massachusetts Supreme Court decision. Unlike many other states, the people in Massachusetts have no power to amend their own Constitution. Despite the fact that the vast majority of the people of the state opposed gay marriage, the Governor opposed gay marriage, and the position of the majority of those in the state legislature opposed gay marriage, the Supreme Court was the only body that mattered. Gay marriage thus came to be.

In the flurry of backlash against the Court decision we now stand, three years later, with 27 states having amended their Constitutions to ban same-sex marriage. Massachusetts itself is considering such a measure (though it would immediately replace the institution with civil unions).

If the Founders were aware of this debate they would be rolling over in their graves, and not just because their 18^th Century sensibilities would be shocked (though they would). What would be even more shocking would be the realization that the biggest mistake they made in forming the Constitution was not putting a systematic check on the Court's power.

Those who founded our country never intended for our Constitutions to have to be amended to deal with specific policy issues. The Constitution was--and is--supposed to be a framework for governing. The Courts were supposed to deal with those things that the states and the Congress could not. They were meant to enforce the basic framework. They were not meant to be a policy-determining body.

The fact that every controversial issue that arises is bound for the Supreme Court--the only unelected, unaccountable, uncheckable body in our government--further supports the idea that the Courts have overstepped their bounds.

Yes, such judicial activism can be used for good (see Brown v Board), but such cases are the exception to the rule.

Our democratic process is supposed to work in such a way that the Congress passes laws and sets policy, and the President ensures that such a law is appropriate, enforceable, and Constitutional. The Courts subvert such a process by imposing their will through interpretations based more on their own worldview/philosophy than on the Constitution.

In short, the Supreme Court, which claims to uphold the Constitution, violates its basic tenents when it creates law rather than interpreting it.

The Rule Book

2007-03-01T13:15:00.000-05:00

As the Iraq War becomes the ever-increasingly hot potato, Congress and the President continue to square off. There debate is not limited to what the best course of action is. In fact, as incredibly important as the strategic decisions of the war are, there is a debate raging that has implications that are perhaps even broader. Who has the power over strategic wartime decisions?

It was about this time a week ago that the majority party in Congress was organizing legislation to limit the scope of the War in Iraq. The plan would have limited American troops to guarding the Iraqi border, training their policy and military, and fighting al Qaeda. The plan, fortunately, has been scrapped (or at least put on hold).

Had this plan been put to a vote it would have been a very negative development, but not because having the troops do only those things is a bad idea.

Let's suppose for a second that the Reid, Pelosi, et. al. had put this measure to a vote, and let's further suppose that it was able to get through both houses (highly unlikely). What would happen next? Obviously, a Presidential veto. On one hand, this could have been a great political move for the Left. They know full well that the American people support the position of "drawing down", "limiting the scope", and eventually bringing the troops home. Putting this to a vote would then put the GOP in the position of either abandoning the party or abandoning their principles. Either way, they lose, and the GOP in general gets the "bad guy" label. When 43 then vetoes the bill, he looks even worse (if such a thing is possible for someone with his approval ratings).

The immediate political implications could have been huge, but the scope of the implications would have been significantly larger.

In my view, such a bill would be unconstitutional.

I have read articles by Constitutional scholars debating this issue, and many would disagree with me. Congress, even today, has asked Baker and Hamilton to get back into the business of commission-leading and study whether or not Congress has such a power. Clearly it is up for debate. Since I have the pleasure of getting paid to study and teach the Constitution, I would like to lay out my case that such a move by the Democrats would be a violation of our founding document.

First, the words of the Constitution regarding the Executive's war power:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States

Now here is what it says about the war powers of Congress:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States....

That's pretty lengthy, but when it is said and done, the bottom line for the two is this: Congress provides (read: pays for) the military, and sets it in motion. Once in motion, the President determines how to use it. Many disagree with me, and some of them have good points. But it seems that many of the explainations I have heard rely more on international law and questionable interpretations of Supreme Court rulings. The intent of the Founders seem to be that, despite the fact that most Americans disapprove of how President Bush has handled this war, he still has the Constitutional authority to be the Decider.

The Congressional establishment of a panel to study this issue, combined with the fact that the Democrats have backed off of this proposal, may suggest that they too see the questionable Constitutionality of this move.

It brings me hope that perhaps our Constitutuion still holds the weight it was intended to hold when it was written. With activist judges and groups like the ACLU all too willing to assault our Constitution and read in our modern political sensibilities to the Founders words, it is refreshing to think (however remote the odds may be) that maybe this once reverance for the Constitution had a hand in overriding politics. Maybe.

Reality Sets In

2007-02-27T13:20:00.000-05:00

America is generally jaded toward politics and politicians. For the most part, they have good reason to be so. Political ads and the rhetoric of those who hold (or desire to hold) office often leave America with half-truths or distortions of fact. Those who pay the least attention to politics, and are therefore the most likely to become cynical, are the ones who have neither the time nor the inclination to understand and verify the claims of candidates.

Now that we are almost two months into the 110^th Congress, reality is starting to set in, and many of the promises/claims/intonations of politicians are being put to the test. Below is a brief rundown of some of the campaign pledges, and how they are fairing in the real world of Congress.

The House leadership's pledge of a five-day work week for Congress

Nancy Pelosi and her House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, said there would be "votes on Monday and Friday", meaning those in Congress would have to be there, doing meaninful business five days a week. So far, Congress has had only one such week, with sessions being cancelled for important events like college football games.

More to the point, reality has set in for Pelosi et. al. in that Congress does not always have things on which to vote for five days a week. Legislation moves very slowly through committee, wherein much of it dies. Further, those Congressmen and women focused on truly representative to their constituents (though they are very rare) spend a good deal of their time in their home districts, meeting with those they represent. Further, the more our politicians remain in the same place the more "groupthink" develops, which leads every few years to a strong "ousider" movement, where those with little political experience often have a stronger message than those with plenty (see the messages of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama).

Now that these realities are pressing in on the Democratic leadership, it is becoming more and more clear that their criticism of the work week schedule instituted by the GOP was far less tainted by government largess, corruption, and apathy than the then-minority Democrats wanted America to believe.

The already-famous pledge from Speaker Pelosi that this would be the "most ethical Congress in history"

available to the highest bidders

now finds himself

The Democratic complaint, repeated over and agan for the past decade, that the GOP refused to allow them open debate in the House

This requires little explaination: the first 100 hours of House activity included no committee hearings, limited floor debate, and party-line votes. Further, from the start of this Congressional session until today, Pelosi has allowed only one Republican alternative to a bill to be voiced on the floor.My point in all of this is not simply to bash the Democrats in a burst of unbridled partisanship. Through all of this I do not pretend to excuse any of the Republican scandals, corruptions, or excesses of the past 12 years.

Instead, I hope to point out that when one party is in power, and the other campaigning, it is quiet easy for the minority to scream from a position of righteousness. It is easy to ignore any and all reality of governing: that politics plays a huge role; that money is a necessary evil; that what would be ideal is not always (or maybe ever) possible.

It is a certainty that the GOP will attack the Democrats with all these things I have listed above. They too will ignore the reality of governing in a broken world.

America's Most Powerful

2007-02-26T13:10:00.000-05:00

Who is the most powerful political figure in the United States? There could be a lengthy list. Names like President Bush, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden, and others may come to mind. I would suggest, however, that one of the people who deserves serious consideration for the title is someone who only four months ago would have been considered the weakest of all politicians.

The man is Joe Lieberman.

Lieberman's support for the Iraq War, and coziness with President Bush cost him his party's nomination for the seat he had held since 1988. The leaders of the party for which he was the Vice Presidential nominee only six years earlier abandoned him; they cast lots with his much more liberal opponent.

Now, only two months into the first Democratic Congress since the Republican Revolution, the Connecticut independent stands as one of the single most important people in the halls of Congress.With the Democrats holding control by the slimmest of margins in the Senate, the social moderate and war hawk's vote serves as the tipping point for Senate power.

When it comes to Iraq there are several Republicans willing to cross party lines and vote with their Democratic colleagues. This reality lessens the power Lieberman's vote. Nevertheless, last week Lieberman's staff used words that he has oft-denied: the swing Senator switching over to the GOP is a "very remote possibility". This kind of statement, while I doubt Senator Lieberman would ever make such a move, scares the party leadership at Democratic headquarters.

A Lieberman switch would have wide-reaching consequences. The most direct is that the Red Team would retake control of the Senate. As a result, the Iraq debate would be further mitigated. The likelihood of governmental gridlock would become even greater. Additionally, this would allow those Democrats in the Senate who are eyeing a White House run empowered to move further to the Left (since, as I argued here, they would be freed from having to produce meaningful legislation, as that job falls to the party in power).

Lieberman has forced the Democrats to change the topics they discuss in their caucus meetings, and has single-handedly forced Reid to change his positions by simply saying that one of the Majority Leader's positions makes him "upset". The Independent from Connecticut has the power to alter the behavior of the Senate in a greater fashion than anyone in politics.

Is having such power in the hands of one person a positive development? The initial reaction of most people to that question would depend on party affiliation. This is clearly a limiting factor for the Democrats, and therefore would generally be viewed by those on the Left as a negative reality. It should also be noted that the Right has been in the same position over the last several years. Moderates like Lincoln Chaffe of Rhode Island (and McCain, to a lesser extent) altered the behavior of the GOP much as Lieberman is doing to the Left today.

I view the Chaffes and the Liebermans of the Senate as positive forces. Though such people can be a pain in the side of party faithful, their existence breaks up the "group think" that so often occurs in halls of Congress. Their presence challenges the pressure applied by party whips and forces moderation and accommodation. Though the positions of someone like McCain may drive me crazy, as may the positions of Lieberman to those on the Left, I nonetheless must acknowledge that their presence creates more honest, more reasonable, less ideologically-driven policies. For this, they have my respect.

What will Joe Lieberman do with the power he currently wields? Time will tell, but time is also his enemy. As '08 nears, the action of Congress will be increasingly overshadowed by the election. But this is for certain: Joe Lieberman has shown that he will be more concerned with doing what is best than for enlarging his own power.

Guess Who's Back...

2007-02-23T08:23:00.000-05:00

Talking Points (something you do when a news cycle stinks)

I'm back! Since my last post on 1/8 I've been...
1. Working on this post.
2. Discussing my thoughts on Pelosi with VP Cheney.
3. Moonlighting in the English Premier League.

I love politics...but hate the length of the presidential campaign season. At last Hillary and B. Hussein Obama gave us something interesting to pass the time this week. David Geffen is the hero of this story. The man who raked in a reported $18 million for the Clinton's in the 1990's just hand delivered $1.3 million to the Obama campaign Tuesday. To trump that he went to the NY Times and had this to say about the Clinton's, "Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease. It's troubling."

Actually, I couldn't have phrased it better myself.

As predicted Hillary responded with "Blah blah blah politics of personal destruction blah blah blah. Obama should distance himself blah blah blah".

I loved it when Obama's spokesman come back with, "The Clinton's had no problem with David Geffen when he was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln Bedroom."

THIS IS GREAT! Please keep beating each other up...although I'm really not that scared by a Hillary nomination...of course I'm the same guy who swore my home state would never vote for a dead man :/ Anyway, hopefully this will get us away from --->

The Anna Nicole coverage. KR covered it pretty thoroughly the other day...this circuit court hearing has no end. And how about Judge Larry Seidlin...at first I liked him...now I think he's working on being the next Wapner.I'm sure Harvard law professors have TiVo working overtime to use this guy as an example of proper courtroom decorum.

At least the "Godfather of Soul" will be laid to rest shortly.

Back to politics. I truly believe the only major obstacle between John Edwards and the presidency is his message. Adding to this post by KR…here are my reasons why he has great potential to get the nomination.

He has all the tools:
--Looks (that's what my wife told me).
--Great stage presence.
--A smooth southern drawl.
--Name recognition.
--Just enough experience.

But Edward’s message is what I believe makes him as common as every other Democrat. Listen to it….where is the inspiration…where’s the plan to make America great…where’s the vision to convince a majority of voters he’s the one? Edwards currently runs around (like all other Dems) bashing opposing candidates for their votes on Iraq…and is calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops (a lot of Americans see that as losing). He still speaks of “two Americas” in a time where the US economy, minus a few sectors, is absolutely roaring. Unemployment is extremely low and the Dow Jones Index (John Q. Ignorant-of-Investing’s favorite economic indicator) is as high as it has ever been (the economy doesn’t seem to be the issue to rally millions of Americans). Then you throw on Katrina and a failing health care system and you’ve got a candidate that can’t stop talking about mistakes of the past and their potential negative impact on the future. This type of message will more likely make the American voter run home and lock their door to hide from the impending doom….rather than run to the poll to vote for their ‘leader’.

Be different John, don’t be negative. Didn’t the John Kerry ’04 campaign teach you that Bush-bashing doesn’t win elections? Secondly, it appears obvious Hillary and Obama might just beat each other up too much to survive…and Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich, et.al. don’t have it. When people vote for president they want to believe they are voting for a Roosevelt or a Kennedy or a Reagan…visionaries with a positive, hopeful message for tomorrow. At this point in elections substance DOES NOT MATTER…be smart, be positive, be a leader with a vision…hell just fake it for now if you have to…you can fill in the blanks later.

When will the NCAA wake up to the ignorance and utter bigotry in college sports?

When will the NCAA ask Notre Dame to rid itself of the "Fighting Irish" mascot"

And Louisiana-Lafayette to rid itself of the "Ragin Cajun" mascot?

Throne of Arrogance

2007-02-22T07:00:00.000-05:00

Last night was the last performance for the 50+ year reign of the University of Illinois' Chief Illiniwek. As has been the long, slow movement of the last 10-15 years, the Chief was increasingly viewed as a symbol of racism toward, and dehumanization of, Native Americans. Last year the NCAA banned the University of Illinois from hosting any NCAA post-season events until Chief Illiniwek was removed. They went so far as to label the Chief "abusive and hostile". U of I drug its feet for months. Last night, the Chief did his last dance.

I don't know if the decision to remove the Chief was the right move or the wrong one, but what I do know is this: some of those pushing for the removal of Chief Illiniwek betrayed that, though they were calling supporters of the Illiniwek symbol "ignorant", it was they who should be given the label.Enter Jon Saraceno of USA Today. Saraceno wrote an editorial yesterday applauding the University's decision to remove the Illini symbol. He then did an interview on one of the radio stations here in town, which I was fortunate enough to catch yesterday on my drive home. While it may have been one of the worst interviews I have ever heard (I don't say that lightly), Saraceno did say some things that got me thinking.

According to his article, "America wants Native Americans confined to a place where they are powerless and objects of entertainment." When Native Americans are made a joke (like retired mascots "Willy Womput" or "Monty Montezuma") they should be removed. I am sensitive to the fact that many of the mascots used that have portrayed Native Americans have been racist and offensive, and therefore should be removed. That is why I agreed with the title of Saraceno's, which implied that Native Americans should have the say on whether such a mascot is offensive or racist.

That is where my agreement with the columnist ends. In the radio interview he granted the host cited a study that found that well over 50% (I neither caught the name of the study nor the actual number--apologies) of Native Americans support the use of symbols depicting their culture, Saraceno said this: "That's because they have the wrong mindset." The wrong mindset? What that says is, "it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. My worldview is right, and everyone else's is wrong." In his column the author made the same statement about the students who were protesting the removal of the Chief: "The most startling aspect is that universities are supposed to be halls of enlightenment, not dark corridors of ignorance. They should not stand for discriminatory practices. College students, in addition to taking classes, should learn some empathy." Everyone else is ignorant and unenlightened. Non-empathetic and racist.

Again, I don't know in the case of Chief Illiniwek if he was a racist or demeaning symbol. What I do know is that the attitude that "I am right and anyone who disagrees with me us unenlightened" is perhaps the most dangerous mindset anyone could have. I am not always right. I can be wrong. I must be open to criticism. To say that those with whom I disagree are "ignorant" and that their opinions count for nothing because they do not share my "mindset" is to be closed to rational debate and dialog. It is to sit on a throne of arrogance.

It is for this same reason that I am convinced our judiciary is out of control and that our political debate is on the decline. It is good to be convinced of our own positions. It is awful to close the door to those with whom we disagree. You do not have to share my mindset and my worldview. I would hope that the weight of my arguments would sway you toward my positions. I ask of myself and of all of us, keep the door to debate and the lines of communication open.

Then, maybe then, we can openly talk with all parties (including the descendants of the Illini) as to what is the best course of action.

Thoughts on '08 and the Media

2007-02-21T07:22:00.000-05:00

Today's post: a series of short thoughts on some happenings you may or may not have heard about.

On other 2008 races:

On the Edwards hubbub:

The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word -- Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.

On the media:

Obama attracts celebrities and cash
Clinton seeks aid for minority students
S.D. senator moves to rehab facility
Biden: National security key in 2008
Dodd: Iowa, N.H. may level 2008 field

GOP donor hit with terror charges
Iraq casts long shadow over Republicans' White House hopes

There you have it. Have a great Wednesday.

The Field

2007-02-20T14:06:00.000-05:00

Over this past President's Day weekend I was able to reflect a great deal upon the '08 field and what the country needs in its next president. When talking about Mitt Romney last week I mentioned that he would make the perfect GOP candidate--good looking, executive experience, well-spoken, brilliant, proven ability to win in territory hostile to Republicans (like Massachusetts), and the list could go on.

But those things only make good candidates, not good presidents.

After thinking long and hard about where we are and where we are going, what I think America needs is a leader. President Bush's approval ratings make it impossible for him to be the leader America needs. Congress is busy passing non-binding measures to make political statements to truly lead (not that a group can ever effectively lead). Looking over the '08 field, I do not see the kind of person who can unite the country and deliver the type of principled leadership we need right now.

We need someone who can restore our hope that America's future is bright. We need someone willing to make painfully difficult decisions. We need someone who is willing to argue that the people on the other side are wrong without trying to call names or belittle them. Who is such a person? Is it McCain or Clinton? No. Is is Obama? His "wasted lives" comment (or "slip of the tongue" as he put it) would seem to suggest not. Is it Giuliani? Maybe, but I question his ability to make it through the primary and the general to even have the shot. Is it Edwards? He seems tied up in the "America is always the problem" crowd. Is it Romney? Honestly, I've not heard enough from him to say yes or no. Of the Democratic Trifecta and the GOP3, he might have the best shot, but I'm skeptical that even he could do it.

Last week I expressed my affinity for Ronald Reagan. Though I would not put him in the category of top presidents (too early to tell), what I want to see from our next president, no matter which party, is the spirit of Reagan. We need Reagan's conviction and courage to stand up and say what needs to be said, and assert the moral authority of the United States.

Reagan was frequently chastised during his time for "stoking the flames of war" with the Soviet Union. Many criticized both his Evil Empire speech and his Tear Down This Wall speech as provoking the enemy. He almost certainly did provoke them. Here is what he said to the Democratic National Committee late in his presidency regarding his "escalation" of tensions with the USSR:

If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand--the ultimatum. And what then? When Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he would rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin--just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace?...You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

Where is the Reagan for our time? Where is the person who will stand up and take the lead? Where is the one who will put America first and assert our position in the world as the greatest beacon of freedom and hope that he world has to offer.

To find such a person for our day would be more important than party, more important that politics. We need our Reagan, and we need him/her now.

Around the Clock

2007-02-16T09:35:00.000-05:00

One of the best things about living in modern America as opposed to twenty years ago is our access to information. We can now find out almost any piece of info we need at a moments notice. On top of that, we now have access to almost infinite amounts of news stories on a given day. Twenty years ago our access to information (other than the library or encyclopedia) was limited to major newspapers, ABC, NBC, and CBS news.'

Now, of course, we have the Internet and its myriad of information at our fingertips. We have online publications, blogs, news sites, and the like. The ease and lower cost of producing an in-hand publication has also allowed more information to flow more freely. And of course we have several 24-hour news networks. We have much more information today than people had access to only 20 years ago.

But more information does not mean better information.

Last week there was much going on in the news. There was the Iraq War policy debate, the happenings on the ground there, the growing conflict with Iran, President Bush's proposed budget, and a host of other happenings.

Two of these "other happenings" were interesting, but far from important or what I would deem "newsworthy": the sudden death of a celebrity and an attempted murder by someone from an extremely well-respected profession.

At the end of each week the Pew Research Center puts out a report on how much attention the news media paid to each story. They also break it down by medium. Overall, here is how the media did:Of all the happenings last week I strongly doubt that the death of Anna Nicole Smith was the third most significant or important thing that happened. At least it can be said that, according to the media, something was more important than these two tabloid stories. That is saying quite a bit in this era dominated by infotainment.

This week did have an infotainment champion:In their effort to hold Joe American's attention, CNN, MSNBC, and FoxNews turned to the tabloid stories. They apparently believe that, despite the reality that those who spend their tv time watching the all-news channels are typically more engaged in world affairs and tend to be more educated, even those people are more likely to pay attention if the stories are entertainment, not information.

There was one medium that managed to avoid the tabloidization of the news (for the most part):I suppose this is a commentary on American society, since it is widely accepted that newspapers are a dying medium. It is even speculated that in the next 10-20 years we may not even see a paper copy of the New York Times. If newspapers hold the line and refuse to enter the arena of infotainment, they may well become extinct. Even if they do give in, they might not survive. It is a digital era and an entertainment era. Those of us who care more about policy and the future of our great country may well find ourselves in the minority, as the creeping infotainment threatens to taint Americans' understanding of what is "important".

Pervading Partisanship

2007-02-15T06:00:00.000-05:00

America is a truly great country. We face our share of problems, but simply examine immigration patterns and the picture is clear: more people in the world, if given a choice, would choose to live in the United States of America than anywhere else.

That being said, we all know that there are a great deal of challenges facing the United States. There is the looming China, the brazen Iran, the falling dollar, the trade deficit, Iraq, and a host of other issues. But those are all factors influenced by our relations with other countries. We have another challenge facing us at home that is just as threatening as any of these other very real threats.

I fear we are killing ourselves with partisanship. To be frank, I can be as partisan as anyone. I believe in free markets, traditional values, a strong defense, punishing criminals, a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and the list could go on. Yet it is my goal to be well-reasoned and open to criticism (I can easily fail at this, but that is the objective).

Unfortunately, as a country it seems our partisanship is acting as a virus that is overpowering our immune system of reason.

Take this one example: In 2005 Gallup did a survey of over 1000 U.S. adults and asked them who has been the United States' greatest president. The results:

Ronald Reagan (20%)
Bill Clinton (15%)
Abraham Lincoln (14%)
FDR (12%)

Upon further review, 42% of Republicans named Reagan, and 31% of Democrats named Clinton. I am quite a big fan of The Gipper; I even did my Master's degree work on him. But we are still a bit too close to him (in terms of time) to fully assess his impact, let alone label him "greatest United States president". If we are too close to him, we are certainly too close to Clinton.

The big picture issue I have with these results is not that they show a poor understanding of history among the populace (which they do--how can one leave Washington out of the top three?). The big issue is these results indicate that we, as a society, seem all too willing to let our partisanship drown out reason. Rather than really consider the impact of Washington, FDR, Lincoln, Truman, Jefferson, Ike, Teddy, and the like, we spout our partisanship.

I love politics. I love the competition and the intrigue. I love the intense battle that it represents. But at the end of the day the rules of political warfare must be governed by this general principle: everyone must be looking out for what they think is best for the country. The Left and Right can disagree and duke it out in debates and well-crafted messages, but the rule must be followed that America always come first.

If we as a society are willing to insert our partisanship into a simple question like "who is our greatest president", what are we to make of truly difficult questions? Are we simply going to insert our partisanship on questions like what to do about Iran, or how to manage our trade deficit, or how to balance liberty and security?

This is not to say that we should always have milk toast positions. What it is to say is that when the rubber meets the road we need to have the ability to reason that is free from the virus of blatant partisanship. It is certainly a fine line, but what we must all fight against is the knee jerk reaction to say that Reagan was the best president ever or that Bush is the worst. We cannot draw those conclusions from reason (at least not yet).

The Stormin' Mormon

2007-02-14T06:00:00.000-05:00

I have written often about one, two, or all three members of what I call the Democratic Trifecta (Hillary, Obama, and Edwards). What I, along with most of America, have paid significantly less attention is that the Red Team has a Trifecta of their own: McCain, Giuliani, and Romney (or the GOP3).

Of these six, the last is by far the least well-known. If one were handicapping the race, he would clearly have the longest odds of the six.

Yesterday Mitt Romney became the first of the GOP3 to hold his announcment ceremony. It was less dramatic than either Obama's or Edward's announcments, as it should have been for a man with significantly less name recognition and media attention. It did not make major news, and was not decidedly strong or weak. For Romney it gave him exactly what he needs right now: national media attention.I first heard about Mitt Romney back when Massachusettes' Supreme Court mandated gay marriage in the Commonwealth. I was aghast to learn the the Union's most Left-leaning state would elect a Red-Teamer to their Executive Office. After doing some research and learning the basics of who he was and from where he had come, I started talking him up as a possible contender for '08. He is brilliant, charming, attractive, well-spoken, conservative, and knows how to win (how else does a Republican get elected in Massachusettes?). He is the perfect candidate.

But there was something I didn't konw: he is a Mormon.

Rather than delve into any kind of discussion about Mormonism, per se, let's instead get to the heart of the matter: does it matter if he is a Mormon? To make it even broader, does the faith of the person running for office matter?

