The presidential races are clarifying for both parties. John McCain is now odds on for the Republican nod, and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are the two left standing for what could be a cliffhanger for the Democratic mantle.
On the Republican side it appears the party establishment has wisely chosen electability over purity. While ideologues like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and George Will still excoriate McCain for his past apostasies on immigration and taxes, a growing army of officials are coalescing around the Arizona Senator. He indeed is more moderate than Huckabee and Romney in some respects, and his appeal to independents makes him a better choice in November of a year in which the populace appears leaning a bit leftward.
Mike Huckabee's continued presence in the race helps McCain and hurts Romney, for his popularity with doctrinaire conservatives keeps such voters from jumping to Romney against a man whose conservative credentials they have never completely trusted. Looking at the 21 states up for grabs in six days, only a miracle will avert a near-landslide McCain triumph. He won't have the delegates in hand to clinch, but he will be close enough to place the nomination in easy reach and force Romney's withdrawal to avoid further embarrassment. Eight years later, McCain will finally savor his vindication, and the Republicans will at last begin rectifying the terrible mistake they inflicted on the nation in 2000.
As for the Democrats, Clinton still enjoys the national lead and has enormous institutional strengths, but Obama is closing on her. Obama has collected some important endorsements lately, most particularly that of Ted Kennedy. As part of her earlier inevitability strategy Clinton frontloaded most of her endorsements, and one announcement after another for Obama in recent days has contributed to an aura of momentum for the Illinois senator.
The withdrawal of John Edwards from the race will have a strong impact, but it will vary from state to state in Tuesday's 22-state Democratic marathon. It appears his former supporters in the South may trend to Clinton but in the West to Obama. Keep in mind that heavy voting by mail is already ongoing and will likely break for Clinton since a good deal of it went in before Obama's recent upswing.
Tomorrow's debate ought to prove crucial for many undecideds. The two candidates finally have each other where they want them: a one on one without distractions. Clinton has been looking forward to this eagerly. She feels she can cement her credentials based on her encyclopedic policy knowledge and show Obama to be a relative lightweight. Obama will try to deliver enough specifics to blunt her wonk offensive while outshining Clinton in the vision and inspiration departments. Going negative is playing with fire for both at this point, but Clinton will need to draw a contrast on experience once again and Obama will need to question some of Clinton's record and paint her as captive to the past. The hard part for both of them will be to make these points without seeming unkind enough to inspire backlash.
As for February 5, practically anything can happen in this race. Either could score a fairly decisive win or it could be pretty evenly split. As of today Clinton would have the edge but I'll be watching the latest surveys carefully to see whether Obama's improving picture looks like it will be enough to carry him over the top.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
State of the Union
"And so long as we continue to trust the people, our nation will prosper, our liberty will be secure, and the state of our union will remain strong." Thus spoke President Bush as he neared the conclusion of his seventh and last State of the Union Address on Monday night. The three attributes he referred to in his lackluster performance are forlorn enough.
Prosperity? Inflation-adjusted wage growth has been flat for all but the most wealthy during his tenure, the savings rate is negative, six million more lack health insurance than when he took office, home foreclosures have jumped 79% to set an all-time record, and this year promises to be worse.
Liberty? With wholesale and deliberate violations of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments, habeus corpus set aside, the Justice Department politicized, the Executive Branch refusing to answer subpoenas and the president invalidating whole sections of laws without the use of the veto, the march of liberty has been decidedly backward these past seven years.
Strength? It is difficult to see how the addition of $3.5 trillion to the national debt, the diplomatic alienation of much of the world or the commitment of the bulk of American land forces to a senseless invasion and occupation in the Middle East for five years with no end in sight have made the nation stronger. America is weaker for these misjudgments, not stronger.
No, as bad as these are, they are only symptoms of a worse problem, the problem of ignoring his own advice in the first clause of the sentence quoted above. "...so long as we continue to trust the people..." That is Bush's most egregious shortcoming. He never has trusted the people, preferring instead to go with his oft-cited "gut," his preconceptions, and the advice of an inner circle that similarly ignores the popular will in favor of a reliance on ideological dogma spun in such a way as to make it seem compatible with that will.
Consider the popular will as ascertained by the polling partnership CNN/Opinion Research and compare it to the policies the president has advocated or adopted.
67% disapprove of Bush's conduct of affairs in Iraq. 28% approve.
59% do not believe removing Saddam Hussein was worth it. 32% do.
68% say the country is on the wrong track. 19% say it's on the right track.
69% believe waterboarding is torture. 29% do not think so.
58% say America should not use waterboarding. 40% feel we should.
57% believe a woman should be able to get an abortion if she wants one.
25% oppose abortion in most cases. 15% say it should never be allowed.
54% support civil unions with the same rights as married couples for gays. 43% do not.
53% favor federal money for stem cell research. 41% oppose it.
63% agree the government needs a warrant to spy on people. 33% do not.
57% oppose giving telecomm companies immunity for unwarranted spying. 33% do not.
Much of the public was, for a time, enamored of a president who knew his own mind and could not be swayed by popular opinion. He made a virtue of being undemocratic, as it were. But finally the public, driven by events, has come to appreciate the wisdom of its own judgment. That is why Mr. Bush's approval rating stands at 31%. That is why the Republican candidates running for president hardly ever invoke his name. And that is why the president can deliver a State of the Union Address...and no one cares.
Prosperity? Inflation-adjusted wage growth has been flat for all but the most wealthy during his tenure, the savings rate is negative, six million more lack health insurance than when he took office, home foreclosures have jumped 79% to set an all-time record, and this year promises to be worse.
Liberty? With wholesale and deliberate violations of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments, habeus corpus set aside, the Justice Department politicized, the Executive Branch refusing to answer subpoenas and the president invalidating whole sections of laws without the use of the veto, the march of liberty has been decidedly backward these past seven years.
Strength? It is difficult to see how the addition of $3.5 trillion to the national debt, the diplomatic alienation of much of the world or the commitment of the bulk of American land forces to a senseless invasion and occupation in the Middle East for five years with no end in sight have made the nation stronger. America is weaker for these misjudgments, not stronger.
No, as bad as these are, they are only symptoms of a worse problem, the problem of ignoring his own advice in the first clause of the sentence quoted above. "...so long as we continue to trust the people..." That is Bush's most egregious shortcoming. He never has trusted the people, preferring instead to go with his oft-cited "gut," his preconceptions, and the advice of an inner circle that similarly ignores the popular will in favor of a reliance on ideological dogma spun in such a way as to make it seem compatible with that will.
Consider the popular will as ascertained by the polling partnership CNN/Opinion Research and compare it to the policies the president has advocated or adopted.
67% disapprove of Bush's conduct of affairs in Iraq. 28% approve.
59% do not believe removing Saddam Hussein was worth it. 32% do.
68% say the country is on the wrong track. 19% say it's on the right track.
69% believe waterboarding is torture. 29% do not think so.
58% say America should not use waterboarding. 40% feel we should.
57% believe a woman should be able to get an abortion if she wants one.
25% oppose abortion in most cases. 15% say it should never be allowed.
54% support civil unions with the same rights as married couples for gays. 43% do not.
53% favor federal money for stem cell research. 41% oppose it.
63% agree the government needs a warrant to spy on people. 33% do not.
57% oppose giving telecomm companies immunity for unwarranted spying. 33% do not.