On one hand, political ideology seems to matter much more than religious affiliation. If the Commander-in-Chief shares the same philosophy and positions as the rank-and-file members of his/her party, religion should not matter. We heard the extreme side of this argument from people on the Left during Clinton's impeachment: "as long as he does his job well, what he does in his private life is his business". To an extent, that is true. The signature of a Mormon on a partial-birth abortion ban is just as good as that of a Methodist or a Baptist or a Catholic.

On the other hand, a person's faith tells us much about their worldview. It gives us a sense of how they view humans and our place in the world. It gives us a sense of how all of life is/should be ordered. It also gives us a sense of how they were raised and/or how they reason. In this case, if it is true (as many evangelical Christians believe) that Mormonism is a cult built on a foundation of blatant untruths, what does that say about the politician who holds tightly to that faith? Not good things.

Even if we say that a candidate's religion does not matter, we all know that it does. It might not matter to you or to me, but in the scheme of a nationwide election it certainly will make a difference. People want to know everything about their leaders, including their faith. It is unlikely that I have to convince you of this point, but for kicks, ask this question: how would America react if an Atheist or Muslim ran for President. If you think it would not be an issue, you are fooling yourself.

For now, Romney is doing what he needs to do. He is emphasizing his belief in Jesus Christ and downplaying virtually every other part of Mormonism. This is a classic page out of the JFK playbook (to this day, JFK is the only Catholic to serve in the Oval Office).

But JFK didn't have to deal with the Freakshow.

The modern American media salivates over anything it can distory/hype/sensationalize. This is the infotainment age. In many ways, he would be the perfect Freakshow candidate. Image how many exposes MSNBC can run about the "Mysterious Mormons" (it even alliterates well). I can almost hear the previews now: "A good looking, respectable, famous politician wants you to make him President...but is there a dark side of his religious life he doesn't want you to see?" It would bring in a near soap opera element that the media would eat up.

To be perfectly honest, I don't know how I feel about Romney's Mormonism. What I do know, though, is that when I found out about his faith, my heart sank a little. He would make the perfect GOP candidate...but he's Mormon.

The Euro Joneses

2007-02-13T06:00:00.000-05:00

One of the interesting things in global politics is how much countries compete with each other for bragging rights. Who is better at creating jobs? Who has the smallest deficit? Who has the strongest military? Who gives its people the most rights? In any of these discussions all measures of success are relative to other countries of a similar position.

The attitude of "keeping up with the Joneses" is prevalent among countries just as it is among neighbors. For just one example, look at colonialism. European countries raced for control of Africa. Just as quickly, those same countries abandoned Africa when they saw others doing the same. Peer pressure in this regard can be both positive and negative. In this example, the de-colonization would be positive peer pressure, while the colonization would be negative.

America is currently the world's only superpower (beware of China), but that does not seem to lessen our desire to compare ourselves to the Joneses.

Enter Europe. The United States and Western Europe have long been each other's best comparable. In the aftermath of WWII, and again in the aftermath of the Cold War, we saw Europe trend in the direction of the United States: free markets arose and private industry flourished. In the last ten years or so there has been a growing though subtle movement to push the U.S. in the direction of Europe: bigger governments trending toward social welfare state status.

A few days ago France's Socialist candidate, a powerful woman named Segolene Royal, laid out her platform for France's upcoming presidential election. Here are just some of her proposals:

Increase pensions
Make it harder for small businesses to fire or lay off workers
Increase the minimum wage to the equivalent of $2,000/month
Raise taxes on business profits
Make employers raise wages for all workers
Free contraception for women
More money for the unemployed and disabled

As if all that weren't enough, she summarized her platform with this sweeping statement:

The unfettered rein of financial profit is intolerable for the general interest. You told me simple truths. You told me you wanted fewer income inequalities. You told me you wanted to tax capital more than labor. We will do that reform.

More equality, less wealth, higher taxes, more government. That is the French way.

What does that have to do with us? I fear the United States is on the slow drift in that direction. Politicians in America are offering many of these same things, but in much more moderate forms. Don't these policies sound great? Wouldn't we all love the government to step in and allow us to work less while earning more? Wouldn't we all like to be more equal to Bill Gates? Wouldn't we like to have the government give us everything we need? Yes, yes, absolutely, and of course.

But America should not follow Europe down this road. While these things sound great, they end up strangling an economy and generally allowing everyone to have less (though in a more equal fashion). As a percentage of the total economy (GDP) the American government spends far less than its European counterparts, yet:

The U.S. has far lower unemployment
The American unemployed are without jobs for a far shorter period of time
Americans earn much more
The U.S. economy is growing far faster than Europe's
Americans have far more disposable income the Europeans

In short, Americans have it much better than Europeans. This is in large part because our government does less, not more.

In the wikipedia entry about the French economy it discusses the virtues of the French social welfare state: they work less hours, have guaranteed vacations, are protected from firing, have incredibly strong unions, and the list could go on.

But buried toward the end of the entry is a little tidbit that should be very informative. In trying to solve their unemployment problems, some French politicians are advocating "removing or weakening workforce legislation and lowering payroll contributions in order to stimulate employment". In other words, to create jobs they need to be more like America. They need less government. They need freer markets. They need lower "contributions" (read: taxes).

With the very long and grinding presidential election season bearing down on us we are going to hear politicians of all stripes explain how they will wield government power to solve your problems. The effect will be sending America down the road of Europe.

Of course America has problems, but solutions must come from outside--not inside--the government.

Pomp and Pageantry

2007-02-12T06:00:00.000-05:00

One of the unwritten rules of presidential politics is that you have to make a grand entrance. Obama did just that this past weekend. Standing the the shadow of Illinois' state capital, the junior Senator from Illinois invoked the spirit of Lincoln, and Lincoln's focus on unity. It was very well choreographed and a brilliant move for Barack, being both an African-American and a candidate from the Land of Lincoln.

Last December John Edwards made his grand enterance. He traveled to New Orleans and made the city's hardest-hit ward the backdrop for his candidacy. Comparing these two enterances is very interesting, and will give us something to look for in the next 3-5 official announcements that should be coming between now and summer.

There are a few rules that govern these announcement events that all serious candidates must follow:

Rule #1: The place chosen for your announcment must cooralate to your message
Rule #2:The image of you there should create a positive, uplifting feeling
Rule #3: The whole of your announcement should generate a positive news cycle on your behalf

Based on these general rules, Obama's announcement was a huge success, and Edwards was poor.

Rule #1: The place chosen must cooralate to your message. Obama is framing his message as something like "hope and unity". Tying his announcement to the history of Lincoln played perfectly into that theme. Plus for Obama. Edwards also adheared to this rule, since his theme of "two Americas" draws attention to poverty. Nowhere else is that seen as clearly as New Orleans' Ninth Ward, where he made his announcment in the back yard of a Hurricane Katrina victim. Plus for Edwards.

Rule #2: The image of you there should create a positive, uplifting feeling. Here are two images of the candidates at their announcement ceremonies:With the state capital in the background, the huge crowd, and the tie to Lincoln, the images of Obama were wholly positive. Plus for Barack. What Edwards' image cleraly evokes is the emotions tied to Katrina. While there he tried to spin it as "I'm hear to help, and look at all these great people helping." Nevertheless, it evokes negative images. Minus for Edwards.

Rule #3: The whole of your announcement should create a positive news cycle. Obama was the news of the weekend, and it was almost without question a positive news cycle for him. Almost everything out of the Senator's mouth was of a positive tone. Plus for Obama. By contrast, it was almost impossible to generate excitement about a guy standing in the devestated area of New Orleans. The entire event was generally negative, about how America failed Katrina victims. Minus for Edwards.

In sum, Obama's announcement: +++; Edwards: +--.

No serious Republican has made an official announcement, as none has had the momentum to generate a positive news cycle with such an event. Hillary has not made hers yet. (Along those lines, she may have tried way too hard to recapture the attention of the media right after Barack announced his exploratory committee, for when she announced that she was forming hers she made the mistake of saying "I'm in it, and I'm in it to win it". By saying that she may well have lost the ability to build anticipation of a formal announcement like the other two members of the Trifecta made).

While all of this pomp and pagentry is generally silly, as it is almost entirely about appearances and not about who would make the best president, they do give us one major thing to look for: who knows how to play the game to win? There are lots of great leaders out there who would make wonderful presidents. Unfortunately, very few of them have the political skill to get elected. The announcement charade gives us a glimpse into who might have what it takes to run, produce, and win a nationwide campaign.

Rove vs. Bush

2007-02-09T09:00:00.000-05:00

[Editor's Note: Thank you to all of your who read the VoterVault on a daily basis. As you know, since its inception VV has been a five-day per week operation, and it will remain so for the forseeable future. That said, you may have noticed that this week featured only three posts. I offer my humble appologies. I have never had a week where there was one--let alone two--days where I could not even find an hour or so to put together a post. On Monday the VoterVault will resume normal operation. Thanks for reading. End Editor's Note]

If your are reading this you are likely quite familiar with the name Karl Rove. Even though Joe American might not be able to tell you who he is, most who are even slightly intrigued by the political world know that he has been called everything from "Bush's Brain" to the "Evil Genius" to the "Heart and Soul of the Republican Party". While I would disagree with most of those descriptions, it is nonetheless true that Karl Rove will long be seen as the single greatest political mind of this decade.

For those who might not be familiar with Uncle Karl, here's a quick and dirty recap: an attendee of many colleges (but a graduate of none), Rove was a political powerhouse from his earliest adult days. He rose through the ranks of the College Republicans to become their president and earned the reputation for being a power player (and sometimes a dirty one at that). His political resume was rather scant. He ran a direct mail business out of Texas. It was through that business that he developed one of the largest network of political connections the world has ever seen. One of those connections who gave him several of his breaks was the rising star blue-blood WWII hero named George Bush. Through his relationship with the Elder Bush, Rove met the younger and found him to be the most charismatic man he had ever met. Bush the Younger would from then on become the product, and Rove the salesman. Fast forward to 2007, and despite the President's very low aproval ratings, there he sits as a two-term president. He would not be there if not for Karl Rove.Rove is not just a political genius, but by all accounts he is one of the smartest people one could ever meet. He doesn't just develop political taglines, but he masters policy on many levels and uses that knowledge to create political leverage. He is an uber-manager. During the 2004 race he was able to develop a nation-wide plan for voter registration in one three hour plane ride. That same task took the Kerry campaign four days. And his quality was better. Dang.

Despite his exploits, and despite the fact that the Democrats have, for six years, openly been asking "where is our Karl Rove", he suffers from a great deal of non-respect. He can be ruthless, calculating, hardballing, and the like. In fact, he can be downright mean. Why would a genuinely nice guy like President Bush have such a hard nose guy on his staff? Simple. He wins elections (yes, 2006 was Rove's worst moment, but to have a string of elections that were easily losable like 2000, 2002, and 2004, and yet to win, is more than remarkable).

Before the Midterm we heard the President saying things like "those who want out of Iraq are defeatists" or "those who want to pull out want a weak America" or "the Democrats are the party of defeat" or the famous "the Democrats are the party of 'cut and run'".

Now that rhetoric is gone. Now, even yesterday, President Bush has his team go out and support Nancy Pelosi against the GOP's attack dogs. He has been more than cordial to her. He has been openly kind and flattering. He went before the Democratic National Committee and was kind, conciliatory, and respectful.

What is the difference between October 2006 and February 2007?

Answer: Karl Rove. President Bush is done with elections. The "Evil Genius" is not needed in the Bush camp any more. That's not to say that he is not there or that he has no impact. 43 is loyal to a fault and will keep Rove as a close friend and confidant until the end. But his impact is less. President Bush can be President Bush. He does not have to take Rove's advice. He does not have to slash and burn. Bush is free to be the kind and respectful man everyone (including the Left media) says he is behind closed doors.

The Rove style may be out of the White House. Rove will almost certainly land on someone else's team for 2008, but for now Bush can be Bush. He does not have to play the games of Rove.

Not Like the Others

2007-02-07T06:30:00.000-05:00

What do Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson have in common? A couple of answers could work: they are all Democrats; they all want to be president in 2008; all are currently in office. Unless Al Gore or Wesley Clark decide to run, these seem to be five of the top six Democratic candidates for 2008. The sixth, however, has one important characteristic that separates him from the rest.

This guy is young, has name recognition, has national campaign experience, and is incredibly skilled in politics, but on top of all this he has one charictaristic that is allowing him to dominate the media cycle over the past few days. What is this characteristic? He is not in office.

The man is John Edwards.

A glance at what Edwards has been doing over the past five days or so clearly reveals his strategy:

Call for a clear, quick, defined troop withdraw
Present a $120 billion universal healthcare proposal
Bash the Senate Democrats' "non-binding" resolution as weak and ineffective
Openly use the dirty words "raise taxes"

Edwards is using his position as the only one of the Democratic Trifecta (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) not in office to leverage his candidacy. He is the only one who can afford to be brazen enough for the Far Left.

Whereas Clinton, Obama, and the rest are bound by their positions to be pragmatic and realistic, Edwards has the ability to be partisan and brash, without having to consider the impact his proposals would have. Senator Biden (who is recognized among his party as a foreign policy expert) has criticized Edwards' positions for this very reason: they are unrealistic. This according to the New York Times:

But [Edwards] campaign voice is different, at times angry and more impatient. He said that in his last campaign he was handicapped first by his inexperience as a national candidate, and...that this time he was more seasoned and unshackled, which he believes gives him advantages over his two most prominent rivals, Senators Clinton and Obama.

Seasoned and unshackled indeed.

Edwards may currently be in the number 3 position among the Democrats, but beware this non-office holder. He has the freedom to engage in all degrees of politicization without having to account for how his proposed policies would effect the people, the economy, or our national security. This may make him the most popular candidate among the Far Left, but it also may well make him the most dangerous of the Trifecta.

The World that Is

2007-02-05T13:44:00.000-05:00

This is a big day in the U.S. Senate. Late-afternoon is supposed to bring out the fireworks that will be the "non-binding" (read: political statement only) resolution opposing 43's troop surge.

Perhaps the most interesting question in this whole debate will be the one that will remain unanswered until the vote comes to the floor: how will the 21 Republican Senators up for re-election in 2008 vote? Five of them (Susan Collins (ME), John Warner (VA), Norm Coleman (MN), Gordon Smith (OR), and Chuck Hagel (NE)) have already announced support for the resolution. The remaining 16 are running from the media, trying to dodge any questions about how they will vote.

This is clearly a no-win situation for these 16 GOPers. Many of them are convinced that the troop surge is the best of all our bad options. Others are concerned about upsetting the conservative base in their home states. Still others want to remain loyal to the White House for one reason or another.

Speaking of possible defectors among the Republican ranks, Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (MS) had this to say: "This is a very, very serious matter...There are some things more important than getting reelected. This is one of them."

Easy for him to say. His seat in the Senate is more than safe, and even if it were not he does not face the voters this year.

In a perfect world Senators would vote for what they truly believe is best and leave political calculations out of the equation. In a perfect world Trent Lott's comment would be followed all of the time. We don't live in that perfect world. We live in the world that is. In this world the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the war and do not favor anything but withdraw. Senators like John Sununu (R-NH) or Lamar Alexander (R-TN) have to deal with constituencies back home who would be willing to throw them out for supporting the troop surge.

Making decisions based on political calculations is horrible. That doesn't change the fact that these sixteen Senators are going to have to look themselves in the mirror and ask this question: how much is my integrity worth? If they support the troop surge will they vote for the resolution anyway to score political points? If they support the troop surge and vote against the resolution they are risking political death. I do not envy the decision they have to make.

There is a chance, however, that none of this will matter. The Senate Republicans may well filibuster the issue and this will all be for naught. The hypocricy of such a move will be thick on both sides of the aisle: the GOP cried foul when the Dems filibustered judicial nominees, and now the Dems are using the word "obstructionist". Oh how the tides have turned.

The Right Discussion

2007-02-02T11:30:00.000-05:00

On the heels of this week's political firestorm surrounding Senator Biden's racial comments, Time magazine featured an article entitled Is Obama Black Enough?. In it the author discusses how many, especially those in the African-American community, are questioning whether the junior Senator from Illinois is "black enough" to connect with African-American voters.

Several recent polls have indicated that black voters are more comfortable with Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama. Up until recently most commentators had assumed that Obama could take the black vote for granted. Now there is a scramble to figure out why that is not the case.

First, it is true that Senator Obama is of mixed race--his mother white and his father a Kenyan--but to my knowledge he has never used that fact (though he could) to separate himself from the African-American community. By all accounts he considers himself black, and therefore a member of the black community. Unfortunately for him, many within that community do not see the Senator the same way. For example, black author Debra J. Dickerson recently said, "Obama isn't black" and African-American colonist Stanley Couch authored a piece entitled, What Obama Isn't: Black Like Me.The fact that the Senator is of mixed race may play a part in this sentiment. What is more likely, however, is that the African-American community is recognizing something that many have been afraid or unwilling to discuss for a long time: conversations about "race" are more often about culture than they are about color.

Talking about someone's culture seems to be even more sensitive than talking about that same person's color. It speaks to who we are, where we were raised, how our parents raised us, what our friends were/are like, how we speak, and all these thinks help form our very identity. Color is about one thing: what a person looks like. Culture is about who we are.

Couch put this well in his column:

So when black Americans refer to Obama as "one of us," I do not know what they are talking about...while he has experienced some light versions of typical racial stereotypes, he cannot claim those problems as his own - nor has he lived the life of a black American.

Barack Obama is black, but according to many African-Americans he is not "black". He understands this dilemma, as he acknowledged it in his most recent book.

What seems to be coming into focus is that many of us who have been having excellent "conversations about race" (the current buzzterm in my field for talking about how to help minorities achieve more), we may well be having the wrong conversation. In order to move America's race relations forward we need to be able to acknowledge this fact: there are many different cultures in America, and those cultures too often come into conflict. Simply, many African-Americans are identifying that Barack is of a culture different from their own.

The terms "white culture" and "black culture" are poor and misleading because they assign a culture to a person because of color. There are, yes, two widespread cultures. These two cultures are vastly different. It is also true that many white people belong to one culture, and many black people to the other. But talking about these cultures in terms of "black" and "white" locks us into a discussion about race, and leads us to ignore the cultural differences that, in my view, are at the heart of improving race relations.

On the whole it seems that the presence of Barack Obama in the presidential race can serve as a very positive development. If nothing else, it helps many of us to have those great "conversations about race". Hopefully it will do even more than that. Hopefully it will allow us to have the discussion about America's two major cultures and how to move them toward much more positive relations.

The Freakshow at Work

2007-02-01T07:55:00.000-05:00

Yesterday Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) had scheduled a conference call with reporters to announce his intention to run for the White House. Instead, Biden was forced to spend his time with the media explaining his racially insensitive comments that were reported earlier in the day.

This may end up being the first "death by Freakshow" of the 2008 political season.

Recently Senator Biden sat down with a reporter from the weekly magazine The New York Observer. Biden acknowledged that he was quoted accurately as having said the following in regard to Barack Obama:

I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy...I mean, that's a storybook, man.

Wow. It is quite surprising that Biden, a man of such incredible political tact and skill would make such a comment, let alone make it to a reporter.

This is Biden's first presidential campaign since 1988, and the rules have changed dramatically since then. Obviously, no one can speak for what Senator Biden was thinking, but it is possible that he needs to adjust to the Freakshow model of politics. For example, let's say he had made such a comment back in '88, what would have happened? Likely, not much. Unless the Observer story was picked up by ABC, NBC, or CBS, only those who either a)read the article or b)were doing opposition research and looking for something to use to discredit Biden would have read it. But this is not '88 and the three big networks no longer control what we see and hear.Within hours of the Observer piece being published it was spreading like wildfire on the Internet. By the end of the day Biden had called Obama, been attacked by and had meetings with black leaders, dealt openly with media outlets about the comment, and was featured in dozens of articles about how not to start a presidential campaign. One reporter allegedly asked "will yours be known as the shortest campaign in the history of presidential politics?"

Biden's comment was both wrong and unintelligent. The pity is that in the Freakshow that is American politics, making one comment like this can very easily end any presidential aspirations the speaker may have had.

Make no mistake, I very much disdain Joe Biden's politics. Nevertheless, just like many other politicians and people on the Left, I have a great deal of respect for him. Biden, though he has the propensity to be an extreme Leftist, has come to be known in his party as the resident expert on foreign policy. The Observer article, if one reads past the racial comment, is full of his thoughts on the foreign policy positions of this fellow Democratic presidential hopefuls. He has a firm grasp on what is happening both in the Middle East and around the world. He sees disaster in both Hillary Clinton's and John Edwards' plans for Iraq. Yes, he wants the U.S. out of Iraq by the end of '08, but he also wants America to retain a strong presence in the region for years to come. He is, in many respects, on the Far Left. But he is also realistic and well-reasoned--two traits I admire.

In the Freakshow era it is more important for a politician to remain mistake-free than have good ideas. It is more important to have a sound bite than sound policy. It is more important to be sensitive than to do what is right. It is more important to look smart than to be smart. It is more important to be polished than to be practical. The Freakshow rewards partisanship and punishes miscues. It amplifies anger and praises applause lines.

Joe Biden made a mistake that has the potential to end his race for the White House before it even begins. He made his bed, and now he must lay in it. The Freakshow forces candidates to be gaffe-free. It is a requirement in the New World of the media. On one hand this requires more of our elected leaders, as remaining mistake-free is challenging; forcing candidates to meet a higher standard is always a good thing. On the other hand, this higher standard is not necessarily a standard that helps us get higher-quality leaders. As such it may actually disqualify people who would make very good leaders.

We Just Don't Get It

2007-01-31T06:30:00.000-05:00

This from an Associated Press story yesterday:

Republican and Democratic senators warned Tuesday against a drift toward war with an emboldened Iran and suggested the Bush administration was missing a chance to engage its longtime adversary in potentially helpful talks over next-door Iraq.

For the record, I am very glad that our U.S. Senate is serving their proper, Constitutionally-authorized duty to check the president's power to make war. By doing so they are acting exactly as the Framers of our government wanted them to. Our Founders, in their great wisdom, granted Congress alone the power to declare war. Beside that basic fact is the obvious war-weariness we are all experiencing. Our Senate should be applauded for doing all in their power to make sure we do all everything possible to avoid another war.

These great statesmen and stateswomen are privy to much more information than any of us. They are well educated, intelligent, driven, and are generally high-quality people. Were they not so they would not have risen to their present rank. I hold all of them (even the ones with whom I vehemently disagree) in very high regard. In this case I encourage them to continue to push for every and any diplomatic solution that is possible.

Having said all that I must ask this question: what is wrong with them?

Think for one moment about Iran. What images come to mind? What terms do you associate with them? Do you think things like "reasonable"? How about "fair-minded"? Maybe "helpful"? Can we look to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as an example of benevolence just waiting to be invited into the fold so that he can offer assistance?If Iran is willing to sit down and talk, great. Let's talk. If they are willing to help, great. Let them help. But are we ignorant? Are we blind? How many times must Iran poke us in the eye before we realize they are not willing to "help". Their goals are diametrically opposed to ours. They call us "The Great Satan". They call us "The Great Oppressor". They demonize everything we do. They openly state their desire to wipe Israel off the map. Have they not learned who we are dealing with?(If you missed Glenn Beck's special on how propaganda is used to indoctrinate people in the Middle East to hate America, I encourage you to check out at least this clip).

Am I arguing that we go to war with Iran? Absolutely not. I can't make this clear enough: such a war would be awful and must be avoided at all costs.

The question I am driving at is this: why must we put our head in the sand and/or play some sort of political/rhetorical game to pretend like Iran is just on the edge of their seat, dying to help us solve the violence in Iraq? I truly hope that none of our Senators actually believe that. Such a person does not seem to be in touch with the reality of the Middle East. If a Senator implies such a thing, this is one of those rare times that I truly hope he/she is just being a partisan political hack, trying to cut down the President for "not talking to Iran". The only other option is that such a person has deluded him/herself into believing in a dream world where war is always avoidable.

Are we destined for war with Iran? I both think and hope that we are not. However, it is foolish to think that avoiding such a war is entirely within our control. Could we avoid such a war no matter what? Yes. Should we avoid a war no matter what? Wherever possible. But war takes two to tango--and so does peace. On it's current pace Iran has been described as "emboldened" about a billion times in the past several months. They are pretty clearly encouraging, supporting, and supplying the insurgency in Iraq. They are not going to be "helpful"; they desire our destruction. If they want war with the U.S., they can make it.

May our Senators do everything in their power to ensure that conflict is avoided wherever it can be avoided. But may we not be so foolish and arrogant as to think that such a decision is wholly ours.

Stormy Seas

2007-01-30T10:00:00.000-05:00

The political landscape is changing rapidly--even by the minute. Iraq is becoming even more dominant on the American center stage everyday. More candidates enter the 2008 political fray on a daily basis. Candidates surge and fall. The Democrats and Republicans pledge cooperation one day, and stab ruthlessly at each other the next. In this climate, how is one to make predictions about what will happen? Now seems as good a time as any to summarize some of the extrapolations that can be made from our current position. If nothing else it will be something we can look back at and laugh about what a misread these were on the situation.

The Democrats Will Take the White House in 2008

Anger over the war took a heavy toll on the GOP in the '06 primaries. With Iraq quickly becoming darn near the only issue that swing voters have in their sights it will not matter who the Republican candidate is. Just like the mayoral elections in St. Louis or Detroit or Chicago, the Democratic primary will be the real election. For the record, the history of the 1992 campaign tells us that appearances can be deceiving, as every talking head in the world though Bush 41 would be re-elected. Nevertheless, it looks like a Democratic White House is in the cards.

A conservative candidate will win the Republican nomination

John McCain's very uninspiring appearance on Meet the Press last week, combined with his already-troublesome-to-primary-voters image are battering the presumed front-runner. Though Giuliani's popularity is on the rise, he has worse image problems than McCain, and he knows it. He is campaigning fairly hard, but is very reluctant to jump into the race. Why? Probably because he understands better than anyone how the skeletons in his closet can hurt him. The stage is set for a Mit Romney or Mike Huckabee to ride a dark horse to the front of the pack, but one of them will need to do it soon, or else the front loaded primary season will kill them.

Divided government will lead to actual results

Perhaps the most optimistic of extrapolations, the Republican White House and Democratic Congress (combined with the impending presidential election) will force each side to produce meaningful, non-partisan legislation. Am I being naive in thinking this will happen? Probably, but I am hopeful.

The politicization of Iraq will get worse

Following the most optimistic projection with the least, the mainstream media has already turned their bias into two-thirds of all their news stories. Watching the Evening News is like watching an infomercial for the Democratic Party. They should report what is happening and not ignore the chaos in Iraq. But they should also not spend 15 minutes of their 30 minute show covering Democratic criticism of the war (I timed it, and that's almost how long it was on NBC the other day). We all know the Democrats are critical of the war. Cover it, but don't make it the sole basis of what you do. Some of the comparisons to Vietnam hold true for Iraq, and this one does for sure: the media will be a major influence in the direction of the war.

The challenges to America from abroad will continue to grow

Military challenges will come and go, but the economic challenges embodies in "globalization" will make the reality facing America ever more stark. We will have to adjust our educational systems, our trade relations, our immigration policies, our employment initiatives, and a host of other things to deal with the new world. Though this is the broadest of predictions, it will have major effects on politics and policy decisions. If the party in control, whichever it may be, acts like we are living in the old world, America will grow ever weaker.

We are indeed in a time of great change and great challenge. The next 21 months will be some of the most rocky and most entertaining in quite a long time. Things will indeed change, possible a lot. May they be for the better.

The Empire

2007-01-29T06:45:00.000-05:00

A college friend of mine went off to work in Germany after graduation. While there she met a European and married him. Like her, though, he is not German--he's Irish. I was fortunate to visit with this lovely (and quite international) couple while they were seeing family in the United States recently.

As my friend's husband and I were talking the conversation naturally brushed on politics. He was all too eager to jump right in. As he is a European I expected to hear from him the stereotypical European perspective on America as an evil, malevolent force in the world that seeks to destroy all that is good and decent. Indeed, he started the conversation by calling America "the Empire".

But quickly it became clear that his analysis was not the stereotypical European one. Indeed, he sees America as an empire, but his view of how America behaves as such was striking.

Before getting to his perspective, let's define an empire. A textbook definition might be (from wikipedia): "a state that extends dominion over areas and populations distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power." If that definition is correct, I would disagree that America is an empire (solely because of the word "dominion", which by definition means sovereign governing authority). However, if we change "dominion" to "influence" there is no question that the United States meets that definition.

When most people think of the word "empire" they likely imagine Napoleon or Genghis Khan or the Romans or the Brits--all people who used military force as their sole means of imposing authority. The word brings with it every sort of negative connotation imaginable, and understandably so.

With that as the backdrop, and as I heard him call America "the Empire", I was surprised when it became clear that his analysis of America was roundly positive. His basic point was this: of all the empires that have ever existed, the United States of America is the most benevolent, most kind, most magnanimous one in the history of the world.

If anything, according to his argument, Americans are too benevolent, allowing heavy criticism of our role and actions without adequately defending ourselves against Euro/world criticism.

Certainly his argument is biased by his marriage to an American. While living abroad, many of the volleys lobbed generally at America end up being aimed specifically at his bride.

Nevertheless, his perspective was refreshing. When I suggested to him that the American "Empire" was more economic than anything else he used my statement as an example of the American "uberhumility" that is the problem. In his view America is the only super power and has used such power for greater good in the world than has any other empire than has ever existed. Further, Americans should not be ashamed of this, but should draw attention to this fact.

Certainly, America's influence is helped along by the fact that we have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and that we can have Marine boots on the ground anywhere in the world within 24 hours (that may be an insult to our military infrastructure). Yet the U.S. does not seek sovereign governing authority over other countries generally. We do not force the French, Japanese, or Chinese to accept our culture. We do not force American television or movies on Latin America. We do not roll in tanks when Iran protests and burns our flag/vestiges. When American culture is adopted by other nations it is because they choose to do so, not because they are forced to do so.

America may well be an empire, but if this is the empire of the globalized world we may need to throw out many of the connotations that come with that word.

Unintended Consequences

2007-01-26T06:30:00.000-05:00

During the 2004 election cycle there was much talk about how the Democrats "front-loaded" their primary calendar. More states were moved up to February and March of that year in an attempt to produce a nominee more quickly (thus allowing more time for the candidate to focus on the general election), and who was chosen by a more "representative" group of states.

Iowa and New Hampshire have traditionally held the first caucus and primary (respectively), and therefore held a great deal of influence in selecting a party's nominee. If one spent the year leading up to the primary "running" for office and were unable to win in these small states with easily idintifiable constituencies, how could that person hope to win nationally? Anything less than a win in one of the two states spells doom for a presidential hopeful.Since the Republicans did not have a true primary in '04 they deferred to the Democrats' will for the primary calendar. It appears the Republicans, for reasons that are not totally clear, are deferring to the Blue Team again this year.

The earlier a state has their primary, the more important that state is in the nomination process. Since every state wants to be important, every state wants to move up. If the Democrats gave the go-ahead to a given state, that state went ahead and moved up the election.

Several months ago the Dems decided that they did not like the demographic make-ups of Iowa and New Hampshire. In a political move to appear more "diverse" they allowed two states, South Carolina and Nevada (which both contain larger populations of minorities) to move their primaries up to the period historically reserved for only Iowa and New Hampshire.

As with most moves that are purely political, this has had terrible unintendid consequences.

Iowa and New Hampshire have been in the front of the pack for over 50 years. Once this precedent became established no state dared to challenge their role. This was based on respect for history/tradition and was enforced by national party influence in the states. There were some serious problems with having two small, rural, unrepresentative states go first, but there were many benefits, too. The biggest was that it forced candidates to have a mini-election wherein they could focus all their efforts, staff, and funds. This was a great equalizer because it gave a fair shot to weaker, less-well-funded candidates. Kerry had way less money than Dean, but that fact was negated by the size of Iowa and the low expense of advertising there.

Now this political move has created a race to the front of the calendar among the states.

This has more negative consequences than it has benefits. Here is a short list:

It allows states to rig their vote to give a particular candidate an edge. Case in point: Illinois legislatures have openly suggested moving up their state's primary to give an edge to Barack Obama's presidential bid.
Since many of the states vying for an early position are heavily populated this will make money an even bigger influence in politics. No cheap Des Moines ads. Hello Los Angels tv market. Hello New York (New Jersey wants an early vote). If you can't raise $20-40 million dollars by January 1^st you will not have a fighting chance. Say goodbye to any "dark horse" candidates.
It will make an already painfully long political season even painfully longer. As if most Americans were not already disenchanted by politcal ads, this has the potential to be the Mack truck that broke the camel's back. The moderate/swing voters may grow so disenchanted that many of them simply choose not to vote.
Iowa and New Hampshire both have state laws requiring their vote be a week or more ahead of any other primaries. New Hampshire could realistically be voting in December. This may have been a benefit in the world of the pony express, but it's little more than ridiculous in the world of the Internet.
Another big benefit of the shorter-but-more-spread-out primary season was that it forced candidates to survive a series of battles that would often--though obviously not always--produce stronger nominees. This negates that effect, as more states will be early, and therefore the nominee will be identified after the onslaught of early states posts their results.

Bottom line: more money, only "celebrity candidates", weaker nominees, a more disenchanted pool of "undecided" swing voters.

The last of that list is particularly important. A smaller pool of swing voters makes "base politics" more important. And base politics is part of what has bread the American political Freakshow. If this indeed is the case, it would give the media even more incentive to hype, distort, and sell soap opera politics, rather than dealing with policy substance, or even candidate quality. Drama, in-fighting, sensationalism, and the like will rule the day to an even greater extent.

Politics-only moves are never good. This one, in particular, is going to reshape the landscape of American politics, and in largely negative ways. Hopefully my analysis is wrong, and this ends up being the solution to what has been the "unrepresentativeness" of Iowa and New Hampshire. But just as prescriptions can have side effects, so can politically-minded moves.

When Caring Hurts

2007-01-25T06:30:00.000-05:00

Chris Mathews of MSNBC's Hardball once summarized the differences between Left and Right this way: The Democrats are the "Mommy party" and the Republicans the "Daddy party". When we need some help or compassion we turn to Mom. When tough times hit, we turn to Dad. Viewing the ideologies of Left and Right, rather than just the parties, in this way can be helpful, despite the crudeness/bluntness of the metaphor. Conservatives are, in fact, often less caring and compassionate.

Often this is something for which we conservatives should apologize. But just as often, it is not.

This is a quandary, since we all value being compassionate and/or caring. At the root of this quandary is a corruption in our society. As a society we have redefined or misunderstood what it means to be caring. What our society calls "compassion" is not compassion. What we call "help" hurts. What we call "loving" is not showing love. Too often we end up feeding selfish desires at the expense of providing whatever it is that will truly help.

Examples of this are all over our society, and are probably present in each of our lives right now. It's the parent who spoils the child; it's the teacher who gives the student a better grade than was earned; it's the person who gets "one more chance" when they've already been given plenty; it's being politically correct instead of telling the truth. All these things have a common thread: they give temporary comfort at the expense of long-term benefit.

This happens when "caring" gets in the way of actually caring. When "loving" someone gets in the way of doing what is best for them. When "helping" a person only perpetuates the root problem that is causing their need. When being "understanding" feeds longer-term problems.

Yes, at times conservatives are too cold-hearted. Yes, there are times when our hearts need to grow several sizes. Yes, I myself can be more understanding. Yet there are other times when seeming uncaring is actually caring, seeming cold-hearted is loving, and seeming compassionless is the result of compassion.

Perhaps this phenomenon should not be framed in terms of politics, but in terms of life. Every day I see people I love making their own lives and the lives of those they care about worse because they are trying to be "compassionate", "loving", "helpful". May we do what is hard when it is right. May we be tough when tough is needed. May we throw away our emotional "compassion" for true compassion, and let us not give up on love when love need be tough.

Surprises Still

2007-01-24T07:33:00.000-05:00

I was fully prepared to follow last night's State of the Union address with a post about how it's one of my least favorite political events of the year. The President (whether Democrat or Republican) trots out the same policies he/she has been touting for months or years; half the room rises and falls for applause lines while the other sits on their hands; the other side puts together a "response" before the address has even been given; the pundits and talking heads mull over delivery and substance while largely ignoring context and themes (Tim Russert excluded). But sometimes there are pleasant surprises.

In case you missed the speech, CNN put together a pretty good 3-minute audio summary. I recommend it.Each of President Bush's last two State of the Union addresses have followed largely the same pattern--43 goes through his policies, makes half a dozen or so fumbles through words, announces moderate-but-not-sweeping proposals, and half or less of people watching think it's good. The Democrats then come on with their canned message about how 43 is "incompetent" or how there is some vague but undefined "better way".

This State of the Union, however, had some differences from those in the recent past that made it a bit more bearable. For one, this was President Bush's first with a Congress opposes him. It was the first ever with any female in the main shot. It was the first of his two "downhill" speeches, as he is entering the era where the candidates for 2008 will certainly overshadow anything he says or does. All these things made for a more entertaining evening. President Bush was more relaxed, more conciliatory, and more realistic. That is not to say that he was relaxed, conciliatory, or realistic, but he was those things to a greater degree.

What was the most surprising was how the polls looked immediately afterward. Everyone knows how galacticly horrible Bush's approval ratings are. So bad, I would argue, that it cripples his ability to effectively do his job as commander-in-chief. Yet the polls about the speech were remarkably positive. Here is the poll from last night: "Question: What was your overall reaction to President Bush's speech -- very positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative or very negative?"A few caveats: the sample size was small and the margin of error high (+/- 5%). Nevertheless, the vitriol cast toward President Bush seemed to subside just a bit, if even for a moment, last night. What is particularly surprising is the very small number of respondents who said "very negative".

Bush 43 has argued that poll numbers don't really matter, and that he has to do what is right, not what is popular. While I wholeheartedly agree with the second half of that phrase, I disagree with the first half. Poll numbers, in one important respect, matter very much. Let's say that there is some thing that is really necessary for America to do, but that thing is very unpopular (you can imagine the sort of scenario of which I write). The President needs to have the political capital that would allow Congress to support his decision to "do what is right". Further, the American people need to be willing to listen and consider that the President is right and knows what is best. If his approval rating is in the low 30s it becomes increasingly difficult for him to "do what is right".

The President will be out of office in no time. Still, there will be very important things for America to do over the next two years. For that reason, I hope President Bush can get his numbers up. Perhaps this is the first step. Even if he does, I'm still convinced (as I have argued before) that the Democrats are more likely to win the White House in 2008 that the GOP. But for the sake of our country, we can't have 70% of America opposing the Chief Executive's every move.

Hillary pt. 2 (Liabilities)

2007-01-23T06:00:00.000-05:00

A week ago at this time Barack Obama was dominating the news. Now it is Hillary's turn. Yesterday we took a look at the assets Hillary Clinton brings with her in her bid for the presidency. It was an impressive list, which no doubt legitimizes her competition for front-runner status. But Hillary, like all other candidates, brings liabilities as well. Some are personal, some structural, and others historical. I will leave it up for comments as to whether her assets or her liabilities carry greater weight, and I welcome any thoughts on the matter. Without further ado, her liabilities:

Hateability: One of Hillary's big assets is that she is a household name. That also serves as what is likely her biggest liability. Her unfavorability ratings, by many polls, have not dropped below 40% since 2005. That is unprecedented. Out of all the candidates for office, no one comes close. McCain's unfavorability is around 25%. Obama's is around 11%. The only person who has even mentioned a possible run whose unapproval ratings equal Hillary's are those of Newt Gingrich, who is roundly dismissed as "too unlikable". One could expect a number that high if she were a candidate running for re-election, when all the ire from the other side is directed solely on the candidate. But we are nowhere near that. In short, there is a major segment of America--and not just the conservative base--who has decided already that they won't vote for her.
The Freakshow Lies in Wait: Since Hillary is so loved by many and so hated by many that there is even more incentive for the Freakshow that is the American political culture, and particularly the media, to hype/control/propagate stories that make her look bad. People click on articles about her. More people click when the story about her is "shocking" or "revealing" or "telling" or in some other way prone to work against her. The Freakshow wants her to explode.
A Base Problem: This will not be as much of a liability in the general election, but the perception among the Radical Left like the Daily Kos is that she was way too cozy to President Bush for way too long. It took her forever to say that if she knew then what she knows now she wouldn't have voted for the War. But vote for the war she did, and she compounded that problem with her base by being very slow to retract support for it. Add that to the fact that they too can read her unfavorability numbers and one can start to hear the same whispers that accompanied Howard Dean in his hay day: "unelectable".
History (The Scandals): Hillary's past is always a problem. To capture this problem, here's a quote I read in the book, The Way to Win:
How did she make those enormous cattle futures profits? How did those long-missing billing records turn up in the White House? What role did she play in those infamous end-of-presidency pardons? What really happened with her staff and the indicted...fund-raising aide from her first campaign? What exactly is up with her marriage? And: pretty much everything about her brothers. (emphasis in original)
And that doesn't even mention Whitewater (or Lewinsky). Speaking of Lewinsky...
Bill: He may be the fundraiser-in-chief he may be the best strategist in the Democratic party, but he's a ticking time bomb that she can only hope doesn't go off until she is safely into a second term:
- There are still (newer) allegations that he is not a one-woman man.
- Though loved by many, he carries negative images with himself as well--the scandals and the more recent questions about his pre-9/11 terrorism dealings
- His presence could create voter weariness among those who want something new
- His presence keeps the questions about him and their personal life on the front-burner, thus keeping Hillary's message on the back-burner. Not what any candidate wants.
- He overshadows her.
Lack of Charisma: Hillary has incredible political skill. But she has no charisma. The larger the crowd and the more excited they get Hillary should get more inspiring. Sadly for her, she just comes off as shrill. One British paper put it best:
She has the record, the position, the money, the support, the right hairstyle at last. Yet the only quality she cannot summon, however hard she works at it, is charm.
The British can be blunt, but here it is true. Bush 43 is a horrible speaker, but when a candidate he did this well: he could be optimistic and deliver an applause line that made people want to applaud. Hillary makes people feel obligated to applaud. This is something that can't be taught. She can only hope her other assets outweigh this one.
The Establishment Candidate: Contrasted with Barack, this one becomes clear: she represents what has been. She is the tried and true. While on one hand this is an asset, think about why Barack is so popular. He is new. He is a breath of fresh air. He is the anti-Hillary, and it has hurt her.
Too Big for Her Own Good: Americans elect presidents who they like, but who they also think has a message/theme for their presidency. It is clear already what an Obama presidency would be about: hope. In 1999 Bush was pitching "restoring dignity to the White House". That was particularly important for him because by staying on message it took focus away from Bush 41. Hillary is always the story. She doesn't have a theme, and even if she did her persona might well overpower it. Her race is all about who she is, and this is a problem for any candidate, but particularly for one with as much baggage as Hillary.

To sum it up, Hillary has some image problems, and some non-image problems. Her image: Divider; 60s radical; Powerhungry; Cold; Uncharismatic. That's not saying she deserves those images, but they linger. Her non-images problems: Bill; ties to scandal; her sex; she is the establishment figure; she is hated like no other candidate. Will she overcome these? Do her assets outweigh them? These are what I submit for discussion.

Hillary pt. 1 (Assets)

2007-01-22T06:00:00.000-05:00

In the world of politics things can change fast. Six months ago Hillary Clinton looked to be the presumptive Democratic nominee for the White House. Today, she is locked in a very intriguing Cold War with the very charismatic junior Senator from Illinois for front-runner status. Six months from now, one may be looking like the nominee, or both may have been surpassed by one of the many other challengers.

A week ago neither of the two front-runners had made any move toward an official presidential run. Now, both have. Obama made the announcement that he is forming an exploratory committee (committees never tell candidates not to run, so once they are formed that means the candidate is in the race) on his website, followed mere days later by Hillary's announcement of the same.

Every candidate has assets and liabilities. Hillary is no different. Of course, she is unique among the Democratic hopefuls: the only woman, the only former First Lady (ever), the only one to have been a household name to Joe American for nearly 15 years (which in political years is like 87), and the list can go on. But just like the rest, she has assets to her credit, and liabilities that will snip at her.As I wrote last week, I'm convinced that those who think Hillary can't win are fooling themselves. So let's take a brief look at some of the things that belong in her "plus" column (note: these do not take into account whether any other candidate can negate these, or whether they might be liabilities at the same time; they are what they are--things that give Hillary an edge):

Money, money, money: Most candidates have to spend hours on end making calls, shaking hands, attending fundraisers (events which give candidates an excellent chance to open mouth and insert foot). Hillary does not have to do that. She has a network of donors and fundraisers already set, and now set in motion, who can raise millions upon millions without her ever having to engage in the very daunting task of gathering funds.
She's Fought the Freakshow (and lived to tell about it):In modern politics the media has every incentive to hype any misstep a candidate makes. Hillary has felt the fury of the Freakshow, and has been burned by it. By 1994 her name was a dirty word to Joe American. Yet she has reclaimed her image. She has earned her way back. Whatever doesn't kill you politically does indeed make you stronger. Anyone who can survive the Freakshow, has learned how not to get burned, and who has learned how to handle things that can blow up has built up a sort of immunity to the traps that can so easily befall anyone who's every move makes national news.
The Establishment Ties: At any moment she can pick up the phone and call someone at nearly any interest group on the Left, any activist, any party leader, any high level strategist, and know the person on the other end of the phone. She has an astonishing base of connections from which to draw.
Star Power: When Chris Dodd (D-CT) or Sam Brownback (R-KS) announced their intentions to run for President, Joe American took no notice. Even if he did it was likely followed by "who's that?". When Hillary announced everyone heard, and no one was surprised. This was one of the advantages that made then-Governor Bush such a powerhouse in 1999.
The "Moderate" Factor: Like many (maybe most) I doubt Hillary's commitment to moderation. Nonetheless, she has done an amazing job of being not polarizing since entering the Senate in 2000. You may now be thinking, "but Hillary is polarizing". Agreed, but ask this question: is she polarizing because of her speeches/record in the Senate, or is it because of her years in the White House? I would argue that latter. In my analysis she has proven over the last 6+ years that she can be in office and not be the lightning rod. Remember, she voted for the War and has co-sponsored dozens of bills with the Red Team.
Bill: He gives her a ton of advantages, and enhances some of the above:
- He remains the best strategist in the Democratic Party
- He is the "Fundraiser-in-Chief"
- His is the power behind Hillary's vast cross-country political network
- He provides charisma where she lacks it
- People like him and some (though maybe few) will welcome her because of him
- Is there a better advisor in the world on how to handle a race of this magnitude?
- There are many, many more. Probably many more than I can possibly think of.
Experience: No, not the experience of being a two-term Senator, but the experience of having been through two winning campaigns with Bill, two winning Senate campaigns, and purposefully watching how Bush 43 succeeded (and failed). She has been around the block and has been taking keen notes on how to win and how to lose. Even watching Kerry fail--which I believe she knew he would, or else she would not have sat on the sidelines--taught her the way to the top.
Others: The only woman; smart committee assignments (like the Foreign Relations Committee, which gives her foreign policy credibility); a proven staff; her 2006 warm-up election; money in the bank that she can roll over to her next election.

Hillary Clinton is indeed unlike any other candidate. She has been a part of the political landscape of America for a very long time. She has changed her image over and over again, yet has survived. Though I do not like her politics, I must deeply respect what she has been able to do. Most anyone else would not have been able to rebound after her image exploded half way through Bill's first term. Most would not have been able to cherry-pick a state in which to run for (let alone win) a Senate seat. Most would have withered under the scrutiny of the Freakshow. Yet here she is, locked in a Cold War for front-runner status for the Democratic nomination.

Who Knows Best?

2007-01-19T08:45:00.000-05:00

Confrontations in politics are at their best and most productive when well-intentioned and reasonable people simply disagree about the best course of action. There can be a fair give-and-take, constructive debate, and a mutually agreeable outcome. That is politics at its best.

While such political battles take place all the time, there are other instances when our view of the world and the people in it--along with how the government relates to them--collides with a differing view to create a clash that makes compromise exceedingly difficult.

One issue that relies heavily on how we view the world is the role of government. As one could easily surmise from past posts, I am of the "limited government" point of view. Though not always, more often than not people should have the freedom to spend their money how they wish, eat what they wish, raise their kids how they wish, worship how they wish, and the like.

With that perspective in mind, I was very disappointed to read that at least one legislator in the great state of California wants to ban spanking. Throughout her argument on the topic, the legislator equates spanking with "beating a child". Obviously, parents should not be allowed to beat their children. Certainly there are parents who blur the line between a spanking and abuse. The problem with banning all spanking in order to curb the actions of these people is that it invades the right of a parent to raise and discipline his/her child in an appropriate way.

In the sake of full disclosure, I have no children. My wife and I have not yet decided whether we will spank our children (if we are blessed to have any). But I don't want the government to take that option away from us.

Simply, this seems a clear invasion of freedom and government intrusion in an area in which it does not belong. Should government protect children from abuse? Absolutely. Is spanking, as properly used, abuse? Hardly. The government should prosecute those who abuse their children. Intelligent parents can choose to use timeouts, or remove privilege, or spank their kids. I'm sure all can be effective. But the job of deciding which will be most effective with each child is the job of the parent, who knows the child, not the government who does not.

Silencing the Critics

2007-01-18T06:30:00.000-05:00

One of the issues currently in vogue is global warming, or as many like to put it, "climate change". It's one of those topics that if talked about for too long can get incredibly boring. People on both sides of the issue cite scientists who support their views and deem the other side "junk science".

My position on the matter is probably a pretty moderate one, and since it is not truly what this post is about I'll go ahead and put it right up front: it seems clear that the Earth is warming in recent years; the issue is determining why. I am highly skeptical that we can know for certain that our activities are warming the Earth. There are great scientists who think so, but there are great scientists who doubt it. Either way, it seems that there is at least a chance that we are the cause, and we should therefore start to take steps to curb what we are putting into the air. Yet, since there is strong disagreement over whether we are causing it, I would reject motions to radically re-arrange our society (e.g. tax SUVs or fine GM or move to all electric cars).

That is neither here nor there. What is important, however, is that we keep and open mind to those who have an opposing view to whichever we hold. As I said, there are great scientists on each side, and therefore their research should be brought to light, allowing citizens and government alike to make informed decisions.

Sadly, some disagree.

They think their position is the One and Only. They are firmly convinced that their theory is correct. Once any of us reaches a conclusion we think is supported by research, sound scholarship, and rational/reasonable/sound logic, we should stand up for our position. However, standing up for your position is quite different from banning others from having a voice in the debate.