Much of the public was, for a time, enamored of a president who knew his own mind and could not be swayed by popular opinion. He made a virtue of being undemocratic, as it were. But finally the public, driven by events, has come to appreciate the wisdom of its own judgment. That is why Mr. Bush's approval rating stands at 31%. That is why the Republican candidates running for president hardly ever invoke his name. And that is why the president can deliver a State of the Union Address...and no one cares.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Republican Dynamics
Why do the Republicans seem to be in such a quandary this primary season, with none of their candidates a good fit for the party? Each seems to have major drawbacks and is mistrusted and severely criticized by many within the GOP itself. The answer lies in the nature of the Republican coalition, a coalition often likened to a stool with three legs. The three legs that hold up the structure are economic conservatives, defense conservatives and social conservatives. None of the Republican candidates running for president are solid conservatives in all three legs, and that makes each of them anathema to at least one segment of the party's coalition.
Ronald Reagan assembled the modern Republican coalition in his successful run for the White House in 1980. In doing so he overturned the New Deal Democratic coalition that had dominated American politics since its establishment by Franklin Roosevelt in 1932. The Reagan realignment fractured the New Deal coalition by appealing to the religious right. He was able to draw fundamentalist religious working class voters to his side on social issues, undermining their previous support for the Democrats which had hinged on their economic interests. Democrats who have stayed in their party's fold have never understood this. How could people vote against their own economic interests, they wonder. Well, for the obvious reason: they are social conservatives first and economic populists second. The religious/social conservatives feel this set of issues is more important to them than economic issues are.
What do the three groups want? Economic conservatives equate laissez-faire economic policies with freedom. They also believe government should be smaller and less intrusive. They believe tax cuts, as a general rule, are always good, and government regulations are more or less always bad. And they believe in supply-side economics, the idea that more money at the top means more investment which will drive the economy and provide jobs. These views are most popular with the business community.
Defense conservatives are most worried about geopolitics and external threats. They see the world as a dangerous place inhabited by rogues and enemies who cannot be reasoned with and must be met primarily with force. No amount of military power is ever really enough. They want bigger government when it comes to defense issues. Recalcitrant foreigners must be brought into line. Defense neoconservatives even believe that military force ought to be used to pre-emptively remake the world into a safer place, and that the application of U.S. military power can accomplish this. This group doesn't really believe in smaller government. They want bigger government, especially when it comes to defense issues and anything related to them.
Social conservatives believe that traditional, patriarchal, authority-based morality is what holds society together, and they fear that it is weakening. The authority they refer to is usually the fundamentalist evangelical interpretation of Christian scripture. They are suspicious of the separation of church and state, seeing it as the vehicle by which other competing versions of morality, or no morality at all, will triumph in society. This will lead to anarchy and sin, in their view. They often feel that government ought to be in the business of enforcing their view of religion and a moral society on the nation, for society's own good, because of their belief that theirs is the only true moral and religious conception, and because they feel that their faith commands them to spread these views. Social conservatives don't necessarily want smaller government either. They want less government action in some matters and more in others when it comes to support for their issues.
So how do the Republican presidential contenders measure up? Mitt Romney subscribes to economic conservatism, though he is criticized for allowing some government fees to go up in Massachusetts. He campaigns as a defense conservative too. But he took some tolerant social views in his state, de-emphasizing abortion and once campaigning as a defender of gay rights. As a Republican candidate in perhaps the nation's most liberal state, such stances were probably necessary to get elected. But the price is that social conservatives don't trust him. Compromise on somebody else's issues, they feel, not ours.
John McCain is a strong defense conservative. But he has shown a willingness to compromise on the other two legs. He opposed the Bush tax cuts, for instance, and economic conservatives will not let him forget it. Despite a consistent pro-life position, he is also attacked for supporting comprehensive immigration reform and fundraising reform: stances that social conservatives despise as coddling criminals on the one hand and restricting their right to promote their divinely ordained views on the other. Many social conservative websites are currently full of "Stop McCain!" injunctions.
Mike Huckabee is the great favorite of strong social conservatives. He is a former fundamentalist pastor who supports their issues and speaks their language, advocating creationism and saying that the Constitution should follow the Bible. But his comment that President Bush's foreign policies smack of "arrogance" and "a bunker mentality" has raised doubts among defense conservatives. Yet this is nothing compared to the horror in which he is held by economic conservatives. As Governor of Arkansas Huckabee was not averse to hiking taxes when he felt there was need for it. His frequent populist rhetoric about tailoring economic policy to the needs of the working class wins him additional loyalty among blue collar social conservatives but has spurred untrammelled enmity among business leaders.
Rudy Giuliani is best known as a defense conservative. He also runs as an economic conservative. But his credentials are unacceptable to social conservatives. His acceptance of abortion rights and former advocacy of gun control make him persona non grata with that group.
Finally, Ron Paul. He is certainly his own case. His libertarian views are popular with economic conservatives and his social opinions are welcome to social conservatives. But his foreign affairs position against the Iraq War makes him an enemy to defense conservatives.
In sum, there is no candidate in the Republican field who satisfies all three legs of the coalition triad. They have all alienated at least one important constituency group. Whoever is nominated will be faced with a difficult task in uniting the necessary elements behind him for victory in November. One dire possibility for the GOP is that depending on who the Republican nominee is, these dynamics may provide the Democrats with an opportunity to win back social conservatives on economic issues.
Ronald Reagan assembled the modern Republican coalition in his successful run for the White House in 1980. In doing so he overturned the New Deal Democratic coalition that had dominated American politics since its establishment by Franklin Roosevelt in 1932. The Reagan realignment fractured the New Deal coalition by appealing to the religious right. He was able to draw fundamentalist religious working class voters to his side on social issues, undermining their previous support for the Democrats which had hinged on their economic interests. Democrats who have stayed in their party's fold have never understood this. How could people vote against their own economic interests, they wonder. Well, for the obvious reason: they are social conservatives first and economic populists second. The religious/social conservatives feel this set of issues is more important to them than economic issues are.
What do the three groups want? Economic conservatives equate laissez-faire economic policies with freedom. They also believe government should be smaller and less intrusive. They believe tax cuts, as a general rule, are always good, and government regulations are more or less always bad. And they believe in supply-side economics, the idea that more money at the top means more investment which will drive the economy and provide jobs. These views are most popular with the business community.
Defense conservatives are most worried about geopolitics and external threats. They see the world as a dangerous place inhabited by rogues and enemies who cannot be reasoned with and must be met primarily with force. No amount of military power is ever really enough. They want bigger government when it comes to defense issues. Recalcitrant foreigners must be brought into line. Defense neoconservatives even believe that military force ought to be used to pre-emptively remake the world into a safer place, and that the application of U.S. military power can accomplish this. This group doesn't really believe in smaller government. They want bigger government, especially when it comes to defense issues and anything related to them.
Social conservatives believe that traditional, patriarchal, authority-based morality is what holds society together, and they fear that it is weakening. The authority they refer to is usually the fundamentalist evangelical interpretation of Christian scripture. They are suspicious of the separation of church and state, seeing it as the vehicle by which other competing versions of morality, or no morality at all, will triumph in society. This will lead to anarchy and sin, in their view. They often feel that government ought to be in the business of enforcing their view of religion and a moral society on the nation, for society's own good, because of their belief that theirs is the only true moral and religious conception, and because they feel that their faith commands them to spread these views. Social conservatives don't necessarily want smaller government either. They want less government action in some matters and more in others when it comes to support for their issues.
So how do the Republican presidential contenders measure up? Mitt Romney subscribes to economic conservatism, though he is criticized for allowing some government fees to go up in Massachusetts. He campaigns as a defense conservative too. But he took some tolerant social views in his state, de-emphasizing abortion and once campaigning as a defender of gay rights. As a Republican candidate in perhaps the nation's most liberal state, such stances were probably necessary to get elected. But the price is that social conservatives don't trust him. Compromise on somebody else's issues, they feel, not ours.
John McCain is a strong defense conservative. But he has shown a willingness to compromise on the other two legs. He opposed the Bush tax cuts, for instance, and economic conservatives will not let him forget it. Despite a consistent pro-life position, he is also attacked for supporting comprehensive immigration reform and fundraising reform: stances that social conservatives despise as coddling criminals on the one hand and restricting their right to promote their divinely ordained views on the other. Many social conservative websites are currently full of "Stop McCain!" injunctions.
Mike Huckabee is the great favorite of strong social conservatives. He is a former fundamentalist pastor who supports their issues and speaks their language, advocating creationism and saying that the Constitution should follow the Bible. But his comment that President Bush's foreign policies smack of "arrogance" and "a bunker mentality" has raised doubts among defense conservatives. Yet this is nothing compared to the horror in which he is held by economic conservatives. As Governor of Arkansas Huckabee was not averse to hiking taxes when he felt there was need for it. His frequent populist rhetoric about tailoring economic policy to the needs of the working class wins him additional loyalty among blue collar social conservatives but has spurred untrammelled enmity among business leaders.
Rudy Giuliani is best known as a defense conservative. He also runs as an economic conservative. But his credentials are unacceptable to social conservatives. His acceptance of abortion rights and former advocacy of gun control make him persona non grata with that group.
Finally, Ron Paul. He is certainly his own case. His libertarian views are popular with economic conservatives and his social opinions are welcome to social conservatives. But his foreign affairs position against the Iraq War makes him an enemy to defense conservatives.
In sum, there is no candidate in the Republican field who satisfies all three legs of the coalition triad. They have all alienated at least one important constituency group. Whoever is nominated will be faced with a difficult task in uniting the necessary elements behind him for victory in November. One dire possibility for the GOP is that depending on who the Republican nominee is, these dynamics may provide the Democrats with an opportunity to win back social conservatives on economic issues.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
South Carolina and Beyond
Barack Obama rolled to a landslide win in today's South Carolina Democratic primary, garnering 55% of the vote to 27% for Hillary Clinton and 18% for John Edwards. Obama scooped up 25 convention delegates while Clinton added 12 and Edwards got 8. The overall delegate count now stands at 249 for Clinton, 167 for Obama and 58 for Edwards. The win was essential for Obama's campaign; a loss in a state where more than 50% of the Democratic voters are black would have boded seriously ill for the Illinois senator.
Instead, his victory re-establishes his momentum and could serve as a bridge to the 22 critical Super Tuesday contests on February 5, only ten days away. But enthusiasm in the Obama ranks should not blind them to the reality that they still face an uphill task in the week and a half ahead. Obama appears to be running behind in all the major Super Tuesday states except his own Illinois. That will have to change dramatically for him to win the nomination.
We know we can't completely trust polls after Clinton's surprise win in New Hampshire or Obama nearly doubling his expected margin of victory in South Carolina but we can't completely ignore them either. An average of several surveys shows Clinton up by 12 in California and 18 in New Jersey. Single recent polls have her ahead by 26 in New York, 37 in Massachusetts, 6 in Georgia, 13 in Missouri, 14 in Tennessee, 10 in Arizona and 15 in Alabama. The most recent head count in Illinois has Obama up by 29 on his home turf, so at least that looks safe for him, and Georgia appears pretty gettable. But the rest might be very tough, and he must win several of them. Can he do it?
Here's why he can. First, Obama is the "hope" candidate, and his South Carolina romp restores that in a big way. Polls before Iowa actually showed Clinton ahead among South Carolina blacks. His Iowa win turned that around. Once people came to believe he really had a chance, supporters flocked to him. Exit polls indicate Obama took the African-American vote 81-17 in the Palmetto State. Second, he has demonstrated an ability to appeal beyond just African-Americans. He ran equal to Clinton among South Carolina white men, for instance, and he won Iowa which is 93% white. Third, he delivered one of his patented scintillating speeches in claiming victory tonight while Clinton was in a Tennessee town hall meeting with so little of interest to say that the networks cut away. The contrast couldn't have done her much good. In his concession speech, John Edwards made a rousing case for continuing to fight for his issues. Why Clinton didn't take advantage of the free air time to do likewise is baffling. Fourth, with Edwards' prospects waning, where will his partisans go? Some will no doubt remain loyal, but a good case can be made that many will defect to one of the leaders, and that Obama will get the lion's share of these. Fifth, he can match Clinton dollar for dollar in the money battle.
Here's why he can't. First, momentum has been an overrated commodity this primary season. Obama seemed to have it after Iowa but couldn't translate that into victory in New Hampshire or Nevada. McCain looked like he had it after New Hampshire but couldn't stop Romney in Michigan. Second, blacks make up only 11% of the population in the Super Tuesday states. Hispanics comprise nearly 14%, and if Nevada is any indication most of these will vote for Clinton. Third, Clinton leads nationally by 9% but by 19% among whites. Obama has to whittle that number down considerably and he doesn't have much time to do it. Fourth, the longer Edwards stays in, and he says it's all the way to the convention, Obama will be denied the opportunity to get the full benefit of those of his supporters who are anti-Hillary. Besides, even if all the Edwards voters in California, New York, Masachusetts and New Jersey switched to Obama it wouldn't be enough by itself to give him the lead in those states. Fifth, if Obama can match Clinton in dollars, then so can she match him. As the candidate trying to come from behind, it would really help him to have the advantage rather than just parity.
So which will it be? I tend to think he probably won't quite make it. Watch the crowd attendance and the polls over the next few days. He needs to show a bounce. If he shaves his national deficit from 9% to 5 right away then his chances are starting to look good. If he only picks up one or two points then he's likely to fall short. The stakes are high for the Democrats in November, since Obama does better in head to head polls against both McCain and Romney than Clinton does.
Instead, his victory re-establishes his momentum and could serve as a bridge to the 22 critical Super Tuesday contests on February 5, only ten days away. But enthusiasm in the Obama ranks should not blind them to the reality that they still face an uphill task in the week and a half ahead. Obama appears to be running behind in all the major Super Tuesday states except his own Illinois. That will have to change dramatically for him to win the nomination.
We know we can't completely trust polls after Clinton's surprise win in New Hampshire or Obama nearly doubling his expected margin of victory in South Carolina but we can't completely ignore them either. An average of several surveys shows Clinton up by 12 in California and 18 in New Jersey. Single recent polls have her ahead by 26 in New York, 37 in Massachusetts, 6 in Georgia, 13 in Missouri, 14 in Tennessee, 10 in Arizona and 15 in Alabama. The most recent head count in Illinois has Obama up by 29 on his home turf, so at least that looks safe for him, and Georgia appears pretty gettable. But the rest might be very tough, and he must win several of them. Can he do it?
Here's why he can. First, Obama is the "hope" candidate, and his South Carolina romp restores that in a big way. Polls before Iowa actually showed Clinton ahead among South Carolina blacks. His Iowa win turned that around. Once people came to believe he really had a chance, supporters flocked to him. Exit polls indicate Obama took the African-American vote 81-17 in the Palmetto State. Second, he has demonstrated an ability to appeal beyond just African-Americans. He ran equal to Clinton among South Carolina white men, for instance, and he won Iowa which is 93% white. Third, he delivered one of his patented scintillating speeches in claiming victory tonight while Clinton was in a Tennessee town hall meeting with so little of interest to say that the networks cut away. The contrast couldn't have done her much good. In his concession speech, John Edwards made a rousing case for continuing to fight for his issues. Why Clinton didn't take advantage of the free air time to do likewise is baffling. Fourth, with Edwards' prospects waning, where will his partisans go? Some will no doubt remain loyal, but a good case can be made that many will defect to one of the leaders, and that Obama will get the lion's share of these. Fifth, he can match Clinton dollar for dollar in the money battle.