That is exactly what some in the media wish to do. Enter Dr. Heidi Cullen.Dr. Cullen is the climate specialist for the Weather Channel (yes, it is questionable if the whether channel counts as "media"). Yesterday she said this on her blog:

Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms...If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval.

Suppose one of Dr. Cullen's colleagues read a peer-reviewed, solid piece of science that cast doubts upon the idea that human activity is causing the Earth to warm. Suppose, further, that said meteorologist finds the scholarship convincing. What would be Dr. Cullen's reaction? Would she openly debate such a person? Would she present contrary evidence and weigh the merits of both positions? I hope she would. But her statement yesterday, simply paraphrased, says, "if you don't support my position on global warming you should be de-certified by the professional organization that oversees our work". In essence, you do not deserve to be recognized as a 'real' meteorologist.

When we shut the door to debate we are always shutting the door on any chance that we are wrong. When we do this it is arrogance at best, and insecurity at worst--arrogance in that we hold our view so superior as to not even be worthy of scrutiny, and insecurity in that we do not wish to face any possibility that our views do not hold up to the light. The latter is worse because it devalues Truth for our own peace of mind and tacitly accepts living by a lie, for the lie is one we like.

If one is truly convinced that the evidence is so overwhelming that the other side should be marginalized, let the power of the facts do the marginalizing. Let people see both sides and see that one is clearly in the right. May the force of the argument--not the force of political decisions--carry the day.

Yes, They Can

2007-01-17T06:00:00.000-05:00

Barack Obama took his first step yesterday to becoming an official presidential candidate. Though it is not official, it appears that it will become so on February 10^th.

His fiercest competition for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, has been noticably silent for about the past month. Whether he, she, or neither is making waves, their mere presence is the elephant in the room whenever the topic of 2008 arises.

Having spent a great deal of time reading about the assets and liabilities of these two candidates I was shocked when yesterday a young black man say to me flatly (and with a tone of disappointment), "a black man and a woman? Looks like we'll have another Republican." Perhaps I am naïve, but America does not appear to me a place that any longer bars a person from any office on account of his/her demographics. Of course, will race and gender be a factor? Absolutely. However, those who view having either a woman or a minority in the White House as a novelty, in my analysis, will outweigh the few who refuse to vote for these two solely on the basis of sex or race.

Based on what I know of these two, it is likely that I will not be voting for either of them. However, here is a message for those who would like to sit back comfortably and say "Hillary can't win" and "America won't elect a black man": Either of these two can win. That is not to say that they will, just that they can.

Yes, Hillary has the image of a real wench. Yes, Barack has very very little experience. Yes, they are both liberals in moderate clothing. But make no mistake about it: they can win. Hillary has a list of assets a mile long. Barack makes people swoon with his heart-warming hope-speak (and has Oprah on his side).

As conservatives it would be comfortable to hide our heads in the sand and pretend like we live in warm cocoon of the Republican Revolution. That time is no more. We live in the Iraq era, in the Bush-hater era, in the Freakshow politcs era, and in the liberal-media's-lovefest-with-Obama/Hillary-era. If a conservative is going to take the White House he/she will have to win many battles, not the least of which is the image war that says, "yes, I too can win this election."

The Big Difference

2007-01-16T13:29:00.000-05:00

One of the inherent flaws in government is embodied in the idea that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". That is why I am convinced that our founders were brilliant men: they enshrined checks and balances and separation of powers into our Constitution so that parts of the government would reign down on others when they get out of control. Nevertheless, the fundamental flaw in all government is that it is the ultimate arbiter, since it is the only entity in the world which can legitimately use force. If you don't pay your taxes you go to jail; if your business is corrupt they will shut it down; break the law they will put you in handcuffs.

The problem is this doesn't always apply to government itself.

Today word came out that the Pentagon "accidentally" sold goods (including parts for missiles) to Iran. Some middlemen bought the parts for alleged non-military use only to turn around and send them to Iran. Two things went wrong in the government, so far as I can tell: 1) There was plenty of evidence that the people buying these surplus parts were not on the up-and-up (one of them was even convicted on arms-smuggling charges then released only to be allowed to buy more surplus army items); and 2) The Pentagon is selling parts for F-14s, which it is retiring--the only other country in the world flying F-14s is...yup...Iran.The question is this: let's say, hypothetically, that the company that made the F-14 was selling surplus parts, and let's say they did not do their homework on the prospective buyers. How would the government react? My suspicion is the company would be shut down/raided/have its leaders put on trial, or at the very least would be heavily fined.

We will see what happens in this case. I hope I'm wrong, but what likely will happen is Congress' investigative arm will "thoroughly examine the matter", scold the Pentagon in the court of public opinion, and some rules will be changed. That will be about it. The Pentagon can't even be fined since it's not their money. Even if they could be, what would it matter? It's not their money to give away.

Businesses do not always do what is right, but when they do wrong the government is there to crack down on them. When government does wrong there is no one else there. With all due respect the 535 members of Congress are ill-equipped to serve as a proper check to the government bureaucrats who number in the 10s--if not 100s--of thousands. Providing services (even those like auctions) should be the job of those outside the government, and it should be the government's job to make sure the job is done right. That is the ultimate check-and-balance.

The Good Reverend

2007-01-15T08:00:00.000-05:00

Fortunately for me the industry in which I work honors the good reverend, Dr. King, by giving us the day off of work. It is for that reason that I would like to take a few minutes and reflect on how far we have come since MLK's day.

In his last really famous speech before his death, I Have Been to the Mountaintop, Dr. King asked the (paraphrased) question, "if I could ask God to take me anywhere in history, where would I go?". He listed a variety of times and places, but he ended with this:

Strangely enough, I would turn to the Almighty, and say, 'If you allow me to live just a few years in the second half of the twentieth century, I will be happy.' Now that's a strange statement to make, because the world is all messed up. The nation is sick. Trouble is in the land. Confusion all around. That's a strange statement. But I know, somehow, that only when it is dark enough, can you see the stars. And I see God working in this period of the twentieth century in a way that men, in some strange way, are responding — something is happening in our world.

Indeed, something happened and is happening in our world.

At a party over the holidays a man whom I respect very much--a man whom I admire and would like to be like--began discussing the issue of race in our society. He said a great number of things, but one thing stuck out. He said, "racism in our society is as bad as it has ever been". One of my college history professors, while we were studying America in the 19th Century and seeing how horrifically blacks were treated during that period pointedly said this: "Anyone who says 'racism now is worse than ever' has absolutely no understanding of history". With that in the back of my mind it disappointed me to hear a man I respect so much say such things.

Our society has come a long way. Are we there yet? No. Is there still racism? Yes. Is there still discrimination? Yes. It is much more subtle, but I think we all know it is there. However, we have come a long way. As we continue to have those high quality discussions about race, let us remember all that people like Dr. King did to heal the racial problems in America.

Let's remember today how dark things were back then. Let us remember how much African Americans have had to struggle to get to where they are today. Let us continue to fight to move America forward in this area. Let us not dishonor the memories of those who struggled by pretending they had little effect. Let's remember that now, as in 1968, "something is happening in our world"--and it is good.

More Like Them

2007-01-12T06:00:00.000-05:00

You've heard of Nancy Pelosi, but have you heard of her youngest daughter, Alexandra?

In 2000 a quirky little documentary aired on HBO called Journeys with George. It chronicled the primary and general election runs of then Governor Bush. If you have not seen in, I highly recommend it. It paints the President as a very friendly, caring, funny, and likable person. The most amazing thing about the film is not that it was shot all by home video camera, not the great behind-the-scenes happenings of the mainstream media, not the rare (unpolished) access to the candidate, but rather the name on the cover: Alexandra Pelosi.I have seen uncut footage of Alexandra, and it is quite clear that she shares her mother's political leanings. Whereas I have little respect for Madame Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for Alexandra. While the Speaker was bashing the President, lowering the level of political discourse, Alexandra was, while no less liberal, raising it.

Now Alexandra has a new film coming out. It's called "Friends of God" and takes a trip through the evangelical community. According to the NY Times yesterday she finds a Christian Wrestling Federation, a Biblical Mini-Golf Course, and a drive-through church. Despite these inclusions (which, imho, make Christians look just plain silly), Pelosi tried to make this film present the best possible side of evangelicals.

Something Alexandra said when interviewed about her movie stuck out, so much so that one of my friends called it "one of the best quotes" he has read in a while:

'I believe in the culture war,' she said. 'And you know what? If I have to take a side in the culture war I’ll take their side,' meaning the Christian conservatives. 'Because if you give me the choice of Paris Hilton or Jesus, I’ll take Jesus.'

Wow. Pelosi the Younger is well aware of the reality that many evangelicals will dismiss her movie out of hand because they so vociferously disagree with the Speaker, her mother; yet she is capable of praise of those same people.

Alexandra also wrote a piece about the relationship between the President and her mother. It is well worth reading.

Over the past two days, reading about Alexandra Pelosi, dialoguing with danny (see yesterday's post), talking with others about sending more troops into Iraq, recent conversations on race, etc., I am more optimistic than I have been in a long time about the tone of our conversations and our ability to let reason override emotion, to set aside the Freakshow, and to be civil toward those with whom we disagree.

Maybe we can beat the Freakshow. People like Alexandra and danny give me hope. May there be more like them.

Fair Criticism

2007-01-11T06:00:00.000-05:00

Yesterday danny of danny's blog cabin commented with some very fair and rational criticisms of the President's planned troop surge. Rather than trying to reply to his five (very fair) criticisms of the plan in the comments section, I though I'd put it up front for all to see.

Before getting our feet wet, let me say a few things:

elgreggo had some pretty nice analysis of the political fallout of this decision in yesterday's comment section. I recommend checking it out.
I wish we could just pull out of Iraq and pretend it doesn't exist. I, like most Americans, am tired of the war, tired of hearing all the bad news, and tired of talking about it.
I hate having to defend sending more troops there, but, sadly, it seems to be the best of our three ridiculously over-simplified options (a. pull out; b. stay as-is; c. troop surge).
Are danny and I likely to change each other's minds? It is possible, but unlikely. Rather, I hope we can all see that there are very rational people on both sides who can have a discussion about complex issues without devolving into the typical political Freakshow style.

With that being said, here are danny's five points and my responses:

It was tried in August of this year and it didn't work. The neighborhoods taken by US troops were pacified for a time, but as soon as they left, the violence returned.
- I concede this point in part. Something similar was tried in August, but that is not to say that THIS plan was tried. 43 heard this criticism and laid out the differences in his speech last night. One he didn't mention was that the August plan was a U.S. only venture. This one has some pretty serious commitments from the Iraqi government behind it (whether they fulfill those commitments is a big question mark). The problem back then, as danny mentioned, was that after a neighborhood was secured the U.S. forces would hang around a few days, then leave. The insurgents who were driven out simply returned a few days later. The goal of this plan is to ensure the "hold" part of the "sweep and hold" strategy. Whether or not this will work is a good question that will now be answered in time.
20,000 is not enough. McCain says this and he also says that it should be for at least 18 months.
- You might be right. Maybe we should send more if we really want to make it work. This number--a shade over 20k--is actually the very low end of McCain's estimate (3,500-5,000 per brigade, McCain wanted 5-6 brigades in Baghdad). That is somewhat beside the point--will 20,000 fail to do what 40,000 would do? Maybe. But does anyone really wish Bush would send even more than this?
There aren't 20,000 more troops to send in. We're already stretched thin with multiple and extended tours.
- Conceded, again in part. We are stretched thin--very thin. Too thin for my comfort. But we are again at a risk-reward point. If, out of the three options (pull out, stay as-is, troop surge), the first two are destined to failure, but the third, no matter how painful, gives us a chance at success, it is my position that it is worth trying. If we pull out the Iraqi government will fall. If we stay as-is we eventually will be forced to pull out anyway (even if not for years, we can't win on the current pace). That leaves the troop surge as our best hope of the three. Does that mean stretching? Yes. Does it mean stretching even thinner than we should be stretching? Yes. Does that mean it's impossible to do? Not impossible, just very taxing.
My congressman, Ike Skelton, has been saying that it's way too late for this type of strategy.
- I respect Ike Skelton very much. What is implied in his statement is that there was a time when a troop surge, in his opinion, would have been successful (or at least stood a good chance of being so). On this point I agree with him--we should have had more troops going in and not botched the demilitarization of the Iraqi Army and Republican Guard. Where I disagree with him is in his assertion that it is now "too" late. Is it late? Yes. Is the situation so far gone that this plan is destined to fail? I don't think any of us can say that with authority--not even Ike Skelton.
Abizaid and Casey, the (former) generals on the ground, oppose this plan. Bush has said all along that he'll listen to his generals when it comes to troop levels. Then when they oppose his new plan he kicks them to the curb. He'll say that they've failed and need to be replaced, which may be true, but if you want an example of choosing politics over statesmanship, look no further. This was a brilliant political maneuver. He passed the buck for all those months and now he's using them as a scapegoat for his failed policy. He'll reshuffle the chairs and start the cycle over again.
- Agreed. Your analysis on this point is solid. The only caveat I would make is that it may have appeared a "brilliant maneuver", but the fact is his party got "thumped" in the election and his approval ratings are in the crapper. It may have been a brilliant strategy, but it failed. Your point here is a high quality one.

You may well read this dialogue and decide you agree with danny over me. If that is the case, I respect your opinion. There are no easy answers there, and intelligent people can disagree on the best course of action.

All In.

2007-01-10T06:00:00.000-05:00

Where have all the statesmen gone?

Though President Bush is a lame duck at this point, and though is approval ratings are dismal, and though the Bush-haters have gone from the minority to the majority, he is still the President. He is still the Commander-in-Chief. He is still our head of government and head of state. Tonight, for better or worse, he will be the President, not a lame duck.

Every official and news outlet says the same thing: 20,000 more troops to Iraq.

By all accounts the Liberals in Congress are going to try to block funding for this measure. The Constitutionality of that move is highly questionable. For more practical purposes, it is unlikely that the Liberals have the votes in Congress to do such a thing. What has been disappointing to hear is the blatant political maneuvering and emotionalism dripping from the lips of members of both parties who oppose this move.

There are several opponents of this move who are rational, well reasoned, intelligent, and who seem to be genuinely concerned about doing what is best for America. Unfortunately, those people are in the minority.

Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, and Olympia Snow (yes, a GOPer) have all been guilty of this emotional politicization. Reid, the Senate Majority leader, said he would only consider an increase in troop levels if the President agreed to start withdrawing troops in six months. I can understand that sentiment. However, I can't agree with that reasoning. Though it sounds nice, it assumes failre and is simplistic in nature. In short, it is political pandering, not statesmanship.

Please hear me out before you think I am just bashing anyone who opposes sending more troops.

There are many ways this thing can play out, but let's take the extremes on both ends and weigh them against each other. On one side: we send in 20,000 troops, they become targets and are resented by ordinary Iraqis; violence escalates further; U.S. casualties go up by 20% (there will be about 16% more troops there), and the troop surge is a miserable failure; President Bush will have played his hand and lost; There will be no choice but to set the date for a withdrawal. Cost: over six months about 900 American casualties and probably $50-75 billion dollars (very rough guesses).

On the other side: The troop surge is successful in quelling the violence in Baghdad, Sadr City, and Anbar Province; terrorists are driven from major cities; Sunni and Shia militias are disarmed; neighborhoods become safe again; political stability is achieved, freeing Sunnis and Shiites to compromise without bloodshed; Iraq becomes (long-term) a stabilizing force in the region.

Is one American life lost a tragedy? Yes. Are people justified in wanting to save the lives of our soldiers? Yes. Is this a costly gamble? Yes.

If we bottom line this proposition, what we must ask is this: do the rewards outweigh the risks? There is no higher stakes game going on in the world. This is no time to make emotion-driven decisions. Saying, "sure you can have troops if you pull out in six months" is pure politics. It assumes failure. It does not truly account for the difficulty and gravity of the situation. What if things are on the upswing in five months? What if the move is moderately successful and Iraq is on the slow but very steady and obvious track up? We need tough decision, not nice-sounding platitudes

Bush 43 gambled his entire Presidency, his standing in history, and his reputation on the Iraq War. So far, it was a bet that he has lost. Assuming that tonight President Bush does what is expected of him, it will be the equivalent of pushing in all his chips. It is a move that cannot be repeated and one that will either save Iraq or send the U.S. down a road to a Vietnamesque pull-out.

Is this a good move? I don't know. But I do know that whatever the President does, and whatever the Congress does in response, must be based on sound reasoning, not emotion-driven, Freakshow politics.

We need statesmen, not politicians.

Something for Nothing

2007-01-09T08:15:00.000-05:00

[Editor's Note: Thanks to Baxter CG for his guest post yesterday. It was quality, as always. End Editor's Note]

Everyone wants something for nothing.

Yesterday, California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, unveiled his health care plan to cover all those in his state. It would require that all adults have health insurance. The cost for covering the currently uninsured will be spread out among individuals, employers, doctors, hospitals, and the state.

This proposal will be fighting an uphill battle. Doctors and hospitals will oppose it (they are asked to pay 2% and 4% respectively into a state "pot" for health care). Businesses, both large and small will oppose it. Conservatives (though a rare breed on the Left Coast) will oppose the government mandate/entitlement/largess.

All that makes sense, since people don't want to pay for something that someone else gets. Doctors and hospitals, the ones providing the service, are being asked to pay for part of it. Can you imagine the government requiring the supermarket to pay for part of your groceries? Or the Movie theater to pay for part of your ticket? Or the mechanic to pay for part of your transmission? That's essentially what this is. I know that we are dealing with a very emotional subject. Even so, it is, at the end of the day, a business for the doctor and the hospital.

Putting all that aside, I was shocked and dismayed to read this line from one news story about this: "Unions balked at the requirements for individuals, calling them a tax on the middle class." Wow.

This should be the ultimate proof that people will always find something to complain about. Again, it makes sense for businesses, doctors, or hospitals to be upset about this. They are paying for something they don't receive. But for unions to complain that people have to pay at all is preposterous.

Everyone wants something for nothing.

As a society, we can't be takers. We must pay our fair share. It makes no difference whether it is food or clothing or health care--all are necessary for survival. To expect someone else to have to provide us these basic needs at absolutely no cost...well, I have no harsh enough words for this idea.

Please hear me clearly: I am not bashing the Governor's plan, though if given a vote I would not support it. What I am bashing is the idea that someone else must pay for every dime of our basic needs. Is affordable health insurance a goal we should strive for? Absolutely. Is expecting someone else to pay for all our basic needs something we should make our goal? Absolutely not.

I know not whether this plan will pass, but I know this: if it does there will be those who want even more. The takers take, and never stop taking. Let us be earners and pay our part and be thankful for what we have.

Oprah

2007-01-08T05:30:00.000-05:00

In case you didn’t hear…cough, cough…Oprah built a school in Africa. Great! I am in full support of that endeavor. During the limited TV coverage…cough, cough…of the opening of her school I wrestled with several thoughts:

1) Oprah’s school is a good example of ‘conservative’ philanthropic work. How so? Well, generally when conservatives see a problem…we go fix it. We act through churches, charitable organizations, or with the sweat of our own brow. When liberals see a problem…they find a politician/law/entitlement to fix the problem…oh yeah, and then find a mean-spirited conservative to blame. In fact, the way I see it, Oprah’s school is a great model of how Hollywood glitterati and Joe American alike should act when they see people in need. Unfortunately, for a far too great a number of American voters not much of any good occurs unless government is involved. More bureaucracy is not the answer. Just the good works of good hearted people helping those in need.

2) Here is Oprah’s explanation as to why she opened her school in South Africa, not the United States:

“I became so frustrated with visiting inner-city schools that I just stopped going. The sense that you need to learn just isn't there," she says. "If you ask the kids what they want or need, they will say an iPod or some sneakers. In South Africa, they don't ask for money or toys. They ask for uniforms so they can go to school.” (Newsweek, Jan.8th Issue)

(These comments sound a lot like the remarks made by Bill Cosby a few years ago (transcript) that got him in so much hot water.)

Oprah, unfortunately I believe what you say. I believe that you do see many kids in the inner city that meet you with the sentiment that they would rather have an iPod or X Box instead of a quality education. I can see why you would feel bitter. But I think you are missing the point. There are so many others, bright…eager…desperate to learn…that live in the inner city and need privately funded schools, just like the one you opened in South Africa, Oprah, so that they can break free from an educational system that has let them down. They need school vouchers and charter schools that look for an alternative approach. They need privately operated schools, just like the one you opened, to be less demonized by the NEA and many of your liberal friends, which I’m sure, think that YOUR privately operated school is the greatest.

So get back on TV, Oprah…sell more commercial time…open three more $40 million privately operated schools in inner city Chicago and show us how great our kids can be.

Death by Emotion

2007-01-05T06:00:00.000-05:00

The new Democratic Congress was sworn in yesterday. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi began the push of what she has deemed the "100 Hour Plan". The plan calls for things like an increase in the miniumum wage up to $7.25/hr, direct government negotiation of prescription drug prices, and what they call "ethics reform".

No doubt Speaker Pelosi is well aware that her actions will reflect upon the field of Democratic candidates for president in 2008. She has certainly consulted with the rest of the leaders of her party in formulating her agenda. They have settled on these three issues in large part because they resonate quite easily with the America public.

Because of the structure of the House of Representatives, Pelosi can force through these measures without any committee involvement, any amendments, or any open debate. In effect, she is using this time for political gain rather than for creating good government policy. The things she and her fellow Democrats might or might not be good. That is beyond my point. For now I'm asking this: why not have an open debate on these issues, then allow for committees to talk to experts, make amendments, and come up with the best possible solutions?

Simple: Joe American has an emotional attachment to these issues. Better to ram-rod through a poorly crafted bill or a bill that doesn't really address the problem than to be deliberate, thoughful, careful, and bipartisan.

Again, I am not trying to argue that what the Democrats are inherently bad or wrong. Certainly I have issues with they way they are going about some of these changes, and I flatly disagree with them on others. But that is beside the point, which is this: we need to get beyond emotion and ask the hard questions. Is raising the minimum wage good or bad for the poor? Will the job losses suffered by minorities and those who work for small businesses offset the gains in quality of life for those receiving a raise? Will small businesses be unfairly hurt by such a price floor for labor? These questions and more would be good for our country to have. Maybe in the end the answers to these questions would still lead to a $7.25 minimum wage. I doubt it, but it's possible.

Sadly, those with an agenda have worked hard to get knee-jerk reactions about such issues. They have succeeded at getting Americans to be repulsed by anyone who opposses a raise in the miniumum wage, or anyone who sees long-term dangers in government setting price floors for prescription drugs.

The people who push such an agenda use our emotions against us. They play our feelings up to the point that they suffocate our ability to reason. Intelligent discussion dies a slow death at the hands of emotionalism.

This was made all too clear to me when the wife of one of my best friends called him "cold-hearted" for voting against our state's proposed minimum wage increase. That is the perception. If you don't want to raise the minimum wage it must be because you are mean/hateful/heartless/insensitive/insertnegativeadjectivehere. By-and-large, Americans at present seem to distain the idea of thoroughly examining measure they "know in their heart" are good.

Want to raise the minimum wage? Okay, let's have an open, honest, intelligent discussion about it. Want to have "ethics reform". Good. So do I. Let's have the open, well-reasoned discussion about the best way to do it.

Let knee-jerk reactions die at the hands of intellectually honest discussion. Don't try to ram through what's popular so you can claim an emotional victory.

Which Year 3?

2007-01-04T06:00:00.000-05:00

Yesterday we discussed the four-year cycle of presidential politics. This year, 2007, is "year 3", the year when the real candidates emerge and the real fundraising begins. In order to illustrate two different ways this Year 3 could go, we need to take a look back at the last two Year 3s--2003 and 1999.

By examining these years we have four possible examples to look at--a primary run-up for each of the two parties each year. However, since the 2003 Republican primary was a mere formality (with a Republican incumbent running for re-election), it does not serve our purposes.

Similarly, the 1999 Democratic primary is of less use to us, since Al Gore was the presumptive nominee for the vast majority of his second term as Vice President. As early as 1996, after Clinton secured re-election, Gore's advisors drew up a battle plan for a possible presidential run. Without question, Bill Bradley put up a respectable fight. Unfortunately for him, Gore was as close as one can come to being an incumbent without actually being one.

That leaves us two comparisons to look at: The Republican Year 3 of 1999 and the Democratic Year 3 of 2003. Let's take a look.

1999: George W. Bush came storming out of Texas with a collosal network of supporters across the country. He had name recognition, connections to million-dollar donors, and a strong conservative base with the so-called Religious Right in ascendancy. He was one amnog a number of candidates (namely, John McCain), but Bush always had the fundamentals it would take to win the White House. Having become intimitely familiar with the process as he watched his father lose to Bill Clinton in 1992, he was able to avoid the missteps losing candidates always make.

The Mainstream Media had crowned Bush the presumptive nominee in the summer of that Year 3, as evidenced by this June 21, 1999 Time cover:Though everyone saw that he could win the White House, many, even then, though he was intellectually overmatched by the likes of McCain and would fall short. Indeed, a few months into Year 4, McCain nearly ousted the eventual 43^rd President by defeating him in the New Hampshire primary, only to have Bush court value voters and come triumphantly back to win South Carolina--and the nomination--handily.