Here's why he can't. First, momentum has been an overrated commodity this primary season. Obama seemed to have it after Iowa but couldn't translate that into victory in New Hampshire or Nevada. McCain looked like he had it after New Hampshire but couldn't stop Romney in Michigan. Second, blacks make up only 11% of the population in the Super Tuesday states. Hispanics comprise nearly 14%, and if Nevada is any indication most of these will vote for Clinton. Third, Clinton leads nationally by 9% but by 19% among whites. Obama has to whittle that number down considerably and he doesn't have much time to do it. Fourth, the longer Edwards stays in, and he says it's all the way to the convention, Obama will be denied the opportunity to get the full benefit of those of his supporters who are anti-Hillary. Besides, even if all the Edwards voters in California, New York, Masachusetts and New Jersey switched to Obama it wouldn't be enough by itself to give him the lead in those states. Fifth, if Obama can match Clinton in dollars, then so can she match him. As the candidate trying to come from behind, it would really help him to have the advantage rather than just parity.
So which will it be? I tend to think he probably won't quite make it. Watch the crowd attendance and the polls over the next few days. He needs to show a bounce. If he shaves his national deficit from 9% to 5 right away then his chances are starting to look good. If he only picks up one or two points then he's likely to fall short. The stakes are high for the Democrats in November, since Obama does better in head to head polls against both McCain and Romney than Clinton does.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
EPA Enters Twilight Zone
The Environmental Protection Agency has been in the news lately. In the past that introduction would have been the prelude to a story about a major polluter being brought to trial or the discovery of toxic dumping into a stream. Nowadays it's just one more instance of the Agency itself being sued for preventing environmental protection.
Recent actions include a Supreme Court decision that the EPA cannot shirk its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, another that it must actually enforce the Clean Air Act mandate that power plants must upgrade their pollution controls when they expand, and most recently a suit filed by the State of California spearheading an effort by seventeen states, demanding that they be granted waivers allowing them to require stricter controls on automobile greenhouse emissions than the EPA wants to enforce. In the last case, EPA Director Stephen Johnson denied a request of a type that has been routinely approved in the past, and despite the findings of his agency's own scientists that the states' proposals were justified.
In our Orwellian Bush World where nothing means what it says this has become commonplace. It's also an indication of how far things have lurched to the Right. The EPA was born on December 2, 1970 when President Richard Nixon, hardly an icon of the Left, signed it into existence. Bipartisan support lasted about ten years, until the Reagan Administration took office. The Agency has been under assault ever since by self-described advocates of freedom, as though the freedom to poison people's air and water was any more of a fundamental right than the freedom to drop arsenic into their coffee.
The Bush Administration realizes that most Americans appreciate their natural wonders and do not want to eat, drink or breathe poison, so their doublespeak machine has outdone itself in inventing names that obscure the real intent of their policies. An initiative to permit greater discharges of mercury into the atmosphere was labelled the Clear Skies Act. Another to accelerate the cutting of old growth trees was styled the Healthy Forests Act. Their park protection plan has cut park protection by 40%.
The President makes the case that the United States cannot afford to invest in supposedly prohibitively expensive environmental controls or it will be unable to compete with foreign countries, especially China. In a strange juxtaposition of word and fact, China now ranks second in the production of solar cells (behind Japan) while the United States has slipped to fourth. The U.S. government spends $1.5 billion a year on renewable energy research while the Chinese government has budgeted $200 billion over the next 15 years. It appears the U.S. may indeed find itself unable to compete, although not in the way in which it expects.
Meanwhile we have in the EPA a federal agency whose professional employees work at futile cross purposes with their politically appointed superiors, and an agency formed to clean up the environment that exerts its power to protect polluters and prevent the enactment of environmental protections. It's a shame Rod Serling is no longer with us. The irony of all this is worthy of a Twilight Zone episode.
Recent actions include a Supreme Court decision that the EPA cannot shirk its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, another that it must actually enforce the Clean Air Act mandate that power plants must upgrade their pollution controls when they expand, and most recently a suit filed by the State of California spearheading an effort by seventeen states, demanding that they be granted waivers allowing them to require stricter controls on automobile greenhouse emissions than the EPA wants to enforce. In the last case, EPA Director Stephen Johnson denied a request of a type that has been routinely approved in the past, and despite the findings of his agency's own scientists that the states' proposals were justified.
In our Orwellian Bush World where nothing means what it says this has become commonplace. It's also an indication of how far things have lurched to the Right. The EPA was born on December 2, 1970 when President Richard Nixon, hardly an icon of the Left, signed it into existence. Bipartisan support lasted about ten years, until the Reagan Administration took office. The Agency has been under assault ever since by self-described advocates of freedom, as though the freedom to poison people's air and water was any more of a fundamental right than the freedom to drop arsenic into their coffee.
The Bush Administration realizes that most Americans appreciate their natural wonders and do not want to eat, drink or breathe poison, so their doublespeak machine has outdone itself in inventing names that obscure the real intent of their policies. An initiative to permit greater discharges of mercury into the atmosphere was labelled the Clear Skies Act. Another to accelerate the cutting of old growth trees was styled the Healthy Forests Act. Their park protection plan has cut park protection by 40%.
The President makes the case that the United States cannot afford to invest in supposedly prohibitively expensive environmental controls or it will be unable to compete with foreign countries, especially China. In a strange juxtaposition of word and fact, China now ranks second in the production of solar cells (behind Japan) while the United States has slipped to fourth. The U.S. government spends $1.5 billion a year on renewable energy research while the Chinese government has budgeted $200 billion over the next 15 years. It appears the U.S. may indeed find itself unable to compete, although not in the way in which it expects.
Meanwhile we have in the EPA a federal agency whose professional employees work at futile cross purposes with their politically appointed superiors, and an agency formed to clean up the environment that exerts its power to protect polluters and prevent the enactment of environmental protections. It's a shame Rod Serling is no longer with us. The irony of all this is worthy of a Twilight Zone episode.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Crash 3
People like to say that history repeats itself. It never exactly does, but broad themes do recur. The current recession and market crash is a case in point. It bears similarities to previous meltdowns in 1929 and 1987. Debt, speculation based on paper appreciation, and inadequate regulation were the culprits in all three cases. Laissez-faire Republican policies were the abettors. The American people were the victims.
1929 was the year of the Great Crash and the start of the Great Depression. The 1920s were a period of tremendous economic expansion. The stock market grew at the phenomenal rate of 20% to 30% per year. Share prices ballooned out of all proportion to their price to earnings ratios. Values became driven by psychology rather than by account sheets. Investors continued to bid prices up in the belief that they could never fall. The longer one waited to buy the more profit one missed. People borrowed to pay for all the attractive new consumer durables-- automobiles, radios, refrigerators, washing machines--and that great engine of expanding wealth, stocks.
The brokers and banks worked out a plan to sell to those who had run out of ready cash. "Margin buying" allowed would be investors to pay as little as ten percent down on securities. The remainder would be paid for out of the stocks' future appreciation in value. So brokers made commissions, banks made loans, and average folks made, for the first time, capital gains in the market. Everybody won. That is, until the consumer market reached saturation with the new appliances and sales fell. The smart money got out early and raked in huge profits before the crash. But most people were caught unprepared when stock prices went into free fall and began to "correct" to reflect their true values. Paper millions disappeared overnight, panicked citizens made bank runs, cleaned out banks called in loans that no one could pay and foreclosed on property they could not sell, employers slashed staff, and before long 50% of the work force was unemployed or underemployed. There had been few regulations to require sound buying, lending or consumer protection practices. The nation paid in misery for most of the 1930s.