2003: This Year 3 stands in strong contrast with 1999. All Year 3 long it was Howard Dean, a previously little-known governor from a small New England state, who captured the heart of the anti-war movement. The Liberal media made Dean their king, as he became the story of the year. He, too, made the cover of Time in the summer of his Year 3:There were hopefuls who tagged along the whole way--Edwards, Lieberman, Bradley, Kerry, Gephardt, Sharpton, and the list goes on. None of the others even made a dent in the Dean campaign's front-runner status during Year 3. Dean got all the media attention, all the money, and therefore more media attention, which in turn led to more money. He had the base solidly in his corner.

But the rest of the story has become all too clear. The Left, though in love with Dean, knew he could not win a race wherein he would have to turn at least one Southern state blue. The Dean Year 3 could be called a "bait and switch". Dean dominated the news, dominated fundraising, dominated travel, dominated in the image wars, yet in the end it was all for naught.

That should teach us not to put too much stock in Year 3 impressions.

On to 2003: So which Year 3 will it be? Well, possibly both. Unlike the past two Year 3s, neither side has an incumbent, or even a VP who is kind of like an incumbent. What might well happen is that the Dems could get a 1999 and the GOP a 2003. Maybe, just maybe, Hillary/Obama could ride their name recognition, media attention, and celebrity status all the way to the nomination, echoing back to Bush's 1999.

By the same token, McCain may well suffer Dean's fate. He might ride the horse named Frontrunner all the way through Year 3, only to have the primary voters reject him (though, of course, it would be for vastly different reasons than Democrats said no to Dean). He may be on the cover of Time. He may have the most money. He may be the media darling. But he may be destined for a Dean Year 3.

Odd Years

2007-01-03T06:00:00.000-05:00

[Editor's Note: Yesterday's edition of the VoterVault was the unfortunate victim of unforseen technical difficulties. Some employers (namely, mine) have decided to firewall the VoterVault. Much apologies for having to delay the first post of this New Year. End Editor's Note]

The politics of Presidential elections always works in yearly cycles. Each year brings a unique set of events, along with its own intrigue. Since our presidential elections are every four years, naturally it is a four-year cycle. Let's pretend, for the sake of clarity, that last year was a presidential election year, and in the four-year cycle this would be "year 1". The cycle would go as follows:

Year 1: The "feeling out" of the new President. This would involve the implementation of his/her policies, and the counter-formation of attacks by the opposition party. If the now president is newly elected (not an incumbent, as the winner in 2008 is sure to be), this can be an extrodinarily interesting year. If, however, the Pres. is an incumbent, this is the most boring year in the cyle.
Year 2: The Midterm Year. Here the voters can either stick it to the President by voting against his/her party, or affirm the job the Pres. is doing by supporting his/her party. Elections are always fun, so "Year 2" can range from mildly exciting to downright thrilling.
Year 3: The Candidates Emerge. It is in year three that the slate of candidates formalizes. Serious candidates spend the majority of the year--particularly every waking moment of the summer--raising money. Serious candidates now need to have about $50 million dollars by the end of the the year to stay competitive. Just for reference, Giuliani hopes to raise $25 million by April 1^st.
Year 4: The Big Dance. Obviously, this is the most exciting year in the whole process. It is the big prize in politics. You certainly know this, so I need not spell it out.

2007 is "Year 3". The main candidates have already begun to emerge, though only one is official. For the Dems the two frontrunners are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, with John Edwards--the only official candidate--not far behind. They make up what I refer to as the Trifecta.

The GOP has only one front-runner, John McCain, with Giuliani not far behind. There are fringe candidates on the Left, but as of today they have needle-in-a-haystack odds. On the Right, however, there are real candidates who could de-throne McCain and certainly Giuliani.

Why the desparity between the parties? Simple. Hillary and Barack are liberals. McCain and Giuliani are moderates. Moderates lose primaries. That's pretty much a rule. Moderates make great legislators, but they make horrible presidential candidates. That is not to say that they would make horrible presidents. They would probably be very effective. But primary voters don't want great legislators. They don't want concensus-builders. They want the people who will fight for--and deliver--the policies they want.

Tune back in to the VoterVault tommorow as we will look a bit more in-depth at type of "year 3" 2007 could be. See you then.

The Rearview Mirror

2006-12-29T10:59:00.000-05:00

As is every one's M.O. on the last day of the old year, it's time for the VoterVault's look back at the year that was. Here are our top 10 political happenings from 2006, in order of our subjectively perceived importance:

The Midterm Elections: The War was the story as voters showed up to vote against Republicans. The Democrats had the good fortune of being the only viable option, and found themselves back in power, with Nancy Pelosi at the helm in the House (see the great Onion piece about her as the first female speaker).
Iraq: the call from the radical Left for an immediate withdrawal, and the call from McCain for a surge of troops has been moderated by many in the notion that there are only "bad options and worse options". Agreed, but keep up optimism--it brought down the Soviet Union, while pessimism brought us down in Vietnam (ridiculously oversimplified).
Airliner Plot: Remember how the Brits and Americans stopped a major plot near its execution? Few do. Good news fades faster than any other kind of news.
Iran: Their rise to the front of the world stage was rapid. They have surpassed North Korea in both the "dangerous" and "crazy" categories. Don't worry, Kim Jong Il still remains unrivaled atop the "weird" list. The U.N. finally slapped them with sanctions, only to have their president say something to the effect of "the world will regret this". Hitler, anyone?
Illegal Immigration: As hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants and their supporters marched the streets in the South and Southwest's major cities, backlash against them was already forming. That Congress will do anything about it now that Democrats have taken over is unlikely. Especially with 2008 approaching.
Hezbollah and Israel: Seems like ages ago, but it was only this past summer that Hezbollah invaded Israel, captured two soldiers, and sparked a month+ long conflict that left much of Lebanon in ruins. Oh yeah, and Ariel Sharron wasn't there due to his stroke.
Saddam Convicted: This may well lead to one of the top stories of 2007, as they seem set to hang Saddam for mass murder within weeks. Will the Sunnis riot? Will this intensify the Sunni-Shiia conflict? We'll know soon.
Dick Cheney: Shoot a guy in the face and as long as he's not seriously hurt, it makes for great comedy.
Congressional Scandals: The GOP had one nasty year in Congress: Tom Delay, Bob Ney, Mark Foley, Jack Abramoff. The Dems did a little better, but were still newsworthy. Remember the Dem Congressman with $90,000 in his freezer? Or how about the little-covered Harry Ried land scandal? Rumors are floating of a shady Barack Obama real estate deal as we speak. Yup, it was a rough year for Congressional ethics.
Tie: Rumsfeld Resigns/Valerie Plame leak case. Rumsfeld should have been out before the election, and 43 looked like he had his tail between his legs when it finally went down. The main story in the leak case wasn't what happened, but what didn't: Karl Rove was not indicted. Scooter Libby is still on trial for perjury, but there was no real evidence that someone in the White House was the first to leak her name.

That's a rough but exciting year. We'll see you back here on Tuesday for a new year of the VoterVault. Have a safe and happy New Year's celebration.

The New Year

2006-12-28T12:30:00.000-05:00

Thank you to all of you who read the VoterVault regularly throughout these last few months of 2006. As 2007 approaches, there are several things to keep your eyes looking for in the realm of politics. Below is a short list of things that are or are not currently getting media attention that will be crucial in the first month or two of the new year:

Though there has not been a news story on it since December 20^th, the health of Senator Timothy Johnson (D-SD) will determine whether the Senate will be controlled by the Democrats or the Republicans. See this post for some more thoughts on the matter.
The power/lack of power wielded by the new House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi. As you hopefully heard, she made a colossal blunder in trying to appoint her own House minority leader in the person of ethically-challenged John Murtha. Will she live up to her own image? Or will she be the truly benevolent leader she claims to be? The new year will tell us.
Many of the possible 2008 candidates have blown smoke about how they have not yet decided if they are running. Both McCain and Obama said they would "talk it over with their friends/family over the holidays". Well, the holidays will soon be over, and they will all probably declare by the end of February at the latest--probably the end of January. Edwards made it official today. Seems like bad timing--the holiday week when people are paying very little attention to politics?
Iraq: the hot potato for 2008. Will Bush send more troops? Will he start to pull them? Will McCain keep calling for more? Will the House, especially, put their money where their mouth is and actually vote for a pullout, or to defund the War? We'll know rather quickly. My money says they do nothing but call for "new leadership in the White House".
Will there be any fallout from Senate Minority Leader Harry Ried dodging the Ford ceremonies? Doubt it, but it could hurt him if he ever tries to run for the White House.

Of course there will be a slew of things to be looking for come the new year. These are just a few. Join us here tomorrow at the VoterVault for our last post of 2007.

Merry Christmas

2006-12-25T22:30:00.000-05:00

Hope you were able to celebrate your Christmas (or other religious or non-religious holiday) with those close to you. There will be no new posts here at the VoterVault until Thursday, 12/28. Until then, please check out the VoterVault's first ever guest post (below) by Baxter CG on race in America. He asks some tough questions and both he and I would love your comments. Happy holidays, and see you again on Thursday.

Where Are We Now?

2006-12-22T08:00:00.000-05:00

Several days ago I posted this message in response to a thread on Tyranny of the Minority:

...do you really think that we live in a greatly unequal society? It’s a debate that I have been kicking around with many friends lately. I say no. Whatever racism that still exists is a from a whacked out few that causes a great deal of problems for those of us who are indeed not racist in the least….not to mention, it is much easier to prove someone has acted like a racist than it is to prove someone has not acted like a racist…which creates a false negative impression. Secondly, I feel as though there is way too much attention given to the negative perspective on race: it goes like this, "Minorities, especially black are still not 100% equal and we are still fighting for the rights the over-privileged white. The only way it will ever happen is through laws that force people to hire us, admit us in to college, or even provide some small form or reparations. Its disgusting, this world." To me that is an argument that is forever divisive and will never lead to a solid and diverse coalition of humans working hand in hand to stop the few who still are divided by color. In my mind society has made, and continues to make great strides on the issue of race…the debate on race should be phrased in this manor: "Minorities and black people have more rights and more equal opportunities to succeed than any people of any color of any era. Now is the time and opportunity to attack poor reading and test scores among our youth, so that they are prepared to be extremely successful in life. Now is the time to work on social issues like black on black violence and the infatuation with gang culture. Now is the time to bring families together instead of breaking them apart. Now is the time to be accountable to mistakes made...to be accountable for our actions...now it the time to take the rights and privileges and opportunities we have and make our ancestors proud. Make them proud by doing what's right...showing them that their fight for freedom...fight to sit at a lunch counter...fight to drink from a public fountain...right to be heard in government did not stop there...but propels us into a glorious future!" If I made those comments at an NAACP convention I would be called the spawn of David Duke. Why? Because it does not fit the action line of almost every civil rights leader since the death of MLK (whom I believe is a great American hero and different from Jackson/Sharpton/etc)...the action line of we have been wronged...we still are being wronged...and someone must pay.

So, the question is why bring it up again? Well...this is a great debate that I am tossing around with colleagues, friends, and myself and I am desperate for more opinions and thoughts. So far, the commentary on this blog has been excellent and I value your views. My concerns:

(A) Am I out of touch...you see my opinion above...am I blind to the injustice?

(B) Are others correct...are we still a greatly unequal society?

(D) Do we understand the implications of (or are we) using race as the easy answer for some of out great social issues in this country...especially in education...or are we blinded by race and therefore unable to find the true problem and solutions?I would love to hear what you have to say...please share.

*Note: Thank you to k. randolph for allowing me to contribute to this blog. I have great respect for him and his views on a variety of topics.

Left Behind

2006-12-21T09:20:00.000-05:00

[Editor's Note: We've been talking much about the 2008 election, so it's time to take a break and have a good ol' policy piece. Today, it's education. Check back in tomorrow for a first ever guest post on the VoterVault as Baxter CG will be asking some tough questions about race in America. End Editor's Note]

American schools are the single most socialized part of American society. It is free for everyone, taxes pay for it, it is run by the state, and on the whole its quality is poor. That is socialism to a tee.

There are very good schools out there, but sadly, those are the exception rather than the rule. Journalists, politicians, celebrities, businesspeople, and athletes have called the low quality of our schools "a crisis". Bill Gates is on a mission to change our schools. Tiger Woods has opened several "Tiger Woods' Institutes" in California. Oprah has done several specials to draw attention to the problem. Everyone who really wants to make our schools effective in producing people who can be successful in the new global economy knows that radical change is needed.

Everyone, sadly, except those with the power to make the changes.

A few days ago a report on education was published by the National Council on Education and the Economy. I've the executive summary PDF, and if their plan could be implemented it would likely take America's schools back to the top among the modernized world. Without question, their call for change is a radical one. For my part, I'll say that I largely agree with them, so I'll just lay out for you what they recommend and you can make your own analysis. Here goes:

Their premises are these:

Our current schools were build for an age of industrialization, not an age of globalization.
Without making radical changes in our educational system America will continue to fall further behind as global competition kicks our butts.
There is plenty of money in the system, but it is largely wasted.
To use their words, "The problem is not with our educators. It is with the system in which they work." Therefore, a radical restructuring is needed.

As the global economy keeps changing, more and more work--even highly skilled/educated/creative work--will go to those who will work for the least (e.g. India and China). If, however, our education system changes, here's how American industries could look:If we don't change, expect that you could exchange the places of "In The United States" and "In less developed countries".

Here are some of their recommendations:

Create a set of Board exams that would determine your post-high school course. Get a high enough score, you can go to community or technical college as early as 11^th grade. Get a higher score and you can stay in high school and study for a second set of boards. No one is allowed to just "slide by". No social promotion allowed. If you fail your boards you keep studying and try again. Here's the general vision:It sounds pretty tough, but they did call this report Tough Choices or Tough Times.
Recruit teachers from the top third of high school students going to college. To do this change teacher compensation from one that is "backloaded" with most money being spent on the oldest--and retired--teachers, and "make retirement benefits comparable to those of the better firms in the private sector". This would raise the salary of a starting teacher dramatically.
Teachers would be employed by the state, not by local districts. There would be a state salary schedule, with increased pay for highly effective teachers, teachers in tough urban or very rural areas, teachers in fields where there are shortages (science and math).
Teachers would have to have a bachelor's degree in the subject area he/she wishes to teach, and would have to pass a rigorous teacher performance exam.
Schools would be operated by independent contractors and run by teachers. School boards and central office jobs would be geared toward assessing the effectiveness of the contractor, and determine if the company should be retained.
State funding would go to each student, whose family could choose which contract school to send students to. Here's the awesome introduction of capitalism: "The competitive, data-based market, combined with the performance contracts themselves, would create schools that were constantly seeking to improve their performance.
Students in highly disadvantaged areas will receive more money for school than other students.
Set up adult and continuing education aimed at getting adults to pass state boards. Once a person is past school age they will not be shut out of the educations system.
Create individual competitiveness accounts, similar to personal health savings accounts, that could be used only for adult job training later in life. The government's contribution would be $500 for every person at birth and would grow tax-free.

Pretty awesome if you ask me. The disappointing thing is that none of this will ever happen. The NEA is a force within both the Democratic party and the state legislatures in most states. They value the status quo. They think money, and money alone, is the magic bullet that will fix America's schools. They grade politicians with an "F" who don't buy into their status-quo-protecting ideal.

But may we see that there are indeed tough choices that must be made, and if they are not, we are in real trouble. May the Left lose their grip on the schools and free them to do what's best for students, not what's best for teachers.

The Second Fiddle

2006-12-20T08:25:00.000-05:00

As many of us here at the VoterVault have been discussing, the Democrats have star power on their side. The three media darlings of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards stand as a political powerhouse. The GOP side has only one bright star who may be able to (but won't) match the draw of the Democratic Trifecta: John McCain.

McCain obviously wants to be president. His exploratory committee has a website, in which he poses in a series of glamor shots like this one:
As we all know, McCain has some serious problems with the conservative base. He is a maverick, sides with the President on immigration, is a member of the Gang of 14 (the moderate group of Senators who compromised over judicial nominees), drafted the McCain-Feingold bill on campaign finance reform (which many see as an assault on the first amendment), refused to vote for the federal marriage amendment, and would not stump for the marriage amendment in his own state.

Let's assume for one second that all these things and more will lead conservatives within the GOP to vote down McCain in the primaries. Who is the next in line?

Rudy Giuliani.

Giuliani has nearly as much star power as McCain. He has a solid public image. He is "America's Mayor". Rudy can run on his post-9/11 record as a strong leader. Close your eyes and you can envision his campaign commercials already: pictures of the city after 9/11 with Giuliani taking the reins. He is a mythical leadership hero.

But can he beat McCain in the primary?

Let's do a quick and dirty rundown of the McCain positions for which he is vilified, and see how Rudy compares:

Moderate on justices: McCain led the charge in the Gang of 14 to come up with a compromise with the Democrats, rather than leading the charge to get conservatives on the bench. Basically, he can't be trusted to fill the Court with strict constructionist justices.
- Giuliani: could be expected to do the same.
Immigration: McCain has supported the comprehensive approach to immigration reform, which many conservatives view as rewarding those who broke our laws to get into this country.
- Giuliani: as mayor was even softer on immigration than McCain.
Campaign Finance Reform: McCain wrote the bill that enlarges the government bureaucracy and assails free speech, and simultaneously fails to control the influence of money on politics.
- Giuliani supports the bill and has been willing to attack free speech when it is politically convenient for him.
Gay Marriage: McCain voted against the federal marriage amendment, and though his official stance was in favor of his state's ban on gay marriage, he refused to campaign for it.
- Giuliani is openly pro-gay marriage.
Hostile to religious conservatives: McCain blasted the Religious Right after his 2000 primary loss to 43 (something for which I cannot blame him, as I discussed here). Only recently has he begun to play to the Religious Right and court their vote.
- Giuliani: If McCain is not religiously conservative enough, then Rudy must be downright anathema to them.

We here on the conservative side see a McCain nomination as a weakening the conservative presence within the Republican party. As we study the candidates, what is clear is that the liberals have solidified their position within the Democratic party and the moderates are on the rise on the Right.

Is there a conservative candidate out there who can knock off both McCain and Giuliani? Is it Brownback? Doubt it. Is is Huckabee? Who's Huckabee? Is it the stormin' Mormin', Mitt Romney? Likely unelectable.

I am far from suggesting that conservatives suck it up and vote for McCain or Giuliani. My point is simply this: at this point conservatives are faced with a choice: do we want to vote for someone who can win to keep a member of the Trifecta out of office? Or are we to vote our conscience, vote for a true conservative who is less likely to win the general election, and hope to make the GOP more conservative?

Here we are, 14 months from the primaries, and the options are bleak. May things change, and change dramatically.

Primary Assault

2006-12-19T10:04:00.000-05:00

Parties hate primaries for many reason, and we are heading headlong into primary season.

Though I would like to see some modifications to our primary system nationwide, there is one major strength the current process possesses: it ensures that the candidate who emerges will be battle-tested by his/her own party. The weakest are weeded out in a rather Darwinian fashion. The strong survive, the weak perish.

That was what was running through my head as I read yet another article about Barack Obama. This article, however, was quite different than any other on the subject. It focused on why Obama might not run. If you have time, I encourage you to read the whole thing. If not, here are some highlights:

Just as I mentioned in this post, the author notes that "Mr. Obama is also smart enough to know that he has become too popular too quickly. His supporters are doing him a disservice with their indifference to his lack of experience."
Hillary's side is already preparing Obamattacks against him like "Just a little while ago, he was in Springfield worrying about license-tag fees"
Obama still represents somewhat of an "empty vessel" into which people are pouring their hopes. Being an empty vessel can very quickly turn into being viewed as an empty suit instead.

The thing that the parties hate most about the primaries is that they are a civil war. One of the huge advantages Bush had over Kerry is that he did not have a primary fight. Kerry emerged early, but nonetheless had been battered by the likes of Dean and Gephardt. Now It's the Democratic trifecta who will beat up on each other for a while. Unless Obama and Hillary come to an agreement to run together (Clinton for Pres. and Obama as VP), this could get ugly. As long as it's a three-way race, Edwards will be forced to play the most agressive, and therefore the most attacking campaign.

There is another big attack line against Obama that will come from the Clinton people, though not from Clinton herself. Hillary has spent the better part of three years running away from the Left and trying to appear moderate. She got herself appointed to the Armed Services Committee to bolster her foreign policy experience. She refused until just this week to bash the Iraq War. She voted for the War to begin with. She has been following the traditional (Bill) Clinton school of politics. Here's where the big attack on Obama will come:

On Obama's liberalism: "The fact that he originally opposed the war in Iraq would help him with primary voters, but it's unclear how many Democrats want to plump for someone who, according to National Journal, has a more liberal voting record than Hillary Clinton. Last year Mr. Obama had a perfect 100% voting record from both the Americans for Democratic Action and the AFL-CIO...[And] his record as a state legislator is even more liberal. In 1996, he spoke out against the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Senate approved 85-14 and Mr. Clinton signed into law. He twice voted "present" on a bill to ban partial-birth abortions. In 1999 he was the only state senator to oppose a law that prohibited early prison release for sex offenders. Is anyone naive enough to believe Mrs. Clinton wouldn't use those positions as evidence that he couldn't win?"

Yes, she can, and yes, she will. "Barack Hussein Obama is too liberal to get elected" will be her rallying cry. That is, unless they form an alliance before that.Obviously, a Clinton-Obama alliance would be horrific for the Red Team. It would merge the star power of the two and further marginalize McCain or (insert seriously-unlikely-to-win-candidate here). Perhaps each of their own political ambitions will prevent such an alliance. Perhaps Clinton will bash him into oblivion. Those, however, seem at this point like wishful thinking.

The most hopeful perspective for those of us on the Right is this scenario: Clinton sees Barack as her only serious competition. She bashes him and bashes him until he approaches her and offers to be her VP. They run together and America is truly opposed to Hillary. Her public image tanks (unlikely, seeing as how she has become so politically skilled), and America votes against her rather than for the Red Team.

Not a great outlook, I know. But lots can change in 22 months. Here's to hoping.

[Editor's Note:If you have not yet, and you have a chance, check out the comments on yesterday's post. Lots of great comments from some really intelligent folks. [End Editor's Note]

The Pretty Pony

2006-12-18T11:00:00.000-05:00

They are refusing to confirm or deny it, but it appears that John Edwards, the former Vice Presidential nominee, is throwing his name in the hat for a presidential run in '08. His political skills are solid. His Southern accent a plus. His looks...well, he's long been noticed by the ladies.Edwards is joining a field that is dominated by political celebrities in Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. While Edwards may fall far short of their celebrity status, he can certainly hold his own among them.

Ponder this question for a while: can the GOP match the star power of this Democratic trifecta?

As we sit still over 22 months away from the Presidential election, it appears that no matter who the Red Team fields in '08, he/she will be over matched. Even John McCain, with his strong positioning as a moderate and a war hawk, pails in comparison to the media attention lavished on the Big Three Dems.

To a large degree the media has created these political giants. In the Freakshow age, it is likely that only the media could bring them down. At this point, both Clinton and Edwards are relatively battle-tested. As discussed earlier, Obama is at the mercy of the Freakshow, and sadly could lose control of his public image relatively easily.

Hillary was destroyed by the Freakshow in the early years of Bill Clinton's first term. She led the charge to socialize health care and faced backlash in both the media and the electorate. She became the face of the imposing, big, impersonal, wasteful, socialized government. They even created a word to symbolize the debacle that was her health care initiative: hillarycare.

Having been destroyed in the last decade, she has rebuilt even stronger in this one.

Edwards has never been destroyed by the Freakshow, nor has he been squarely in its sights for any extended period of time. Nevertheless, he has tasted enough of it, and has shown an ability to navigate its minefields. He is silver-tongued and his "Two-Americas" mantra has the ability to be useful in both the primaries and the general election. That is a sing of a quality message, despite the fact that it's loaded with liberal though about how to address that problem.

McCain has a cozy relationship with the media, but with his age, his party affiliation, and his propensity to go against his party just to be the maverick, he is constantly in danger of losing control of his public image to the Freakshow that is the American political culture.

22 months away, but all signs indicate that this election will be fought in the Democratic primary. I hope things change, but the Pretty Pony's entrance into the race is certainly an indication that the Democratic field is jam-packed. The GOP field, on the other hand, is looking pretty sparse.

Senate in the Balance

2006-12-15T10:30:00.000-05:00

The Democrats slimmest of majorities might is in danger.

Democrat Tim Johnson of South Dakota, as many of you know, has suffered a brain hemorrhage, undergone brain surgery, and is in critical condition. In critical condition as well is the Democratic control of the Senate. Should Johnson be unable to return to office the Governor of South Dakota would have the power to appoint a replacement until a new election could be held in 2008 (which also happens to be when Johnson's term expires).

South Dakota's Governor is a Republican. As such, he would likely replace Johnson with a fellow GOPer, which would send the Senate to a 50-50 tie, with Vice President Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote. The result would be that the GOP would retain control of the Senate.

Many conservatives are very excited about this possibility. I for one am not.

Call me a compassionate conservative, but I cannot in good conscience get excited about benefiting from someone else's suffering. I cannot look at the situation at root against Senator Johnson. I can't even bring myself to dispassionately look at the circumstances and become even slightly happy about this situation.

Frankly, I don't want my party of choice to get control like this. I'd rather lose the Senate than benefit from someone else's misfortune. This may be exactly why I would not make a good politician. I can't be a cold-hearted political animal. Yes, I can be cold-hearted. But not like that.