The 1980s ushered in the administration of a new disciple of deregulation. It was the era of leveraged buyouts, junk bonds, corporate raiders and yuppies. Like the title of the Twenties musical, in the financial world it was "Anything Goes." On the theory that benefits would trickle down, the tax structure was slashed for Wall Street and the safety net was slashed for Main Street. As with the previous house of cards, the day of reckoning eventually came. The market lost 20% of its value one day in 1987. Program buying, leveraged loans, including many to family farmers who had borrowed on the expected appreciation of their land or crop prices and real estate deals all went south. The real disposal income of the majority of the American public has not improved since before 1980.
In the 2000s we have been treated to another administration dedicated to the propositions that regulations and consumer security are evil and that what's good for business is good for America. Housing prices have skyrocketed based on the speculative notion that they can go only up and never down. Millions have joined the frenzy to buy, figuring that the cost will only be higher next year and that the debt incurred can be paid by future appreciation. Second and third mortgages are common. The nation is awash in debt at all levels, personal, trade, and governmental. Consumer debt and the wealth gap have reached historic proportions. Home prices have outpaced wages to such an extent as to be unsustainable.
Rather than provide affordable housing, the administration did little but spread bromides about free markets and the structural soundness of the American economy. For its part, the financial sector instituted new forms of margin buying: the subprime and adjustable rate loans. When prices inevitably began to tank due to sheer unaffordability, millions have been left with loans they cannot pay off. As in 1929, these millions face imminent foreclosure and lenders face billions in loans they cannot collect. To save themselves they are now scurrying for bailout loans to Middle and Far Eastern banks and potentates who have amassed troves of dollars from trade surpluses and US Treasury securities. The American stock market has lost over 2,000 points and foreign markets have sustained losses of five to six percent in a single day. Based on this recurring cycle of myopia one thing seems clear: we don't learn from history.
1929 was the year of the Great Crash and the start of the Great Depression. The 1920s were a period of tremendous economic expansion. The stock market grew at the phenomenal rate of 20% to 30% per year. Share prices ballooned out of all proportion to their price to earnings ratios. Values became driven by psychology rather than by account sheets. Investors continued to bid prices up in the belief that they could never fall. The longer one waited to buy the more profit one missed. People borrowed to pay for all the attractive new consumer durables-- automobiles, radios, refrigerators, washing machines--and that great engine of expanding wealth, stocks.
The brokers and banks worked out a plan to sell to those who had run out of ready cash. "Margin buying" allowed would be investors to pay as little as ten percent down on securities. The remainder would be paid for out of the stocks' future appreciation in value. So brokers made commissions, banks made loans, and average folks made, for the first time, capital gains in the market. Everybody won. That is, until the consumer market reached saturation with the new appliances and sales fell. The smart money got out early and raked in huge profits before the crash. But most people were caught unprepared when stock prices went into free fall and began to "correct" to reflect their true values. Paper millions disappeared overnight, panicked citizens made bank runs, cleaned out banks called in loans that no one could pay and foreclosed on property they could not sell, employers slashed staff, and before long 50% of the work force was unemployed or underemployed. There had been few regulations to require sound buying, lending or consumer protection practices. The nation paid in misery for most of the 1930s.
The 1980s ushered in the administration of a new disciple of deregulation. It was the era of leveraged buyouts, junk bonds, corporate raiders and yuppies. Like the title of the Twenties musical, in the financial world it was "Anything Goes." On the theory that benefits would trickle down, the tax structure was slashed for Wall Street and the safety net was slashed for Main Street. As with the previous house of cards, the day of reckoning eventually came. The market lost 20% of its value one day in 1987. Program buying, leveraged loans, including many to family farmers who had borrowed on the expected appreciation of their land or crop prices and real estate deals all went south. The real disposal income of the majority of the American public has not improved since before 1980.
In the 2000s we have been treated to another administration dedicated to the propositions that regulations and consumer security are evil and that what's good for business is good for America. Housing prices have skyrocketed based on the speculative notion that they can go only up and never down. Millions have joined the frenzy to buy, figuring that the cost will only be higher next year and that the debt incurred can be paid by future appreciation. Second and third mortgages are common. The nation is awash in debt at all levels, personal, trade, and governmental. Consumer debt and the wealth gap have reached historic proportions. Home prices have outpaced wages to such an extent as to be unsustainable.
Rather than provide affordable housing, the administration did little but spread bromides about free markets and the structural soundness of the American economy. For its part, the financial sector instituted new forms of margin buying: the subprime and adjustable rate loans. When prices inevitably began to tank due to sheer unaffordability, millions have been left with loans they cannot pay off. As in 1929, these millions face imminent foreclosure and lenders face billions in loans they cannot collect. To save themselves they are now scurrying for bailout loans to Middle and Far Eastern banks and potentates who have amassed troves of dollars from trade surpluses and US Treasury securities. The American stock market has lost over 2,000 points and foreign markets have sustained losses of five to six percent in a single day. Based on this recurring cycle of myopia one thing seems clear: we don't learn from history.
Monday, January 21, 2008
George W. Bush's Worst Legacy
By any measure besides winning reelection, the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster. His economic policies have been disastrous. His foreign policies have been disastrous. His environmental policies have been disastrous. His approaches to science, education and unifying the American people have been disastrous. Even his management of disasters has been disastrous. I'll go into specifics and touch on all these topics in the future, but there is an aspect of his tenure that is potentially worse than any of these. That's because as bad as these other performances have been, they are all correctable.
A new administration could, for example, restore fiscal sanity and begin reversing the $4 trillion in federal debt Bush will have amassed by the time he leaves office. A new president could return to basing decisions on facts and scientific research rather than the fixed prejudices of ideologues. A reasonable president could extricate our forces from Iraq, act in such a manner as to regain the respect and friendship of most of the world, and get Congress to adopt sensible environmental and energy policies. But it will be much harder to correct the horrendous damage he has caused to our foundational principles. It is conceivable that this damage will not be undone. And if not, America will become something other than it has always been, and will stand for the same thing most powerful nations have always stood for, not right, but power itself.
Bush's most dangerous role has been to use fear to get the American people to do and support many things they would never otherwise have done or supported. Franklin Roosevelt said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," and Bush has brought the import of this warning home to us in our own time. He has used fear to subvert the Constitution and our civic morality. He has used it to aggrandize his power, start an unprovoked war and secure the suspension of inalienable rights. He has effectively fanned it to equate disagreement with disloyalty, and to scare millions of Americans into accepting these impositions as natural and necessary. The first danger is that these erosions may become the norm. The second is that they demonstrate all too easily the vulnerability of the American people and system to the power of fear, and may serve as a road map for further incursions by future like-minded authoritarians. The slippery slope beckons.
Consider what has already been given up. This president speaks of a permanent "generational" state of war without end. He claims that his therefore permanent war powers extend to arresting people without charges and holding them indefinitely without trial, access to legal counsel, the right to face their accusers and call witnesses in their behalf. The presumptions are wholesale violations of the 5th and 6th Amendments in the Bill of Rights. He has directed government agencies to spy on Americans and conduct warrantless searches without probable cause in violation of the 4th Amendment and the FISA Act. At first he lied about doing this and admitted it was illegal. Later he admitted doing it but said it is legal.
He has required Americans to sign a loyalty pledge to him in order to attend his speeches, and has directed that those wishing to peaceably assemble to voice their opinions can only do so in fenced areas far from his person. These are violations of the 1st Amendment.
He selectively cherry-picked intelligence and fabricated other intelligence to falsely identify a foreign country as a threat and stampede the American people into supporting an unprovoked invasion of that country, an invasion his vice president and other members of his administration had signalled their intention to launch some three years before he took office, and which was secretly discussed in his first cabinet meeting after taking office. His administration then bypassed normal procurement procedures and awarded secret no-bid war contracts to politically favored corporations, including one formerly headed by his vice president.
He procured a resolution from the United Nations to require the accused country to open itself to inspection for weapons of mass destruction. When the country complied and none were found he ordered the international inspectors out and attacked anyway. This is a violation of the U.N. Charter, to which the United States is a founding signatory.
He sanctioned the use of torture against detainees, a violation of the 8th Amendment and the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners, which has been ratified by the United States.
He, his vice president, his domestic affairs advisor, and the vice president's chief of staff conspired to disclose the name of an undercover CIA operative for political advantage. This violates US statute. When the chief of staff was convicted of obstruction of justice for committing perjury about his involvement, the president commuted his sentence.
When he signs laws passed by Congress, he claims the right to issue signing statements which change the meanings of those laws. He has exercised this "right" over 800 times. Congress may pass any law, but the meaning of the law is what this president says it is. If this authority becomes accepted and established there will be no need for a Congress or a Supreme Court. This practice violates the Separation of Powers written into Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Constitution by usurping the constitutionally mandated powers of Congress and the Judiciary.
It is of the greatest importance to American freedom that the next president disavows these practices, reverses them and works to foster a national consensus that such abuses are not justified and must never be repeated. The people must be watchful and insistent. If these practices stand the consequences will be dire indeed.
A new administration could, for example, restore fiscal sanity and begin reversing the $4 trillion in federal debt Bush will have amassed by the time he leaves office. A new president could return to basing decisions on facts and scientific research rather than the fixed prejudices of ideologues. A reasonable president could extricate our forces from Iraq, act in such a manner as to regain the respect and friendship of most of the world, and get Congress to adopt sensible environmental and energy policies. But it will be much harder to correct the horrendous damage he has caused to our foundational principles. It is conceivable that this damage will not be undone. And if not, America will become something other than it has always been, and will stand for the same thing most powerful nations have always stood for, not right, but power itself.
Bush's most dangerous role has been to use fear to get the American people to do and support many things they would never otherwise have done or supported. Franklin Roosevelt said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," and Bush has brought the import of this warning home to us in our own time. He has used fear to subvert the Constitution and our civic morality. He has used it to aggrandize his power, start an unprovoked war and secure the suspension of inalienable rights. He has effectively fanned it to equate disagreement with disloyalty, and to scare millions of Americans into accepting these impositions as natural and necessary. The first danger is that these erosions may become the norm. The second is that they demonstrate all too easily the vulnerability of the American people and system to the power of fear, and may serve as a road map for further incursions by future like-minded authoritarians. The slippery slope beckons.
Consider what has already been given up. This president speaks of a permanent "generational" state of war without end. He claims that his therefore permanent war powers extend to arresting people without charges and holding them indefinitely without trial, access to legal counsel, the right to face their accusers and call witnesses in their behalf. The presumptions are wholesale violations of the 5th and 6th Amendments in the Bill of Rights. He has directed government agencies to spy on Americans and conduct warrantless searches without probable cause in violation of the 4th Amendment and the FISA Act. At first he lied about doing this and admitted it was illegal. Later he admitted doing it but said it is legal.
He has required Americans to sign a loyalty pledge to him in order to attend his speeches, and has directed that those wishing to peaceably assemble to voice their opinions can only do so in fenced areas far from his person. These are violations of the 1st Amendment.
He selectively cherry-picked intelligence and fabricated other intelligence to falsely identify a foreign country as a threat and stampede the American people into supporting an unprovoked invasion of that country, an invasion his vice president and other members of his administration had signalled their intention to launch some three years before he took office, and which was secretly discussed in his first cabinet meeting after taking office. His administration then bypassed normal procurement procedures and awarded secret no-bid war contracts to politically favored corporations, including one formerly headed by his vice president.
He procured a resolution from the United Nations to require the accused country to open itself to inspection for weapons of mass destruction. When the country complied and none were found he ordered the international inspectors out and attacked anyway. This is a violation of the U.N. Charter, to which the United States is a founding signatory.
He sanctioned the use of torture against detainees, a violation of the 8th Amendment and the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners, which has been ratified by the United States.
He, his vice president, his domestic affairs advisor, and the vice president's chief of staff conspired to disclose the name of an undercover CIA operative for political advantage. This violates US statute. When the chief of staff was convicted of obstruction of justice for committing perjury about his involvement, the president commuted his sentence.
When he signs laws passed by Congress, he claims the right to issue signing statements which change the meanings of those laws. He has exercised this "right" over 800 times. Congress may pass any law, but the meaning of the law is what this president says it is. If this authority becomes accepted and established there will be no need for a Congress or a Supreme Court. This practice violates the Separation of Powers written into Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Constitution by usurping the constitutionally mandated powers of Congress and the Judiciary.
It is of the greatest importance to American freedom that the next president disavows these practices, reverses them and works to foster a national consensus that such abuses are not justified and must never be repeated. The people must be watchful and insistent. If these practices stand the consequences will be dire indeed.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Off to Monterey
It's off to Monterey with my lovely wife for the long weekend. We'll be staying at the same hotel in Pacific Grove we visited nearly thirty years ago. There's lots to do on the Monterey Peninsula. Monterey has an outstanding aquarium, there's the scenic Seventeen Mile Drive above the coastal cliffs where dark Monterey pines perch, art galleries and shopping galore, some of the best restaurant dining around and some of the world's most renowned golf courses. Most of all the winter climate is mild and simply being by the ocean is refreshing. To watch the seabirds soar in the sea breeze and scuttle along the sand, to hear the waves crash against the beaches and rocks, to smell the fresh salt air and to watch the sun sink into the Pacific are things that restore the spirit. We're looking forward to it.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Michigan Primary and Republican Predictions
Mitt Romney finally has a real win under his belt. It came in the state where he grew up and where his father was a three-term governor. The bad economy in Michigan played a part. Romney is the CEO candidate and could run as just the technocrat to get things fixed up. He also has the deepest pockets in the field, and can outspend his rivals wherever he decides to concentrate his efforts. With all these factors going for him it would have been a very bad sign for his candidacy if he failed to come out ahead in the Great Lakes State.
Romney won about 39% of the vote to John McCain's 30%, a fairly decisive margin. Mike Huckabee came in a respectable third with about 16%. Nobody else had any support worth talking about. This worked out to 12 convention delegates for Romney, 9 for McCain and none for anyone else. That's not a significant difference, but the fact he got the win restores the buzz about his campaign and makes people question McCain's. It also underscores an approach Romney might be well advised to keep following. He can't out-conservative the rest of the Republicans, given his shifting positions on many of the social issues they hold dear. He tried that earlier and kept losing. He finally got a win running on competence and business sense. For Huckabee, his third place showing in a Northern industrial state further separates him from the bottom pack and solidifies his standing, especially as he now heads for South Carolina and other Southern and rural states where his conservative social message finds the most adherents.