Despite saying this, of course we have to look at the possibility of what would happen if Johnson is unable to recover. I would refer you to this post, in which I argue that the Democrats may have weakened their overall positioning for 2008 by taking the Senate. If the GOP retains control the Democrats get all the advantages they lost by winning the Senate. To recap:

Had the Democrats won the House but lost the Senate, here's what they could have done:
Played the role of a fierce opposition, fighting the mighty Republican empire, plagued with corruption, ineptitude, and general evil.
Laid the blame for all things Iraq at the feet of Republicans.
Maintained the brilliant political tactic of vague and loud opposition to the war, without having to articulate any clear, unified position for what to do about it.
Kept beating the drum of "change for the sake of change" going into the presidential election in 2008
Continued the strategy of attack, name-call, and paint the world in the colors of negativity
Being in the minority is always easier that being in power. Majority= you are always on defense, justifying your positions and proving that you have produced results. Minority= playing offense (yell and scream about everything; say how horrible the world is).

Controlling the Senate might actually weaken the GOP position for 2008. The big benefit would be the power to control who would be on the Supreme Court, should a vacancy arise.

All that aside, our prayers and thoughts go out to Senator Johnson and his family. May he recover fully.

Tyranny of the Minority

2006-12-14T09:00:00.000-05:00

By now most of you should have heard about the hullabaloo in Seattle over the Christmas trees in their airport. If you have not, here is the link.

There has been much said about this uproar already, so I will not waste your time rehashing all the arguments about this event itself. What is more important is the backdrop that allowed this situation to occur.

American society and culture has fallen under the power of an ominous tyranny of the minority.

We have entered an era where any discomfort, any disparity, and any irritation that is suffered by someone in a non-majority group requires that the majority change. This is not just happening with Christmas trees, but in all types of areas involving all types of people. Take for example the case involving U.S. currency. Recently an advocacy group for the blind sued the U.S. government, claiming that American paper money is discriminatory because the blind can't tell bills apart. Rather than using the democratic process to affect this change, they went to the courts, who could subvert the system through judicial activism.

Our paper money has been "discriminatory" for decades and decades. Why sue now? Why now take this issue to the courts? Two reasons: 1) As I've discussed before, judicial activists now feel it is their duty to push their "enlightened" perspective onto the rest of us; and 2) We've come to the point that our society bends over backward for anyone who is not in the majority. Our society has changed.

For generations upon generations it was understood that being in a group other than the majority meant having to deal with this reality. Obviously, gross abuses like discrimination, racism, sexism, and the like cannot be tolerated and must be addressed by any means necessary. But we have long since left that realm when dealing with things like seeing a Christmas tree in an airport, or having to ask the banker which bill is which, or having to hear Christmas music in the mall, or having to go to the office Christmas party.

We live in a country that is predominately Christian, even if only culturally so. We live in a country that can mostly see. Because you do not like the fact that you live in a country that is unlike you does not give you the right to demand that everyone else change so that you can feel like you are part of the majority.

Yes, the government cannot endorse one religion over another, but to a certain degree the government reflects the people it governs.

So we've changed it to the "holiday tree", we've changed them to "holiday parties", we've changed it to "winter break", we've changed them to "holiday concerts". We bend over backward for the minority. It is their country now. The minority, no matter what minority, may make nearly any demand of the majority, and the majority folds. Racism, sexism, and outright discrimination must be addressed by the system.

The problem is, this is more than just a systematic, governmental problem. In the nuanced areas where this battle is being fought it is a battle for control over our culture. Will we have a moral, religious society, or a secular-liberal one. Culture must be democratically decided.

As for now, it's not. It's a tyranny of the minority.

Serious Ideas Done Right

2006-12-13T06:00:00.000-05:00

When in Washington, D.C. a few weeks ago I did something that no other normal human being would have done: I spent an afternoon visiting a think tank. There was no tour group, and it wasn't one of the sessions at the conference I was attending. No, I did this for fun. And yes, I had tons of fun.

The think tank in question was the Cato Institute.Cato is a libertarian organization. A quick (ridiculously oversimplified) overview of libertarian thought goes as follows: Libertarians are committed to freedom in all aspects of life; limited government is their mantra (though in the most radical sectors the word "anarchy" is spoken in whispers); government involvement is almost always bad; anything that takes away your right to do what you wish must be eliminated.

For about two and a half hours a student relations manager (no, I'm not a student, but I don't think they knew who else to send out to deal with a guy in town who just wanted to talk politics) and I sat and talked about their ideas and philosophy. Please keep in mind that there is no one authoritative voice on libertarian thought, but here's a short list of the things that came out of our conversation:

Though I am not a libertarian, I respect their ideas deeply
They hold the Constitution in high regard, often going so far as to physically hold it up in mid-argument to make a point
Because they hold the Constitution so highly, they find judicial activism highly suspect, which endears them to me a great deal
They have a firm grasp of their position in society and do not expect to gain any ground in the political system
Therefore they focus on winning arguments and trying to move people one step at a time closer to their ideals
Many of them don't vote
Those that do vote (those who don't vote for the Libertarian party) find conservative thought more appealing than liberal thought, though not always
As with any set of overarching ideas, there is no single authoritative source, and therefore there is vigorous debate as to how to best achieve the most liberty for the most people
They love the free market--especially the free market of ideas

Like I said, I am not a libertarian. I am a conservative. Libertarians are very socially liberal. Though I disagree with them in this realm, I find their arguments in this area quite reasonable, unlike the arguments that come from traditional social liberals.

One thing the Cato Representative told me was quite interesting: someone did a study of university professors regarding their political philosophy. Though it has long been known that college professors are by-and-large a bunch of bleeding hearts, this study delved into specific issues of policy. One of the findings was quite astonishing: of the profs who claimed to be "liberal", their answers on specific policy questions lined up almost perfectly with the Democratic party's platform. However, of those professors who called themselves "conservative", and who vote Republican, there was a great deal of diversity in the responses to policy questions. The way the Cato rep summarized it to me went like this:

When looking at conservatives and liberals within the political system, liberals typically all toe the same line. Even though they talk about 'diversity', their ideas are basically homogeneous. However, when conservatives or Republicans talk about having a 'big-tent', it seems like they mean it.

The majority of libertarians who vote (and who don't vote for the Libertarian Party) vote Republican, in large part, because their ideas are welcome within the tent, even if only to a limited degree.

Let me bottom line for you why I deeply respect the Cato Institute: they are rational and reasonable, even when their ideas are so extreme as to be completely untenable. For example, I was trying to find articles to put together a pro-con piece on welfare when I came across an article from Cato. The conclusion: end welfare all together. I laughed out loud, not because the idea was crazy--to the contrary, the article was cool-headed, thoughful, intelligent, and well-written--but because that is quite obviously a political non-starter. That is what is excellent about their organization. They do not put out empassioned, emotional PR pieces. They do not have to (and don't want to) win the votes of Joe American. They want to convince. They want to persuade. They want to move people one step closer to their goal of a more free America. Democrats and Republicans can't do this.

Imagine if they could, though. America would be a much more civil, much more intelligent, much more pleasant place.

Even if we reject their ideas, may we act, talk, and reason like these people.

Obama by the Ads

2006-12-12T06:00:00.000-05:00

The election has been over for a month. Hopefully by now our anger, disgust, and disdain toward all the negative ads has subsided enough that we can have a frank discussion about why these are so bad.

In order to have a concrete understanding of the depth of awfulness that these ads embody let us embark on a case study: Barack Obama.There are rumors and articles on a daily basis on Obama's likely presidential run. He made the very overt step of visiting New Hampshire this past week. So basically, he's running. Everyone seems to love him. He is very endearing, very well-spoken, very charismatic, and very attractive. I've heard lots of people very excited about this rising star. He talks about hope, about his upbringing in poverty, and about his faith. It's no wonder that people are drawn to him.

However, it has long been understood that his biggest weakness is his lack of experience. Usually when someone says "I really like Barack Obama" I ask them what he has done that they like. Invariably, they revert to "he's smart, he's charismatic, he seems very nice...I just like him." Fair enough. However, this is the big problem for Barack: he has impressed them with his looks, charm, personality, and talking points, and they have fallen in love. But this love is built on a foundation of his persona.

Foundations built on personality are inherently susceptible to collapse.

In the minds of most Americans, Barack is not clearly defined. His book about hope got him a ton of press, especially when he went on Oprah, but it has not cemented in the mind of Joe American who this guy is.

Enter political ads.

In our fast-food, YouTube, CNN, Infotainment culture, Americans have a very short attention span. If you are reading this blog (and especially this far down in a post) you are not likely one of those people who are easily swayed by political ads. Unfortunately, you are not like most people. Joe American can be easily swayed. If he couldn't, politicians would not use negative ads. If Joe American were rational, reasonable, and truly took the time to sort through complex issues, negative ads would be a thing of the past. Sadly, they are not.

These ads are designed to appeal to our emotions, whether it be fear, anger, disgust, hatred, or all of the above. Since they are rooted in an appeal to emotion, they are by definition not concerned with being reasonable. Let's take for example just two ads (one Republican, one Democrat):

GASP! SHOCK! CHAGRIN! This sex-crazed, tax-payer-abusing piece of slime wants our vote?! That's our political culture. What you don't know and won't see unless you research it is that the "call to a phone sex line" lasted only a few seconds and the phone number shares the same last seven numbers as a state department phone number. Obviously, someone dialed the wrong area code and immediately hung up. But this is the Freakshow. There is no room for reason or decency--only emotion. How 'bout this one:

WHAT A TROOP-HATING BASTARD! Yeah, only one problem: every statement of fact was proved wrong. Every bit of it (yes, every bit) was a bold-faced lie. The supposed "vote against" body armor for the troops was an amendment to give over a billion dollars for unspecified items for the national guard. When pressed for more specifics, the amendment's sponsor said it would go to "skin exposure reduction paste" (read: sunscreen), "mobile chemical agent detectors", and "collective shelters" in case of chemical attacks in Iraq. While we can debate the merits of those things, what is clear is that the claim that the politician voted against armor for the troops is a load of crap. But what an emotional load of crap it was.

Let me get to my point. I don't know if Barack Obama would make a good president. Despite being a very politically-informed person, I can't tell you what he would do as president. I can't tell you what his most firmly held positions are, or what policies he firmly opposes. What I do know is this: political ads will not help me understand who this man is or what he would do as president.

Most likely, because Obama's image is not built on a foundation that has stood the test of time, a series of negative attack ads have the potential to destroy him before his campaign gets very far off the ground. These attacks will likely come from other Democrats in the primaries. In the end, since I'm a conservative, I will likely vote against Obama, but that fact makes me no less sad that our unintelligent political culture is positioned to destroy him so someone else can gain power.

This culture of attack will only take you and me further from understanding the truth. It will certainly take both you and me further away from any kind of rational discussion about what is best for the country. If we never discuss what is best for the country we cannot understand who is best fit to lead us there.

Political ads may make you and me vote a certain way, but if we do not rise above them we are just playing roulette with the future of America.

Glimpse of Greatness

2006-12-11T13:15:00.000-05:00

Much apologies about the late post today--the weekend was packed with all work, no play. Instead of just throwing something together to get a post up, I would ask you to take the four minutes you usually spend reading The VoterVault, and spend them listening to
this response President Bush gave to a BBC reporter during the Bush-Blair press conference last week. We all know 43 is a horrible communicator, but in this 4-ish minute rant, Bush displays the kind of fire rarely seen/heard from him. This is one of the few (if only) times Bush has seemed Reaganesque, Kennedyesque, FDResque, or even inspiringesque. Where has this guy been, and can he please come out and stay for a while?

America, the Beautiful

2006-12-08T08:45:00.000-05:00

There's a guy I work with who can complain about anything.

Last year our employer, right before Christmas, gave us what amounted to a bonus. Of course it wasn't actually a bonus, but we got money that we did not earn. That's a bonus in my book. Somehow this guy found a way to complain about it. It was amazing. A few months later he also complained that our employer re-painted one of the hallways white (yes, it was white before). Free money and fresh paint: yup, I guess that's worth complaining about. Some people can really make you think that life is terrible, and that the world is falling apart.

Thinking about that guy made me realize what a great country we live in. I haven't been to all the countries of the world, but I have god reason to ssuspect that the U.S. is the greatest country going. If you are spending your complaining time on free money, life must be pretty awesome.

If my co-worker lived in some other countries, here's what he could complain about (by country):

China: those Communi--(insert mysterious disappearing here)
Finland: free hospital lines are outrageous
Canada and Europe: taxes
Venezuala: white pai--(insert mysterious disappreaing here)
Russia: the government "officials" glow
Mexico: the lack of free transportation to my border crossing
France: America
Iraq: Those lousy Shi'i--(insert death squad here)

I guess things aren't so bad here after all. In fact, we have it so good we don't even know it. There is so much good here in the U.S., we are rolling in awesomness. To list everything that's great about America would take days, nay, weeks. But all we hear is how crappy everything is.

Several weeks ago, shortly before the election, I got to go to a special roundtable discussion with several professors, political operatives, lawyers (read: bastards), educational leaders, etc. The topic was the election and the state of our government. As it neared the end the tone became increasingly critical about our government structure. Particularly, they were complaining that our Congress is not representative enough of the people. As the tone dragged on I raised my hand and asked the group "if you were studying comparative politics, and you could choose America's government, or any one else's government, which would you choose? No one could suggest a government system that is better than ours.

For all our flaws, for all our crap, for all our poor, for all our inequity, it doesn't get any better than here. Sure, tell me about how great France's worker's rights are. I'll tell you about their unemployment and job growth. Tell me about Canada's health care, and I'll tell you about their taxes and the low quality of their care. Tell me about any one part of another country that's great, nay, better than America, and I'll give you that point. Show me another country's government that, on the whole, is better than America's. I doubt such a thing exists.

Perfect is not an option. No one ever said it was. We should never stop working to make this country a better place. But let us not lose sight of the big picture in our gripes. Life is not fair and never will be, but life, here in America, is great.

Civility War

2006-12-07T06:00:00.000-05:00

Iraq is the defining feature of our time. There seems to be an hourly happening there, none of it good. There also seems to be an hourly update on something somebody somewhere said about it. If these people have something important to say that will move us forward to finding the best possible solution there, I'm all for it. We need to have a vigorous debate on where to go from here in Iraq. That would be for the good of the country.

Unfotunately, the majority of politicians refuse to have any Iraq debate without playing the political games of backhanded name-calling. Let's take a case-in-point from our old buddy, Al Gore.Former Vice President Gore went on the Today Show yesterday morning and talked at length with Matt Lauer. Let's leave aside all the intense liberal bial from Lauer (who rather than asking Gore if he planned run for president, basically pleaded for him to do so) and just focus on what Gore said about the War. Here was his first comment:

This was the worst strategic mistake in the entire history of the United States...

Then this one,

But I would urge the President not to, to try to separate out the, the, the personal issues of being, of being blamed in history for this mistake and instead recognize it's not about him, it's about our country and we all have to find a way to get our troops home and, and to prevent a regional conflagration there.

Then this one,

This is the equivalent of a car wreck....

What the former VP said was not necessarily untrue. Though there can be rational--and even strong--defenses for invading Iraq, no one can deny any longer that what is going on there is nothing short of a worst-case scenario. This might well be an "utter disaster" a "mistake" and akin to "a car wreck". My point is not to tear down the former VP for saying these things. My point is that saying these things is not helpful to move us forward.

Those leading this country--and especially those who may have ambitions of being the executive leader of the nation--must now lead. We need people to step up and say, "this is the way to go; follow me". What did Gore do? He rehashed what happened three years ago. In his arrogance, even when he talked about doing what's "best for the country", he said President Bush needs to not worry about "being blamed in history" for what has happend. Why didn't the former VP talk at length about what we should do now? Lauer even asked him directly if he would pull the troops out. Gore didn't answer. Instead, what did he do? Personal attack, personal attack, personal attack.

We can't go back to 2003 and uninvade Iraq, yet we keep going back to 2003 in our discourse.

It's hard to imagine our great leaders blaming each other for the past rather than moving the country forward. Imagine Lincoln standing up at Gettysburg and saying "man, this Civil War is a wagonwreck. Look at all these dead guys. This is the worst strategic blunder in our nation's history. Thanks alot, John Calhoun." Or envision Washington, his troops bloodied by the British saying, dealing with a constant barrage of "signing the Declaration of Independence was the biggest mistake this country has ever made. We should have found a diplomatic solution to gain our freedom."

It is not my intent to insult your intelligence by equating Iraq to Emancipation, or Baghdad to Bunker Hill, but my point remains: in times of trouble great leaders lead. They do not blame. They do not focus on what brought them their travails. They get to work and they get to leading.

Who is our Lincoln? Who is our Washington? Who is our Jackson? What is more, who are the people who will support such a person when he/she stands up to take charge? Will the Freakshow force them to go back to the politics of bash and blame?

We must leave behind the politics of destruction.

If Al Gore--or anyone else for that matter--wants the ticket to the Oval Office, that person should stand up and say, "we all know Iraq is a mess, but focusing on what got us here takes the focus off of how to get us moving forward. We need to focus on how to do what's best for Iraq and for America. Leave behind the politics of bash and blame. America is a great nation, and we will not lay down and wallow in defeaat. Follow me as we find a way forward."

That's a leader, regardless of party, I could get behind. Couldn't we all.

Political Celebrities

2006-12-06T06:30:00.000-05:00

Walking around our nation's capital taught me a great deal. All the usual tourist hotspots were bustling--the Capital; the White House; the Lincoln Memorial; the War Memorials; etc. Being the nerd that I am, I visited all of them. Being the extreme nerd I took it one step furter. Despite the fact that Congress was not in session, I went to the offices of the Congressmen from my area, and both of my state's Senators' offices (at least while Talent's office is still Talent's office). The halls were long and mostly empty. The pace was slow.

All of the staffers were still there, fielding phone calls and checking their e-mail (or looking for jobs if their candidate lost). They were generally nice people. Talent's were particuarly friendly. I also stopped by McCain's office--his staffers are quite funny and realistic, noting that their guy is the front-runner "for now".

Walking around the Congressional offices produces an amazing feeling: these are real people. Those we lambast, praise, vote for, vote against, support, curse, and treat as political celebrities are real people. They have to walk down those long halls. They have to obey the "don't walk" sign between their offices and Congress. They have to open those huge office doors. They have to ask their staff who called. It's not some giant TV show, and it's not just stuff that happens in the newspaper.

The Freak Show that is American politics has made it all to easy to pretend that these people aren't real. In the mind of Joe American they are all playing one big reality TV show. If one of them screws up they get voted off.

This is more than a TV show, though. This is the future of our country and, in turn, the future of the world. The people who grace those offices have to be amazing people. They must be the ones who are simultaneously serious enough to handle foreign affairs, domestic policy, economic theory, and the like. Yet at the same time they must be nimble, agile, and creative enough to avoid the "gottcha" media, the mudslinging, the YouTube generation, and the Freakshow itself. Walking around their offices makes it all the more impressive that these officials are not actors--they are real people who have done one heck of a job to inherit that office.

While there are plenty of positive things to be said about these folks, the reality is that ideas matter. Policy matters. Decisions matter. These very real people have the potential to do both very real good and very real harm. The person who will become the 44th president will be the one to walk the fine line between utilizing the Freakshow and having the Freakshow blow up in his/her face.

There are tons of great things to be said about the advancements in technology and media. People can now have access to nearly anything a politician says. You can send him/her an e-mail. You can call his/her office. You can blog about them. You can see that person in real-time debating ideas. All of this is great for democracy. Unfortunately, the negative inevitably comes with the positive.

One of those negatives is that we now treat our politicians like celebrities, rather than as our representatives. It's now more about how Hillary looked or sounded doing something, than what she was actually doing. Press conferences have become about raising one's stature rather than raising the issues. Commercials are meant to tug your heartstrings. It sucks.

Here's how you can tell who will be President in 2008. When a candidate starts to become a front-runner, ask "what image do I have of this person in my head". Then ask "is this the image this person wants me to have". If then answer to question number two is "yes", that person has a real shot at becoming president. If the answer is "no", write that person off.

We'll talk more about this in the coming months as the candidates begin to emerge and shape their images. For now, keep this in mind: these real people live in the world of serious ideas, but must win in the world of serious celebrity. The one who can shape his/her celebrity image to that of a serious, hardworking, idea-driven, likable candidate will win. Guaranteed. The one who loses control of their image will lose.

[Editor's note] If you live in Texas, take note that at least one of Kay Baily Hutchinson's staffers is a real b----. I tried to make conversation with her on the elevator, only to get a look and furrowed brow that implied "sure, Congress is not in session, and I'm running meaningless errands, but I'm too busy doing absolutley nothing to consider your existence". You should probably write your Senator and tell her as much. Coming from a Texan, it might mean something. [End Editor's Note]

A Bad Case of Baselash

2006-12-05T06:00:00.000-05:00

From 1999 to early 2005 President Bush enjoyed the favor of 51% of Americans. Despite the intense hatred against him from the Far Left, he walked the fine line of placating the base, while taking some strong and very visible stands in the opposite direction, thus helping his standing with moderates. He worked this masterfully for a long while. The base tolerated his occassional jaunts off the conservative trail (such as the prescription drug benefit) because they saw that such moves were taken with an eye to preserving the political success of the movement as a whole. That time has past.

Bush has lost the base.

The dynamics of 43's presidency changed dramatically after his re-election. Events turned against him and there was no longer the constant threat of a Democratic presidency to rally the base to his side. Without that driving motivation, and without wild success in foreign policy, the base was tired. As Halperin and Harris point out in their book The Way to Win, "There is a thin line between rallying the base and being trampled by the horde".

43 has been trampled by the horde. Worse, he does not have the political capital to restore order among the rank-and-file. This happened not long after his second innagural address. The President laid a three-strike whammy on the base and lost them for good.

Strike One: Harriet Miers. The ultimate treasure of one's party winning the presidency is nominating members of the Supreme Court. When Clinton won, who did he choose? None other than the chief counsel of the ACLU. The ACLU for goodness' sake. The ultra liberals. The Far Left incarnate. That was his right. He won, and he got the prize. Conservatives gave her the up-or-down vote she deserved, and that was that. 20-40 years of the ACLU on the Court. It makes my blood boil, but that's how it is. I, like all other conservatives, must get over it. He won. That's his right. But then our guy won. The swing vote on the Court retired. The Chief Justice died. One solid conservative (Roberts) replaced the Chief. And who does 43 choose to create the new conservative majority? Harriet Miers. Harriet Freakin' Miers. Conservative firebrand? No. Solid conservative record? No. Enough to make Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer squirm? No. The base took a step back.Strike Two: Dubai. Oh, someone wants to buy our ports? This company (or its owner, the United Arab Emirates) has had ties to terrorism? No big deal. Hey, it's a free market, right? The problem with this move was not even that it was a bad one within itself. Dubai has a solid history of operating ports in Western countries without incident. The problem with this move was that it was so gallactically stupid on a PR level as to make every conservative in America as "where the h--- is Rove and why is he letting his team be so moronic?" And the base took another step back.Strike Three: Immigration. Without question there is a free-market-for-labor crowd within the conservative movement. They are well-reasoned and well-meaning. But on the PR level, they are a lost cause. Safety. Security. Rule of Law. These things are paramount among the base as a whole, and among swing voters. Arguing for any position--no matter how nuanced and intellectually honest--that is soft on people who broke the law will incite backlash among the voters. Especially among the base. And the rallying base becomes a trampling horde.This last strike is rearing its ugly head once again.

Yesterday it came out that the Democrats are planning on passing an immigration reform bill that makes it basically painless for people to break our laws, break our borders, come here illegally, pay a fine, and voila! they can jump right on the path to legal citizenship. The rub of it is that 43 agrees with them.

Congress and the President will dress this bill up nice and pretty as anything but amnesty, but in the end we all know the truth. This is amnesty lite. It doesn't matter that most Americans oppose amnesty. It doesn't matter that the vast majority of the conservative base opposes amnesty. 43 no longer needs the base to win office. He has entered the lame-duck years. This is to our country's peril. There are even rumors that the Dems will cut the funding for the 700-mile double layer fencing to be build along the Mexico border. Frankly, I hope they do. Why? That will create a backlash against them.

Here's the big picture as we gear up for '08. The base is fragmented and disenchanted. Is there anyone who can put this broken picture of a movement back together? Can McCain? Can Guilliani? Can Romney? Can Anyone? It will take a master to rally the base without it becoming the stampeeding horde.

For now there is no master on the horizon. May we fine him/her, and may he/she come to our rescue.

Outside the Bubble

2006-12-04T06:00:00.000-05:00

[Editor's Note]Before getting down to business, I apologize for not posting at the end of last week. I was in Washington, D.C. for a conference and did not have a laptop (nor the time) to post. Those of you who read on a regular basis know that the VoterVault is a five-day-per-week operation, so next time I something like that goes down I'll line up some guest posts.[End Editor's Note]

The last five days I had the privilege of visiting our nation's capital. It is an amazing place that at once inspires awe, wonder, and cynicism. The things I saw and learned there will inform my analysis of politics for a long time.

One of the things I learned happened before I even arrived at my hotel: we all live in a bubble. Some of our bubbles are very big, and some are very small, but we are nonetheless in our own sphere. There is something awakening about being thrust outside of one's own bubble. It is invigorating to be brought face-to-face with people and places outside your world.

Two people I met taught me this.