Here are some predictions:
South Carolina will kill Fred Thompson's candidacy. Huckabee will emerge as the clear choice of Southern evangelicals over him, and there will be no point in Thompson's going on. McCain will remain a factor in many states and may be able to continue after Super Tuesday, February 5. I think Rudy Giuliani has missed the bus. By putting all his eggs in the Florida basket on January 29 most people have forgotten about him. It looks like a tight race there at the moment among four candidates. If he doesn't win there you can likely kiss him good bye. And I don't think he will.
Huckabee will win several Southern states and do well enough elsewhere. McCain will win a few states and finish second frequently. Romney will start winning the majority of states outside the South. Romney is the one to watch; he is the most likely to win the nomination outright.
But it's completely possible they may get to the convention with no one holding the majority. If so that would make Mike Huckabee the kingmaker. He'd throw his support to McCain and probably be McCain's running mate or fill another important post in the Administration should McCain get elected. Huckabee and McCain have already been working together to slow Romney's momentum and they both personally despise the former Massachusetts governor.
Romney won about 39% of the vote to John McCain's 30%, a fairly decisive margin. Mike Huckabee came in a respectable third with about 16%. Nobody else had any support worth talking about. This worked out to 12 convention delegates for Romney, 9 for McCain and none for anyone else. That's not a significant difference, but the fact he got the win restores the buzz about his campaign and makes people question McCain's. It also underscores an approach Romney might be well advised to keep following. He can't out-conservative the rest of the Republicans, given his shifting positions on many of the social issues they hold dear. He tried that earlier and kept losing. He finally got a win running on competence and business sense. For Huckabee, his third place showing in a Northern industrial state further separates him from the bottom pack and solidifies his standing, especially as he now heads for South Carolina and other Southern and rural states where his conservative social message finds the most adherents.
Here are some predictions:
South Carolina will kill Fred Thompson's candidacy. Huckabee will emerge as the clear choice of Southern evangelicals over him, and there will be no point in Thompson's going on. McCain will remain a factor in many states and may be able to continue after Super Tuesday, February 5. I think Rudy Giuliani has missed the bus. By putting all his eggs in the Florida basket on January 29 most people have forgotten about him. It looks like a tight race there at the moment among four candidates. If he doesn't win there you can likely kiss him good bye. And I don't think he will.
Huckabee will win several Southern states and do well enough elsewhere. McCain will win a few states and finish second frequently. Romney will start winning the majority of states outside the South. Romney is the one to watch; he is the most likely to win the nomination outright.
But it's completely possible they may get to the convention with no one holding the majority. If so that would make Mike Huckabee the kingmaker. He'd throw his support to McCain and probably be McCain's running mate or fill another important post in the Administration should McCain get elected. Huckabee and McCain have already been working together to slow Romney's momentum and they both personally despise the former Massachusetts governor.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Democratic Debate in Las Vegas
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards pulled back from their recent mutually destructive tendencies in their debate tonight in Las Vegas. The result was a return to the dynamics of their earlier debates, with Obama stressing vision and inclusiveness, Clinton policy knowledge and experience and Edwards his identification with and willingness to fight for regular Americans against special interests. At the outset the moderators attempted to stoke the racially charged exchanges that had dominated the headlines until lately, but the candidates weren't biting. This is good news for the party's prospects in November, since fratricide over ethnicity among them could do nothing but benefit the Republicans in the general election.
Clinton acted as if she were already president. She directed her fire at the shortcomings of the Bush Administration and spoke in detail about policy initiatives crafted to rectify his mistakes. Her demeanor and bearing were pretty impressive. One of her most effective moments was inviting Obama to cosponsor her Senate resolution demanding that any agreement President Bush signs with Iraq be submitted to the Senate for ratification as the Constitution requires for treaties with foreign nations. Obama could do little but accept. Clinton sought to portray herself as the experienced leader who was ready to take charge. She largely succeeded.
Obama acted presidential too. He returned to his theme of offering a new approach to getting things done in government by appealing to independents and people tired of business as usual. But his mien was not harshly critical or overtly directed at Clinton, and he was the best at getting some laughs from the audience. It's clear that he and Clinton had decided to make nice with each other. Obama touched on policy details to a greater extent than in some previous debates and emerged as someone responsible and thoughtful enough to be trusted in office.
Edwards remained true to his populist position, trying to link the others to contributions from special interests. Unlike the New Hampshire debate in which he went strongly after Clinton, Edwards sought this time to draw policy distinctions with both opponents. He highlighted a number of these, but in as polite a manner as possible. He wanted to show he has the heart to stand with the common citizen. There is little doubt about his commitment, but he needs more to reestablish his appeal beyond its reach to his shrinking number of current supporters.
The net effect of the debate was to narrow the ideological disputes between the three. For the most part they all are in broad agreement on what is wrong with the country and the measures needed to fix things. Clinton did herself the most good in this exchange. The debate was muted and stuck to the issues. This played to her advantage. Obama came across as credible and will continue to be a force to be reckoned with. Edwards probably did not distinguish himself as much as he needed to to get back on par with the others. Without a breakthrough soon in the campaign he may well fade as a factor while Clinton and Obama square off to determine the Democratic standard bearer for 2008.
Clinton acted as if she were already president. She directed her fire at the shortcomings of the Bush Administration and spoke in detail about policy initiatives crafted to rectify his mistakes. Her demeanor and bearing were pretty impressive. One of her most effective moments was inviting Obama to cosponsor her Senate resolution demanding that any agreement President Bush signs with Iraq be submitted to the Senate for ratification as the Constitution requires for treaties with foreign nations. Obama could do little but accept. Clinton sought to portray herself as the experienced leader who was ready to take charge. She largely succeeded.
Obama acted presidential too. He returned to his theme of offering a new approach to getting things done in government by appealing to independents and people tired of business as usual. But his mien was not harshly critical or overtly directed at Clinton, and he was the best at getting some laughs from the audience. It's clear that he and Clinton had decided to make nice with each other. Obama touched on policy details to a greater extent than in some previous debates and emerged as someone responsible and thoughtful enough to be trusted in office.
Edwards remained true to his populist position, trying to link the others to contributions from special interests. Unlike the New Hampshire debate in which he went strongly after Clinton, Edwards sought this time to draw policy distinctions with both opponents. He highlighted a number of these, but in as polite a manner as possible. He wanted to show he has the heart to stand with the common citizen. There is little doubt about his commitment, but he needs more to reestablish his appeal beyond its reach to his shrinking number of current supporters.
The net effect of the debate was to narrow the ideological disputes between the three. For the most part they all are in broad agreement on what is wrong with the country and the measures needed to fix things. Clinton did herself the most good in this exchange. The debate was muted and stuck to the issues. This played to her advantage. Obama came across as credible and will continue to be a force to be reckoned with. Edwards probably did not distinguish himself as much as he needed to to get back on par with the others. Without a breakthrough soon in the campaign he may well fade as a factor while Clinton and Obama square off to determine the Democratic standard bearer for 2008.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
New Semester
Tomorrow is the first day of the spring semester at College of the Sequoias, where I teach History. It's a community college in the San Joaquin Valley of Central California. Our main campus is in the city of Visalia. I'm always genuinely excited to begin a new set of classes. I guess when I'm not it will be time to hang 'em up. I'll be teaching classes in US History since the Civil War and Western Civilization before 1648. I feel there's so much to learn from the people who preceded us. Their legacy is a big part of who we are today.
I appreciate the effort a lot of our students are making to come to college. We serve the poorest counties in the state, most of Tulare and part of Kings. A lot of our students have small children. A lot of them come from homes where the first language they learned was not English. A lot of them are the first in their families ever to go to college. Most of them have jobs, and not particularly well-paying ones. Somehow they have to juggle these responsibilities and pay for books, transportation, child care, and find time to study and come to classes. It's not easy and I respect them for it.