The first person was a young woman on the plane. She boarded at the last second with her four small children. Somehow she was navigating kids aged 7, 5, 3, and an infant across the country by herself, and her children all were very well behaved. By the time we were halfway through the flight she had impressed me very much. She noticed the book that I was reading about politics; that got us talking. Without saying so specifically, it was clear that she used to identify herself as a conservative, but has been turned off by, as she put it, "the money in politics". Reading between the lines, she was tired of scandal. Seeing as how she lives in Virginia, she no doubt was one of those who delivered the Senate to the Democrats.

She did not seem angry or frustrated, just tired of the way things work in Washington. That's something the President campaigned on way back in 2000--he was an outsider. He was going to restore dignity in Washington. Despite the fact that this was an impossible mission from the start, this much is clear: for the GOP to retake the government will mean recapturing the high road and working for the people. It will mean not just talking values, but showing values, from the party leadership on down, and from the grassroots up to the top. Maybe then we can get back the vote of that stay-at-home mother of four.

The second person I met was a Lt. Colonel stationed at the Pentagon. When traveling (which is rarely) I like to shake the hand of every military officer I see and thank them for serving our country. After shaking his hand in the security line, little did I know that he and I would be on the same flight. We got to talking about the War on Terror, Iraq, and the President.

The Lt. Colonel served on the ground in the First Gulf War. He expressed great support for the President and the War, but wished we had taken out Saddam back in 1991. The thing that struck me more than anything else, though, was his fear for the War going forward. He's not concerned about increasing sectarian violence. He's not worried about al-Maliki's ability to govern. He's not even worried about rising or falling troop levels.

What's he worried about? The politicians.

In this War we are at a crossroads. What he is concerned about is politicians making decisions that will effect the future of the world. As they make these decisions, some of them care more about making decisions that will help them (or their party) win than about doing what is best and right.

It is not my point today to get into the minutiae of thier points. Instead, my point is that it is good to have dialogue. It is good to ask people about their views. It is good to hear the perspective of different people. We need to have an open, intelligent discussion about where we are going as a country.

After talking politics for ten minutes the mom with four kids asked me which side of the aisle I was on. For the first time in my life when not in front of students I refused to answer. I told her, "I'm concerned with the direction of the country, and I think we can have an open discussion about what is best for America without dividing into competing camps." She agreed.

As a partisan, I am firmly convinced that our answers to the pressing questions facing the country are better than theirs. Those arguments will stand or fall on their own merit when we make the discussion about ideas, not party or personality.

It's good to get out of our bubbles. It's great to talk to the people we meet there. It's best to do it in a constructive way. May we do just that.

Why Lawyers Suck

2006-11-29T06:00:00.000-05:00

There is lots of animosity in this country toward lawyers. Need proof?

It's not that I hate people who are lawyers. I have many lawyer friends, most of whom are genuinely kind people--kind, at least, in the situations where I usually find them. They can be giving, caring, compassionate, sincere, and trustworthy people.

But for some reason, however, you can take a person with all those great qualities, put them through four years of legal training, stick a suit on them, throw them in front of a judge, and they turn into the spawn of Satan. What is wrong with these people?

There can, in fact, be lawyers who are not perpetually evil. They are the exception. I'm talking about the other 97% (yes, 3% is being very generous).

Here are my reasons for despising this profession (yes, they all bear on politics):

Have you ever tried to read a legal document? Enough said. You know why they have to write it that way? Two reasons: 1) It ensures that you need to hire another one of them to understand it; 2) If they didn't write it that way one of their bretheren would come in, say it was too vague or too specific or too clear or not clear enough and would sue the pants off someone.

I loathe judicial activism

In the future I may well post a more dispassionate discussion of the negative effects of lawyers on America with more analysis, data, and argumentation. For now, let us realize that they are slowly but surely poisoning America with their flagrant disregard for personal responsibility.

A Corner on Compassion

2006-11-28T06:00:00.000-05:00

Recently I read an article discussing what is coming of twentysomething evangelicals regarding politics. The article presented a balanced view of how evangelicans are impacting the poltical landscape.

Somewhere from 75 to 85% of evangelicals have voted Republican during the last two election cycles. Nonetheless, there is a growing and vocal contingent of twentysomething evangelicals who consider themselves politically liberal. I go to a theologically conservative church that has a very non-traditional service format. This creates an interesting blend of persons and personalities who attend. Most of my friends there are those very twentysomething evangelicals on whom the article focused. And yes, several of them are politically liberal.

One line from that article caught my attention, and it is something I would like to flesh out a bit:

"Some religious voters are second-guessing their political commitments. In particular, twentysomething evangelicals are tuning in to issues related to social justice, fighting poverty and protecting the environment. And it's starting to affect how they think about politics."

The obvious implication here is that the conservative predominance of the evangelical community could be changing. While I can make no apology for conservatives' lack of concern for the environment, I take issue with the idea that liberals alone care for the poor and downtrodden.

Here's my question: do liberals have a corner on compassion?

If it is true that more young evangelicals are paying attention to issues of poverty and social justice, must it follow that they vote Democrat? Is it possible for someone to want to help the poor, yet be conservative? Can an evangelical want to end injustice but remain firmly on the Right?

If you read my Letter to the Religious Right you know that though I am an evangelical conservative, I am no fan of what is commonly identified as the Religious Right. The negative connotations associated with that term have been well-earned by the leaders of the movement who routinely make every religious voter look like a brain-dead Bible thumber. That's why we get bumber stickers that look like this:Sad. Christians have become identified with an ideology of stupidity, ignorance, and cold-heartedness. Don't mishear me: I do not think any of these things are true. I simply think the leaders of what is seen as the "Religious Right" have given people who hear them just cause to draw such conclusions.

All this begs the question, "if you are an evangelical Christian, and you care about helping the poor and outcast, must you vote Democrat?"

Conservatives have let the Left dominate the debate about helping the poor. Christians have fallen into the same trap. As an evangelical Christian, I genuinely want to help the poor. My wife and I give money to charities. We sponsor a child in a third-world country. We've given out blankets and food to the homeless in our area. We help those in our lives who are in need. So how is it that my identity as a conservative gives people the impression that I don't want to help the poor?

Simple: I think government does a bad job of helping the poor.

Conservatives have sat idly by and let the Left define care for the poor as support for handouts provided by a big, impersonal, high taxing government. I will give out of my pocket all the days of my life to help the poor, but I will oppose attempts to force me--and every other tax paying American--to give the government so that they, in their infinite wisdom, can give it to the poor. The problem with my view is all too clear: tons of people don't want to give, and if the government didn't mandate it, they would not. But that does not change the simple fact that the government does a bad job at helping the poor.

Government, because it's assistance is both value-free and responsibility-free, does an awful job at ending poverty.

It makes no attempt create self-sufficiency. It makes no attempt to end fatherlessness. It makes no attempt to end illigitimacy. It makes no attempt to end the use of crime, drugs, or alcohol. It makes no attempt to do anything but throw money at a problem.

Throwing money at poverty is like treating a stroke victim for arm pain: it is addressing a symptom, but not the root cause. Government is too big, too irresponsive, too bureaucratic, too value-free, and too impersonal to end poverty. To truly make a dent in poverty will take people helping people. It will take initiative on the part of charties, civic groups, charties, and, most importantly, Christians themselves. It will take an attitude change that says, "yes, I want to help". What it does NOT take is a vote for more handouts, higher taxes, bigger government, or any of the other "helping the poor" programs the enlightened Left touts.

Conservatives in general, and Christians in particular, need to redefine what it means to help the poor. The way the Left has always helped the poor is not helping. We need to take the lead in giving of ourselves and supporting organizations that move people from poverty to self-sufficiency. We need to practice what we preach and reach out to those in need.

I am a Christian, I want to help the poor, and yes, I am a conservative.

Moderation in Moderation

2006-11-27T06:00:00.000-05:00

Democratic takeover of Congress this year and the Republican Revolution of 1994 are not all together different.

To be clear, I stand behind my claims that, unlike 1994, this year people were voting against something, not for something. The Republican Revolution was about a core set of principles, and how those principles differed from those of the Democrats of the time. People rallied around those principles, and it was the crowning moment of 15+ years of the country's slow and steady move to the Right. This year was very, very different. It was all "Iraq sucks, Bush sucks, Republicans are all little Bushs, we need change". Very different from '94.

But there is one very important parallel to be drawn between the Revolution and 2006, and that is how the parties behaved afterward. After the Republican Revolution, Clinton was still president. That meant the Republicans would not be able to institute solidly conservative measures across the board. Anything the Democratic President deemed too conservative would clearly meet the veto pen. That's not to say that Republicans didn't push solidly conservative stuff. They did. Welfare Reform may well stand as the crowning achievement of the Clinton years (history will give him, not Congress, credit for that). The same is the case now with the Democrats. The President is a staunch conservative (unless you ask people in the Core Base about his conservatism), and therefore the Democrats must moderate their positions in order to bring change.

Here's the big difference: Democrats will not moderte their position to promote good government; they will moderate their position to win the White House and thereby increase their power to institute the liberal change their radical base seeks.

A group of ultra-liberals from the House of Representatives appeared on the Sunday TV shows this weekend. You might have seen it. It was an amazing thing. They seemed to have a rare moment of self-reflection. These Congressional liberals emphasized that for the next two years they are not going to act like liberals. Let that sink in for a second.

They are not going to act like liberals...for two years.

It's pretty shocking that they said this. Really shocking, actually. I wouldn't be surprised if they went back to the Bat Cave and Pelosi slapped them around a little for letting the cat out of the bag. It's like they showed their playbook for all to see. If we were to translate their statements from politiceese to English, it would look something like this:

"Yeah, we know that Americans really don't like liberals. We really had to push that Iraq mess thingy in order to get voted in. If we straight up told America what we want, they would have voted for three Iraqs. Now that we're in control, we really want the White House. That means for the next two years we need to pretend that we're not liberal. That way, we can get a closet liberal into the Oval Office and use our control of Congress to pass all kinds of kookball Far Left stuff. It's gonna be awesome."

Seriously, if they really thought that America wanted liberals in office they would push for a liberal Congressional agenda. It's like they realize how weak their position really is. I give Democrats a ton of credit for being smarter and stealthier than anyone realizes. They understand the mood of the country is still generally conservative, or, at the very least, not liberal. So they're doing the smart thing for their side--not fighting for their side. On the other hand, why put this strategy out there for all to see? Why acknowledge that you even realize this? Here are some of their actual quotes:

Rep Barney Frank (D-MA)--"Our first efforts are going to be to do those things that I think the mainstream of America wants...[things like overthrowing the military's policy on gays are] not what we are going to begin with."
Rep John Dingell (D-MI)--"Democrats like winning elections...We want to win elections and we're going to do our best to do so. This doesn't mean to get into any extreme positions on any matter. We'll do what makes good sense."
Rep Charles Rangel (D-NY)--"We don't want really a fight with the president. What we want to do is to prove we can govern for the next two years."

Each quote in itself sounds harmless enough, but the overall sense is clear. They might as well have said, "America doesn't want liberals, so we'll do what most Americans want now, and we'll leave the crazy stuff that America doesn't want until we win the White House".

We all know that the media has spent the better part of the last six years making fun of President Bush. Iraq, his inability to be a competent orator, his demeanor and Southern character--all have served as foddor for the media. What is interesting as we look back on the politics of this millenium is two things: first, the attacks on conservatives have been aimed at personalities, not very much at ideas. Even listening to Pelosi attacking the President this is clear. It's all "he's dumb" "he's incompetent" "Iraq sucks" "his fault". There is no real bashing of conservative ideas. It's all Freak Show stuff. Second, since the minority always gets to attack, and since the media loves to cover an attack, the minority has been shielded from the the attacks on their ideas.

The liberals are now back out of the shadows and on the stage They seem to realize that to get elected they need to be able to keep the attention off of themselves. No liberal agenda. Nothing controversial. Just bills like "Flags for Orphans" and "Puppy Abuse Prevention". Nothing liberal.

Pretty smart.

Beware, though, when the country realizes what Rangle, Frank, Dingell, and Pelosi really stand for. Then it will be back to the shadows for another decade. However, if they can moderate their position for two years, they may well be able to fool America into electing one of their ilk to the Big House.

[Editor's Note: In case you missed it, SNL did a Pelosi skit that starts to draw attention to the logical conclusion of liberal though. Ridiculous, but the idea is clear--liberal thought is crazy. It's not making fun of her person, but her policy positions. Sorry, you have to watch a commercial before it will play.]

A Thankful Thanksgiving

2006-11-23T09:11:00.000-05:00

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

Here are the (political) things for which I am thankful:

We have free speech
We live in the greatest country in the world
We can have a peaceful transfer of power between parties
The people can change which party controls Congress
I'm not going to be personally threatened when Democrats take power (and no one is)
Neither of our two parties are overtly socialist or communist (this is to say nothing about third parties, and nothing about underlying principles)
The people are smart enough not to vote for radicals (see Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich)
Voting is not compulsory
Checks and Balances, and Separation of Powers
Strategy, campaigns, and the fun of the battle

There is much to complain about regarding our government. I hear it all the time from people that they "hate politics", and with good reason. But we have so much for which to be thankful. I, personally, live a blessed and amazing life--an amazing wife, a job that makes me happy, a small-but-nice house, a blog to express myself--and I'm sure you do to. Let's remember that tomorrow, or Monday, when we go back to the grind and the emphasis is not on being thankful.

Is this a Losing Battle?

2006-11-22T06:30:00.000-05:00

99% of the time I love following politics.

I love talking about, writing about, obsessing over, analyzing, etc., politics. It's easy for me to get passionate about it. I can get angry, excited, passionate--generally emotional. But it's the type of emotion that one gets watching a sporting event: you are in to what is going on, frenzied, worried, excited, dismayed, or at some other point on the emotional spectrum. But, like with a sporting event, if things don't go your way, when you get home at the end of the day, those emotions are easily shelved (relative to the concerns of your family, work, friends, and daily life). 99% of the time, that's how my emotions go concerning politics.

There are times, though, when that 1% rears its ugly head.

That 1% hit me last night when I read an article, then read the comments readers had made about it (a newer phenomenon in journalism--an attempt by the mainstream media to be more like the New Media, i.e. the blogs like this one). The story was about President Bush's daughter, Barbara, who was mugged while in Argentina yesterday. She did have the Secret Service with her, but somehow they blew it. Normally I would not pay much mind to this story, since it is a single, isolated event that has almost no connection to policy or politics or really anything that would have a long-term, medium-term, short-term, or any-term impact on our country.

But then I read those comments at the bottom of the page.

It was then that the 1% hit me hard. I became genuinely sad for our country. The sadness I felt reading those comments was very different from my usual politically-induced emotion. It was as though I saw the heart and soul of the nation breathing its last breaths before me. It was as though America was gasping for air, but it was futile, as death was setting in.

As I read about this young lady who was attacked, hatred, abuse, venom, lack of reason, and utter stupidity dripped off the page. It made me think we're so far gone that all my (and hopefully your) efforts to raise the level of discourse are all for naught. I wondered if I'm fighting a losing battle.

Here is what the readers (readers who, by the way, cared enough to click on the link, read the article, and, further, cared enough to comment on it) had to say about the story. Remember, the article was about how the President's daughter was attacked. The comments that broke my heart for our country can be divided into three categories. The first I will call "Cold-Hearted Indifference to a Victim Based on Politics" Comments:

"Did [the attacker] steal her dignity as well? If so, charge him with petty theft!"
"they can afford to replace [whatever was stolen]. i won't be surprised if there travel is at gov't expense. it evens out."
"[Barbara and her sister Jenna] are the Paris and Nicole of Washington, D.C. I'm surprised her pet chihuahua wasn't snatched too."
"Too bad the Secret Service doesn't protect Barbara's and Jenna's father like this."
"Selfish, self-centered spoiled brats. Who care's what they are doing anyway?"
"Ok guys, no problem. As we paid for [her stolen cell phone] with our taxes, she'll buy another one. Congratulations!! now she can get one with bluetooth!"

A young female was attacked and mugged. These people not only don't care, but are happy to then add petty, childish, poorly-grammared insults to her injury, simply because they hate her father. My heart breaks.

Here's the second category of soul-of-America-crushing-comments. Let's call these "Lack of any Reason, Sheer Appeal to Unfounded, Unintelligent Emotion" comments:

"Why don't they get jobs like everyone else? I guess they're living off the Exxon $$ their dad made off of the rest of us."
"if those girls were serving in the military like they should be, in irag [editor's note: yes, this person called it "irag"], that wouldn't have happened."
"I pay for the bush twins' bodyguards, I want my money back to place on my daughters' safety; they are MUCH more important to me than those twins!"

Here we have no regard for logical argumentation or intelligent addition to the political debate. Sheer Freak Show nonsense.

The third category of sadness-for-our-country-inducing-comments combines both the hatred, and the lack of intelligence (only one example this time, as this is a rare breed that should be studied by researchers with PhDs in a remote lab somewhere):

"who cares with all the oil their moronic dad is getting from this stupid war, they can buy new 'everything' daily. Besides, maybe they were drunk when it happened."

Sad. Very sad.

Hate the President all you want. Loathe his policies. Bemoan his incompetence. All this is fine. But why use an attack on his daughter to spew your America-destroying hatred? Why degrade all hope at civility? Why display your stupidity for all to see? Why revel in your heartlessness? Why?

Are we so far gone that there is no hope?

I pray we are not. One comment gave me a glimmer of hope, that maybe--just maybe--fighting for rational, intelligent, compassionate, well-reasoned, anti-Freak Show dialogue is not a lost cause:

"I don't like many of her dad's policies but I don't think she should get injured because someone doesn't like her dad or America."

Amen. Perhaps hope remains after all.

A Letter to the Religious Right

2006-11-21T09:00:00.000-05:00

Dear Religious Right,

Hi. I am an evangelical Christian, and I vote conservative across the board. Yet, as far as I'm concerned, you suck. Well, not actually you, but your leaders. You know, the ones on TV that the media pays attention to. They suck. Unfortunately, when they speak the world reflects their feelings toward those people onto the entire group of people for whom they allegedly speak. If you happen to agree with those leaders and follow everything they say, and defend them when they say something stupid, then you suck, too.

Sound strange coming from a conservative, evangelical Christian? It should. If one were to overlap my views with the views expressed by many of your leaders, they would line up just about perfectly. Yet somehow, the existence of what is now identified as the "religious right" in America makes my life more difficult on a near-daily basis.

You suck not because of the issues on which you choose to focus. It's not because of your stance on those issues. It's not because of your demographics, your voting history, or even because of the influence you wield (after all, I want to achieve the many of the same ends as you). So why would a conservative, evangelical Christian be writing you a letter to tell you that you suck? Let's see...

You suck for the countless times you made me look stupid. Every time I hear about something the 700 Club said about politics or world events, it makes me look less intelligent. I end up having to distance myself from you, even though I am quite often in agreement with you ideologically.

You suck because the strategies you employ to implement your views are unsuccessful. You argue against gay marriage (a position upon which I happen to agree), but you do so largely on anti-intellectual lines. You say that God disapproves of this type of relationship. I agree. Problem is we live in an unbelieving world. Joe American, if the statistics are correct, is not an evangelical Christian. Appealing to the Bible, whether Leviticus or Romans or Ephesians, makes no difference to them. All it does is make us look like we have no line of argumentation outside of the Bible. That kind of thing is what has given the word "fundamentalist" a very negative connotation.

See, here's the thing: you make clear what you want, but you employ arguments that only cement the opposition against you. I sincerely wish that everyone in the world had a relationship with the living God. They don't. As such they don't share our morals or values. Since they don't share them, they are not only unresponsive, but are repulsed from your position when they hear that line of argumentation. Don't mishear me: I agree with most of your positions. What I loathe is how you go about advocating them.

Arguing that the government or the voters should take a position solely because of God's Word will only fuel anti-evangelical sentiment, and will add fuel to the already burning "America must fight against theocracy" movement. We must find good reasons to support our positions in addition to God's Word. And when we identify them, we must make those reasons our strongholds in the fight for the heart of America.

Finally, you suck because your make it appear that the Church cares more about politics than people. More about power than people. More about gay marriage and abortion than people. The sad thing is that the overall impression the Christian community has imparted on the rest of the world has not been sufficient to drown out these negative images.

Please hear me, Religious Right. I don't want you to change your positions. I want you to change your tactics. If you are compassionate, caring, intelligent, well-reasoned, loving, and thoughtful, you will see a world that wants to accept your faith, accept your worldview, share your values, and the world will be better for it.

Much better than if you just get the votes you want on abortion or gay marriage.

Sincerely,

k. randolph

Insert Voting Slogan Here

2006-11-20T06:30:00.000-05:00

Should we really encourage people to vote?

This past week I received an e-mail from a former student of mine asking for some sources that argue why we should vote. After searching around both among my texts and online, I was able to find very little. There were plenty of pithy slogans about voting (Thanks MTV), and there were plenty of sites pushing partisan fear-mongering (come out and vote for us or the world ends!). What there was not much of was intelligent talk as to why people should vote."Rock the Vote". "Choose or Lose". "Vote or Die". Radio and TV anchors tell us to vote, no matter who for. "Non-partisan" (yeah right) groups spend hundreds of man-hours registering people to vote. Teachers and professors decry our country's low voter turnout rates.

Around 60% of Americans who are eligible to vote do not. There is an overwhelming sentiment in the American media and in educated circles that this is a travesty that must be corrected. Voting is a right--a right for which, sadly, many Americans had to fight--and is something I, and likely you if you are reading this, value. But is it something that we should really work to compel most Americans to do?

No, it's not.

Two years ago, right before the 2004 presidential election, a Newsweek editorial by Leftist Anna Quindlen argued that America should follow the lead of Austrailia and other countries in forcing their citizens to vote or face a fine. The idea is called compulsory voting, and it's a horrible idea.

Here's what Quindlen wrote in her Oct. 18^th, 2004 editorial:

Low voter turnouts hurt everyone because they erode the notion of government by the people and for the people....In fact it's astonishing that we've blithely allowed Americans to drop out of the electoral process for so long. There's no argument about this: when we make an act optional, we inevitably suggest that it's not that important.

Quindlen is dead wrong. Wrong as wrong gets. There are an infinite amount of things Americans deem important, but are in every way optional, as they should be. Were it the government's job to mandate and require us to do everything they deem "good"...well, if I continue down that line of thought I will end up name-calling. Point is this: we are a free country. Each of us gets to decide what is good and bad, worth doing and not worth doing, worth voting for or against, and, yes, whether we should vote at all. Every bit of my daily life revolves around free choices I make. Does that mean those choices are not important? They are. Often they are life-changing. In fact, the sum of them is my life. The government has no business making any of these choices, or even making me choose in any of these situations, compulsory. That brings me to my real point: I wish more people would be informed about politics, and would therefore vote.

However, people should not vote simply because the act of voting is good.

If we truly value voting, we must focus on why voting is important and emphasize those things. Voting is a means to an end, not an end in itself. For what end do we want people to vote? The issues for which, and the people for whom, we vote will determine the direction of the country. Unfortunately, we live in a Freak Show age, where being as extreme, superficial, and confrontational as possible will get you noticed by the most people, and can win you the most votes. By contrast, being brilliant, creative, moderate, problem-solving, and policy-minded will get you appointed to be the ambassador to Greece.

I'm dancing around my point, so let me just get to it: our political culture is stupid. Check out this chart about why people didn't vote, courtesy of The Onion:Obviously ridiculous, but it's getting at the point: the people who don't vote don't care. Why should we encourage someone who doesn't care to vote? Voting is not inherently better than not voting. The ideas and issues are much too important to have people who are uninterested or uninformed, or genuinely uncaring to have a say in matters as important as these.

I do not want the people most influenced by the Freak Show to vote. I don't want to encourage the person swayed by every mud-slinging ad to vote. I don't want uninformed, unintelligent, uninterested people to vote. I do want more people to vote, but I want them to vote because the issues and people we choose are important. I want them to know the issues. I want them to think logically through complex problems. I want emotionalism to end. I want a smarter America. I don't want people to vote because P-Diddy said "Vote or Die" or because Claire McCaskill implied Jim Talent wants to kill people who have a disease. Those people are stupid and should not vote. Stay home.

It will make me sad if our Voter Turnout stays low or goes lower. It will make me more sad if more people vote because of pithy slogans about voting. It will make me sadder still if people vote because the Freak Show convinced them to vote for the worse of two options.

The Battle for America

2006-11-17T09:00:00.000-05:00

The Presdient, the Senate, and the House are obviously the institutions of power in America, but all three look like beggars compared to the Supreme Court. The Court is the true power-broker in our system. The Founders never meant for the Court to have this power. Frequently they overstep their Constitutional authority and trample the separation of powers. When judges overstep their Constitutionally prescribed authority (which is to interpret a law or ask Congress to clarify what they meant) it is called "judicial activism".

There are times when the outcome of judicial activism has definitely been laudable. The instance that is always applauded as the triumph of judicial activism is Brown v. Board. In that case the Court opened the doors of then-white public schools to black students. Clearly and unequivocally a commendable decision that should be celebrated.

Cases like Brown are the exception, not the rule.

More often than not the end result of judicial activism is the subversion of the will of the people. In modern day, special interests groups and activists attempt to use judicial activism to impose their will--which often has already been rejected by the people--on the rest of society. The ACLU is the Extreme Left activist group that is most guilty of this abuse of our Constitution.

Short history lesson: the Founders wanted the Court to be the least powerful of the three branches. They gave it little power and expected it to be the tag-along-kid-brother of the branches. That all changed in Marbury v. Madison wherein the Court GAVE ITSELF the power to declare laws--laws passed by Congress and signed by the President--unconstitutional. Bottome line: the Founders never envisioned the Court having this power. As such, they put absolutely no check on this power.

If the Supreme Court declares something unconstitutional and you don't like it you have two options: 1. Amend the Constitution (good luck with that); 2. Suck it up. The process of amending the Constitution is so cumbersome that it is, for all practical purposes, not an actual option for checking the power of the Court. The end result: a judiciary with complete and total control over the direction of the government.

There are two types of judges. The first type revels in their power and is perfectly content to read politically charged decisions into the Constitution. They "read between the lines", establish a vague principle from specific words, then apply that vague principle to our specific circumstances however they wish. There is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, but it is not the sacred cow of rights. How did this happen? The Supreme Court added a couple of amendments together, established there was a vague principle there, and extracted a new right. This right has thus became the building block for many of the most controversial political decisions made both in the legislature and in the courts.

The second type of justice is one who is not willing to replace the words of the Founders with other words that he/she finds more acceptable. They are not willing to read abortion, gay marriage, privacy, or any other of the host of controversial issues into the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn't address it, they will not say it does. These are the justices who practice "restraint".

We need fewer activist judges and more who practice restraint.

Last month the standard bearer for judicial restrain, Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, walked into the lions' den. He agreed to a debate with one of the leaders of the ACLU at their national convention. Ballsy. Here was the exchange that was particularly important:

ACLU Rep: "There are some rights that are so fundamental that no majority can take them away from any minority, no matter how small or unpopular that minority might be."
Interpretation: judges should/must subvert democracy to enforce those things they consider "fundamental" right, even if those things are not in the Constitution.
Scalia: Determining "Whether [a controversial issue like abortion or homosexual rights] is good or bad is not my job. My job is simply to say if those things you find desirable are contained in the Constitution."
Interpretation: Judges must not read into the Constitution anything that's not there.

Go get 'em Antonin. Those who practice restrain are the defenders of democracy and the Constitution.

The meeting between the ACLU and Scalia, while being truly entertaining to only political nerds like me, nonetheless represents the battle for America. We need more restrain, and we need more Scalias.

Under this new Senate the Scalias of the world will never make it to the bench. Only the activists will survive a Chuck Schumer and Teddy Kennedy led Judiciary Committee in the Senate. And that's the real kick to the crotch in Allen losing Virginia and Burns losing Montana. The Scalias will be left out in the cold and the activists will be ushered in to create whatever Far Left crap they want to read into the Constitution.

Bush may not get to appoint another Justice, but if the Senate stays blue and the White House goes that way, too, this Battle for America will go the Left's way.

Long live Scalia (literally).

The Freak Show

2006-11-16T08:45:00.000-05:00

So I decided to punish myself the other day by looking at the Daily Kos (the political blog that has become the major voice for the Extreme Left). It took me all of four second to be whipped into a frenzy of anger, disdain, and general pissed-off-iness. Why I chose this form of self-punishment, I do not know.

On this occasion, more than on most others, I was peeved by all the little things that I can usually ignore as part of our current political culture. The thing that really got my ire was the word "progressive". I see it as essentially a marketing ploy by the Far Left to avoid all the negative connotation associated with their ideas. So incensed was I that I quickly fired off an anti-"progressive" rant.

Irrational anger and unintelligent thought are the nemesis of this site, so after settling down I thought long and hard about whether to post such a rant. The shame of it is, this was quite a catch-22. Posting irrational anger dripping with snide comments sells in our society. I'm sure posting such a rant would make people laugh and probably cause more people to read the VoterVault more often. On the flip side, it is exactly this type of commentary that is degrading our political debate and generally weakening our ability to think critically.

That being said, below I've gone ahead and posted the rant. However, I'm posting it as an example of derogatory, negative, nonconstructive political speech, and shaming myself and those who write like this. Here it is:

Progressives?

Seriously, that term drives me friggin' nuts every time I hear it. You are liberals. Hey Daily Kos: you are liberals. Hey Moveon.org: you are liberals. Shut up with your stupid, condescending "progressive" crap. No one is buying it.

You know why you have to call yourselves "progressives"? Because every time someone hears the word "liberal" they cringe. And you know why they cringe? Because you suck, that's why. Every idea associated with the word "liberal" makes every average, red-blooded American want to puke all over your Progressive hippie ass.

Every time an article appears like this one or this one or this one or this one you make the 95% of America who are not you want to run the other way. So you hide. You change your name. You come up with a marketing ploy that is the word "Progressive". As though that somehow changes all the crap you stand for. It doesn't. It's wrapping a turd in a shinny package and saying, "Look! See! We're not Liberal...we're Progressive!" Shut up.

You know why Conservatives don't mind being called Conservatives? Because we're not crazy. Because we are proud of our ideas. Because we don't have to shy away when called upon. We can stand up and say "I'm a Conservative...". You? You run. You change your name. When you stand up and say "I'm liberal", Joe American wants to barf on you. So you stand up and say "I'm a progressive" in the hopes that Joe American says "oh, Progressive, what's that?" Wouldn't that be nice for you--to not be barfed on.

It's only a matter of time that your own ideas get tied to the word "progressive". Then the barfing can resume. After that, you can start focusing on your next new title to try to escape Joe American's attitude to your every belief.

Man, that's pretty bad. That's not the kind of discussion and analysis we need. I got thinking about this while reading a book about the 2008 presidential election called The Way to Win by Halperin and Harris. They call modern American politics "The Freak Show". They discuss in detail that our society, culture, and therefore our media, value extremism, partisanship, showmanship, and emotionalism. By doing so they devalue analysis, constructive debate, moderation, the common good, and serious thought in general.

I don't want to be part of the Freak Show.

That means fewer people will read, which is disappointing. But the Freak Show is bad for our system. The Freak Show is bad for our country. Two important features of the Freak Show, as put by Halperin and Harris: 1) The New Media (like this blog, cable news, talk radio, etc.) have caused "the disintegration of editorial filters in the Old Media, which in an earlier age prevented the most salacious tales and better accusations from entering the public arena"; and more importantly 2)led to the "erosion of basic habits of decorum and self-restraint, in politics and media alike".

May the VoterVault raise the level of discourse and practice the basic habits of decorum and self-restraint. May you call me out if it does not.

A Base without a Bride

2006-11-15T06:00:00.000-05:00

The day after Republicans lost control of Congress, I got an email from a friend. This guy is not politically active, nor is he the kind of guy who strikes you as really politically savvy. Actually, he's a math nerd. His geekiness aside, he made this excellent observation: "[the Republicans have become distracted] from the core issues: lower taxes, smaller government, liberty and personal responsibility."

Amen, brother. Amen.

In the mid and late 90s the Republican party was dominated by a solid, vibrant conservative base. It was defined by core principles--exactly those principles my friend mentioned in his e-mail. Those principles were embodied in the "Contract with America". Clinton politics, along with his personal charisma, forced the GOP to yeild the Contract to a more moderate agenda. (Important sidenote: this was bad, but not all bad. See: Welfare Reform). Nonetheless, the tide was in the GOPs favor through the 2000 election, and the base of the Party was one primarily concerned with the core principles. Dare I say, the principles of Reagan. Let's call those who love and desire these core principles the "Core Base". I might add "strong defense" to this list. So the "core list" would go: lower taxes; smaller government; liberty; security; and personal responsibility.

9/11 changed everything, including the GOP.

After the attacks, security became the dominant theme. Shortly thereafter it was the War. Nation Security. That's the name of the game. '02 and '04 enlarged the Republican stronghold on government. Bucking historical trends, the GOP gained seats in both the Midterm and at re-election in spite of the fact that the man sleeping at 1600 Pennsylvania wore Red. No doubt the furry over gay marriage added a significant voting block to the Core Base in '04, and the Party grew. It was high times for the GOP.

But with size comes weakness.

By the time the beginning of 2005 rolled around the formula looked like this: Core Base + Security Moms + Gay Marriage Moderates= A Party in Firm Control. What had begun to happen in the days after 9/11 had reached a tipping point: of the three groups, the leadership of the party had taken the Core Base for granted and focused on the other two groups. While this is obviously necessary in the short-run to shore up an election victory, in the long-run it is and will be their peril. Drunken-sailor spending. Immigration non-reform. Social Security non-reform. The growth of entitlements. The expansion of government. The continued slow and painful death of personal responsibility. Add to this the lack of empassioned, principled, well-spoken leadership, and what you have is a party ripe for a long-term fall.

The anger over gay marriage waned. Even in the states that had marriage amendments on their ballots in '06, the ire over the audacity of the hard Left had diminished to a dull pain. On the security front, irony set in. The more secure one is, the less one feels the need for security. Ignore the Iraq fiasco for one minute and it becomes painfully clear that the GOP was in trouble even without The War. New formula: Disenchanted Core Base + Not-Very-Angry Gay Marriage Moderates + Moms who Feel Secure Enough= A vulnerable party.

The Red Team may well have developed a large enough base to survive these travails in an alternate, non-Iraq War universe. But there is no non-Iraq world.

I am firmly convinced that the Security Moms and Gay Marriage Moderates would not have joined the GOP cause in '02 or '04 if the rest of the Republican platform were unacceptable to them. The Party needs to return to principled, persistant, persuasive emphasis of the Core Principles. Only then will the base hold, the moderates move Right, security be strengthened, and America be made forever strong.

As for now, the Core Base is a Base without a bride.

The Left that Lost

2006-11-14T06:30:00.000-05:00

Imagine you're one of the Daily Kosers. You've spent the last 3-4ish years preaching the socialist, anti-American hard Left gospel (cloaked largely in Anti-Bush rhetoric). Your hatred for all things Republican boils over all the time. You bleed Blue. Your party finally gets power for the first time in twelve years. And how did that come to be?

You were the only viable alternative.

What a kick to the crotch that must be. You win power and Time says "The center is the place to be." You don't want the Center. You want the Left. What's worse, the very people who carried you to victory don't share your views. Double-shot to the crotch. Tester: pro-gun. Casey: pro-life. Lieberman: pro-war. Webb: who knows, but not hard Left. The reality that your party would not have been able to take the House or Senate if the candidates pushed your view must cut deep.

Man, that sucks.

What message did the electorate send to the new Democratic Congress? If you listen to the Old Media, every report seems to say the same thing: Americans want moderation. NBC says Americans want an end to partisan bickering. ABC says they want a return to the middle. Their analysis is that voters are asking for unity and a more centrist style of governance. TIME even put this on their cover:

I disagree with their analysis. The center is not the place to be. The center is the place to be for Democrats.

The electorate did not vote Democrat because of their moderation. This is blatantly obvious. Were the Democrats running a campaign of unity? Were they talking like Moderates? Were they calling on Left and Right to share in a big group hug? No. Certainly, several moderate Democrats won key election, and that deserves special attention (which it will receive below), but my point is this: the only Democrats talking about moderate positions were themselves moderates. Pelosi, Kerry, Dean--they all trotted out the same bashing and slandering they've run out there before. It was not a call to moderation, nor was it what the people voted for. Instead, they voted against the War. They voted against corruption. They voted against drunken-sailor spending. They voted against President Bush. The Democrats were in the fortunate position of being the only viable alternative.

People neither voted for the Left, nor for the Middle.

The Middle is the place to be for Democrats for several reasons. First, as I discussed in this post, being in power is going to force the Democrats to put up or shut up. Let's go over the points briefly concerning why the Dems can't go Left:

The times the Dems have run hard Left, they've gotten their hats handed to them by the voters (see 1992-1994 and the resulting Republican Revolution). The hard Left is simply even less acceptable to the people than the hard Right. Every time I read an article like this it makes me and every other normal American want to puke. That's the hard Left.
They have the weakest Senatorial majority possible--one vote. Three words: Lieberman, Tester, Casey.
The veto pen. Even if they could push through a Leftist agenda, Bush holds it and will certainly use it. One could argue that they could force Bush's hand and thereby make him look like the bad guy. That's not likely. Remember, Bush can't go much lower, and the Dems have to produce. Voter's won't buy the "Republicans stopped us" excuse.

Assuming that, in fact, Pelosi, Reid, et al, don’t go that far Left, they will have a serious base problem. Moveon.org and the Daily Kos are powerful forces within the Democratic party that must be reckoned with. They are the new, ugly, hard Left. They have effectively subverted organized labor and the Old Media as the power-brokers on their side of the aisle. They raise money like it’s no one’s business. When George Soros went looking for ways to spend millions to beat Bush in '04, he didn't even blink. It went to moveon.org. The last thing any of the Dem Presidential hopefuls will want to do is anger them. This will force presidential contenders to run further Left than the rest of the party, thus weakening the position of the eventual nominee come general election time.

The irony in all this is, assuming they stay somewhat close to the center, their '08 problem will be the same one the GOP had ’06—a base not in love with their party.

The Democrats won, but the Left may well have lost.

The Defeat in Victory

2006-11-13T05:30:00.000-05:00

The Democrats lost by winning.

The War, Bush, a disgruntled conservative base, frustrated independents, moderate Democratic candidates, Congressional corruption--all these brought sweeping Congresssional victory to the Democrats. The 110^st Congress will be the first Congress the Dems can call their own since the Republican Revolution of 1994. A huge vicotry.

Or was it?

Had the Democrats won the House but lost the Senate, here's what they could have done:

Played the role of a fierce opposition, fighting the mighty Republican empire, plagued with corruption, ineptitude, and general evil.
Laid the blame for all things Iraq at the feet of Republicans.
Maintained the brilliant political tactic of vague and loud opposition to the war, without having to articulate any clear, unified position for what to do about it.
Kept beating the drum of "change for the sake of change" going into the presidential election in 2008
Continued the strategy of attack, name-call, and paint the world in the colors of negativity

Being in the minority is always easier that being in power. Majority= you are always on defense, justifying your positions and proving that you have produced results. Minority= playing offense (yell and scream about everything; say how horrible the world is). This past election the Democrats were even decrying the economy as terrible, even though unemployment is nearing record lows, the Dow is setting record highs, and household income is on the rise. Yell. Scream. The sky is falling. That's what's great about being in the minority.

They've lost that edge.

The grand prize is now only two years away. The candidates' exploratory committees are being formed (McCain went public with his on Friday). The race has begun. To win the White House the Democrats will now have to produce results in the next two years. Now they must share in the solution. It would sure be a lot easier to just name-call for the next two years. They have lost that freedom. If they offer a solution to Iraq and it fails, they are at fault. If they offer no solution, they are at fault. Iraq is a nightmare from which we will not awake in the next twenty-four months. Had they not won the Senate, the Dems could have kept their hands much cleaner than the Republicans'. Now they'll get to play in the dirt, too.

In case their twelve year journey in the political wilderness has caused them to forget, the lesson they are about to re-learn is this: governing is hard. They are in for a jolt of reality. The Red Team tried to call the Blues "obstructionist" when they couldn't produce results. America didn't buy it. The electorate will be equally unforgiving of a Blue Congress that doesn't produce the goods.

I'm still convinced, as I suggested in this post, that the Dems aren't stupid enough to move to the far Left, cause voter backlash, and blow their first shot at power in a long time. But this is clear: their road to the White House was made more difficult the second George Allen hung up the phone after conceding Virginia's junior Senate seat.

The Democrats lost by winning.

Leave Virginia Alone

2006-11-10T17:30:00.000-05:00

Anyone with a passing knowledge of the Virginia Senate race knows the story. Macaca. That's the story. It's tempting to tell the whole story like this: "Why did Allen lose?" he asked. "Macaca." came the reply.

George Allen should have been among the safe seats the Red Team could count amongst their win column in 2006. That list should have gone; Mississippi, Texas, Utah, Wyoming, and Virginia. Allen was a popular ex-Governor in the state and a likely presidential contender for '08. Then it happened. Allen, with the wind at his back, polls looking outstanding, and his warm-up-for-the-white-house-race going well, ended his political career. In a moment of outright stupidity, it happened. In a moment when old-school politicking collided with the YouTube age, it happened. And it all came crashing down. He looked right at a minority--a minority from his opposition's camp--a minority pointing a camera at him--and he called him a name. Macaca. In the old world, rumors would have spread, his opponent would have demanded an apology, he probably would have chalked it up to a misunderstanding, he would have lost a percentage point, his opponent would have made a stink and possibly looked desperate, and Allen would have cruised to victory. But this isn't the old world. This is the YouTube world. Within no time flat, political junkies and then everyday folks were watching Virginia's incumbent Senator call a minority a name. Within days it was on the evening news. And it was over.

Of course, that's not the whole story.

If that were Allen's only gaffe, or if that were the only thing he had going against him, he would have survived pretty easily. Heck, even with all he had going against him he lost by all of .3 percentage points. So what was the straw that broke Allen's back? Let's do a quick rundown of all Allen had going against him:

Bush
Iraq
Macaca
Macaca leading allegations of racism from those in his past
Bush
Rather insensitive/uncouth remarks about Judaism when it was found his mother's family was Jewish
He came off as a fundamentalist by pointing out sexual passages in his opponent's war novels
Iraq
His opponent was a moderate, thereby diffusing the always powerful tactic of "he's too liberal for Virginia"
His opponent's son is deployed at present, thereby negating any "hawkish advantage" Allen may have had
Bush and Iraq

Without Macaca Allen doesn't get accused of further racism, his mother's ancestry wouldn't have been an issue, and his opponent would have been too far behind in the polls for his moderation or his son's service to the country to have mattered. In elections, perception is reality. When it was perceived that Allen was unbeatable, Allen was unbeatable. When that perception was shattered by Macaca, the ceiling came crashing in on good ol' George Allen. It was a mess of his own making. It's a wonder he broke 40%.

Or was it?

Let's take a look at the Virginia county-by-county Senate race map.

This is a pretty typical Virginia map. Most of the state is red, with the blue being limited to the D.C. suburbs and the southeast part of the state. The big mama-jama is the county adjacent to D.C., Fairfax County. In Virginian politics it is the mothership. Like most metro areas in the country, the suburbs closest to the urban centers lean blue. To win in Virginia, or Missouri, or any other Redish state with one or two major metros, the Republican must limit his/her loses in those suburban areas. Allen was able to do that in 2000 when he ran against incumbent Charles Robb. That presidential-election-aided year Allen lost Fairfax County by only 4 points. He limited the damage and let rural Virginia bring him home. This year, Fairfax killed him. Check it out.

That killed Allen. Thumped him. Mangled him. Allen fell short in the overall election by only 8,000ish votes, but Fairfax county alone cost him eight times that amount.
One more thing is interesting to note about that table. In this non-presidentially-aided election year, Fairfax County registered a smaller percentage of the total number of votes than in 2000. This is super interesting because it means that Allen did even better in outstate Virginia in 2006 than he did in 2000. Yet he got smoked (assuming .3%=a smoking).

Conclusion: rural voters are willing to forgive almost anything a GOPster does to not have to vote Blue. In the suburbs it's simple: Iraq + Bush + Gaffes + Moderate Opposition = End of Allen.

Show-Me Defeat

2006-11-09T10:25:00.000-05:00

Going into the election on Tuesday Republicans were expecting to lose the House. Indeed, they did. The loss of the Senate came as an unpleasant surprise. On the eve of voting polls were indicating that Blue team had 49 seats locked up (Burns in Montana came in much closer than the polls were suggesting), and the Red Team had 49 (with Corker in TN pulling ahead late). The two seats remaining were Missouri and Virginia. Today I'd like to take a detailed look at Missouri, and tomorrow a look at Virginia, to figure out what happened in these two states.

Let's roll.

For over forty years the Democrats controlled the state Legislature in Missouri. As late as the spring of 2000 Republicans in the state legislature would direct conservatives looking for interships to work with Democratic legislators since, as I heard one GOP Rep say, "If you're are Republican in Missouri, you have no power". In the past six years the tide turned in favor of the GOP. Most of us know that Missouri has voted for Bush handily in the last two elections, but to give you a sense of how Red the state has become, here's a chart comparing the make-up of the State House from 2000, and one from 2006.

Along with the rest of the country in this election, the Iraq War, 43's approval rating, and general frustration wove together a tapestry beautiful for Dems. In a typical election year, Talent would have won re-election handily. Talent was a workhorse in the Senate. He stayed off the Sunday talk shows and was never mentioned in the conversations about "those extreme right-wingers" in Congress. He was never mentioned as a Presidential hopeful, and never had to go on local tv to justify his votes. He just went to work. But this was no typical election year.

Credit McCaskill for running an intense, grinding campaign. No one can take anything away from her. At the same time, she had the wind at her back the whole campaign. Riding along with McCaskill was the Missouri Stem-Cell Amendment. The 6-page, 2000-word amendment had the support of upwards of 70% of Missourians in early summer. By election day that race was a nail-biter. McCaskill used the amendment in ways that Talent could not. Jim kept his position on the issue as quiet as he could for as long as he could. Coming out against something so popular would have been suicide. Not coming out against it made the base quite angry. So Jim did what he could: no big speeches; dodge the issue where possible; come out in support of all non-cloning stem-cell research.

McCaskill, on the other hand, trumpeted the issue in the weeks before election day. She made national news when she ran an ad with Michael J. Fox, off his meds (as was his custom according to his own book) touting the candidate's position on the issue, and blasting Talent (by name) for the same. On election day, both Talent and and his position on the Amendment were defeated. Below are two maps comparing, county-by-county, the Senate race and the stem-cell amendment.

The two overlap pretty well. All along people assumed that if you voted for the amendment, you had to vote for Claire, and if you didn't you had to vote for Jim. While that appears to be the case, it was not absolute. It certainly was not absolute in rural Missouri. Darn near no counties outside of St.Louis, KC, and Columbia voted for the amendment. Support for Talent was not nearly as uniform, which was likely his undoing.

If Talent had been more vocal in his opposition to the amendment, could he have rallied the base a bit more and swung more of the "Claire Catholics" to his side?

Probably not. Coming out forcefully against the amendment would have only rallied St. Louis and KC more strongly against him. This election may well be the beginning of a trend: rural Missouri can no longer stand in opposition to the will of St.Louis and Kansas City. The urban vote did in Talent. Even the suburban vote killed him--he lost 10,000 votes compared to when he ran in 2002 in the heavily Republican St. Charles county, just outside St. Louis.

Claire ran a good campaign--appeals to emotion, demonizing all things Republican, linking Talent to Bush, screaming for a higher Minimum Wage (also on the Missouri ballot), beating the stem-cell drum, producing better advertising, and campaigning hard in traditionally Republican territory.

In a normal year, nice-guy Mr. Talent goes back to Washington. This was the wrong year to come up for re-election.

Life in the Wilderness

2006-11-08T21:03:00.000-05:00

Last night the electorate handed the Republicans a sweeping rebuke. I liked the way President Bush put it: "a thumpin'". As expected, the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives, taking 28 seats. Only the next few years will tell us if this was another 1994. What was more surprising was that they took the Senate. Heading into the night the polls indicated that all the Red Team needed was one of Missouri, Virginia, or Montana. They got blanked.

It would be nice if I could let myself believe what is very well possible--that the people didn't vote for the Dems, but against the Republicans. It would be nice to believe they voted against Bush and Iraq. Certainly possible. No...probable. In fact, that's probably true. So why can't I let myself believe it? Simple. Moving the country is like moving a cruise ship by swimming next to it and pushing it where you want it to go. Once it is going in one direction, it's not going the other way any time soon. To get less philosophical and more practical, it seems silly to think that John Q. Independent said "man I'm pissed at Bush. I'm so pissed. ARRRRG. I'm voting for a Democrat in the House. [vote cast]. Man, do I feel better. Ahhh. Now I can go back in '08 and vote my favorite GOPster back in." That's crap. What's more likely to happen is this: Dems spend the next two years beating the "we have to try to fix this mess the Republicans made for us" drum. When they don't get anything done they say, "man, this Republican mess was way worse than we thought". And the John Q. Independent, in his continued frustration with the war and Bush, vote again for their now-incumbent Democrat. It's Iraq, and it's not going away.

The GOP is now in the political wilderness, and they should probably make the place look comfortable, 'cause they're going to be there for a while.

On the bright side, it'd be easy for the Dems to blow this thing. If Pelosi acts like Pelosi, and Reid like Reid, the country will easily reject their radicalism in two years. However, I don't think they are that stupid. What we saw when they were in the minority was the real Pelosi and real Reid. What we are more likely to see in '07 (forget anything approaching controversial in '08) is the party that passed on Howard Dean in 2004 when they realized he couldn't win. It will be a party that plays to the emotional issues that seem to be steering the ship right now--health care, minimum wage, stem cell research, Iraq anger, and the like. Issues that can touch the heart strings. Issues you don't have to go about the ugly business of "explaining" or "justifying". Issues you can use to demonize your opposition with if they vote against you. The plan is simple: demonize Republicans. Make them unacceptable. Play to the heart, not the mind.

Bottom line: If they can resist the pull to MichaelMooreize their party, they will be in the driver's seat for a while. Anger and disenchantment with the Republicans will wane into complacency and lesser-of-two-evils-type-thinking.

Other thoughts:

Is it a good sign when the rest of the world, which at best resents and at worst hates America celebrates our election results?
The Republican Get Out the Vote (GOTV) effort is always lauded as an amazing enterprise. I am an active conservative. I've volunteer for campaigns within the last year. I always have yard signs. My gosh--I was offered a job on staff for my state's Senate race. I offered to volunteer. I called headquarters and asked for a sign. Total number of calls I received in the GOTV effort: 0.
Rumsfeld is out. Would it have made a difference if 43 had accepted his resignation when he first offered it? We'll never know.