Those who hang in there and get a vocational certificate or Associates Degree or qualify to transfer to a four-year school enjoy a greatly enhanced income level for the rest of their lives, according to all the statistics. And a lot of the younger ones who come to us right out of high school and then shortly leave us (that $8.00 an hour job might look pretty good when you're 19) come back to us later with a whole lot of motivation. It's really neat to see those students in their 30s and 40s on the first day. They're usually among the most dedicated students you can imagine.
So I'm looking forward to the new semester, to sharing ideas and helping open people's minds to a subject I love, to helping people achieve their dreams. It's a wonderful way to make a living.
I appreciate the effort a lot of our students are making to come to college. We serve the poorest counties in the state, most of Tulare and part of Kings. A lot of our students have small children. A lot of them come from homes where the first language they learned was not English. A lot of them are the first in their families ever to go to college. Most of them have jobs, and not particularly well-paying ones. Somehow they have to juggle these responsibilities and pay for books, transportation, child care, and find time to study and come to classes. It's not easy and I respect them for it.
Those who hang in there and get a vocational certificate or Associates Degree or qualify to transfer to a four-year school enjoy a greatly enhanced income level for the rest of their lives, according to all the statistics. And a lot of the younger ones who come to us right out of high school and then shortly leave us (that $8.00 an hour job might look pretty good when you're 19) come back to us later with a whole lot of motivation. It's really neat to see those students in their 30s and 40s on the first day. They're usually among the most dedicated students you can imagine.
So I'm looking forward to the new semester, to sharing ideas and helping open people's minds to a subject I love, to helping people achieve their dreams. It's a wonderful way to make a living.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Fantasy Football
I love fantasy football. I mean I hate fantasy football. It'll drive me nuts, this is know. It's pretty simple in concept, really. You choose a team name and team colors. You have a player draft online with 11 other owners. You start a quarterback, two running backs, three receivers, a tight end, field goal kicker and a defense. You usually add in a utility player, which most of the time has to be a running back or a receiver. You draft extra guys so you have players on the bench in case of injuries, stupid bye weeks, or so you can play the wrong guy from week to week. Whatever the player does for his real team that week, he does for your team if you put him in your lineup. If you don't put him in your lineup he scores three touchdowns and everybody ridicules you on the league message board. So of course you put him in the next week and he catches one pass for five yards while the guy you bench scores the three touchdowns. As far as I can figure out, that's pretty much how it works.
The players in your lineup score points for you. At least in theory they do. They six points for a touchdown, plus points depending on how many yards they run, catch, throw or kick for, if they're the kicker. Your opponent for the week has his lineup and players too. Usually better ones. Whoever scores the most points wins the match.
Picking a cool team name is one of my most important strategies. One of my teams is always named Sierra. I live just down the road from the entrance to Sequoia National Park. I started out with studly names like the Sierra Grizzlies and Sierra Hawks. In subsequent years I scaled down to names that better reflect my prowess. This year was the Sierra Marmots. A rodent that barks and gnaws through your car hoses to drink your antifreeze more or less reflects my strategy for victory and how my teams customarily perform.
My other team is called the Valley something or others. I live in the San Joaquin Valley. It gets hot in the summer, so I used to name them things like the Valley Heat and Valley Fever. Names like that worked well in the smack talk on the league message board. I could issue clever and intimidating challenges like, "The Heat will roast the Unicorns this week!" Or, "The Fever will infect the Titans this week!" My foe would generally respond with something along the lines of, "Your team sucks." Despite the pitiful riposte he would win by a score somewhere in the neighborhood of 128-9. Where is the justice in that? So this year I named the team the Valley Vultures, bowing to the reality that the only teams I could beat were the ones with more injured players than active ones.
That calls to mind my best talent in fantasy football, picking injured players. I don't mess around with tight ends and kickers, either. I have a positive genius for picking the best player in the league who will suffer a season-ending injury that year. I'm particularly adept at drafting running backs to fill this role. I can count on my number one running back to go down about midway through the season. They do this to get my hopes up and then dash them. They do it on purpose.
It started in my first season with Marshall Faulk. The next year Ricky "Cannabis" Williams decided to retire before the season started. The next year Priest Holmes went down. Without him I didn't have a prayer. This year I lost Larry Johnson from one team and Ronnie Brown from the other. Brown was leading the league in rushing at the time, and Johnson had led the league in touchdowns. The one good thing about this annual occurrence is that it gives me a great alibi for losing. I'm not sure how I subconsciously determine whose ACL will blow out in advance; I guess I'm just a natural.
What do I get for playing fantasy football? I get to see my guys put forth tremendous efforts, like when my receivers do that dumb thing where they try to stick the ball out at the goal line and fumble it away. I get to see my players set records, like when my quarterback Donavan McNabb got sacked 12 times in one game. I see my guys defy all odds, like when my defense gives up 42 points to the stinking Falcons. I get to see amazing forces of nature such as playing my hot second string quarterback against the lousy Cleveland pass defense and it snows so hard his receivers can't hold onto the ball. I get the satisfaction of putting guys in the lineup who roll their ankles in pregame warmups and don't play. I get to appreciate the subtlety and element of surprise in football strategy by seeing one of my running backs carry the ball down to the one yard line and then play fake into the line on the next play while the quarterback rolls out and throws the touchdown pass to the tight end. I get to imagine my opponent's elation at that moment because the tight end is on his team.
I've just got to come up with a better game plan next year. Like picking the yellow jerseys and naming my team the Sierra Gold Rush. Get it? Yellow, Sierra Gold Rush? Brilliant. I'll be unstoppable!
The players in your lineup score points for you. At least in theory they do. They six points for a touchdown, plus points depending on how many yards they run, catch, throw or kick for, if they're the kicker. Your opponent for the week has his lineup and players too. Usually better ones. Whoever scores the most points wins the match.
Picking a cool team name is one of my most important strategies. One of my teams is always named Sierra. I live just down the road from the entrance to Sequoia National Park. I started out with studly names like the Sierra Grizzlies and Sierra Hawks. In subsequent years I scaled down to names that better reflect my prowess. This year was the Sierra Marmots. A rodent that barks and gnaws through your car hoses to drink your antifreeze more or less reflects my strategy for victory and how my teams customarily perform.
My other team is called the Valley something or others. I live in the San Joaquin Valley. It gets hot in the summer, so I used to name them things like the Valley Heat and Valley Fever. Names like that worked well in the smack talk on the league message board. I could issue clever and intimidating challenges like, "The Heat will roast the Unicorns this week!" Or, "The Fever will infect the Titans this week!" My foe would generally respond with something along the lines of, "Your team sucks." Despite the pitiful riposte he would win by a score somewhere in the neighborhood of 128-9. Where is the justice in that? So this year I named the team the Valley Vultures, bowing to the reality that the only teams I could beat were the ones with more injured players than active ones.
That calls to mind my best talent in fantasy football, picking injured players. I don't mess around with tight ends and kickers, either. I have a positive genius for picking the best player in the league who will suffer a season-ending injury that year. I'm particularly adept at drafting running backs to fill this role. I can count on my number one running back to go down about midway through the season. They do this to get my hopes up and then dash them. They do it on purpose.
It started in my first season with Marshall Faulk. The next year Ricky "Cannabis" Williams decided to retire before the season started. The next year Priest Holmes went down. Without him I didn't have a prayer. This year I lost Larry Johnson from one team and Ronnie Brown from the other. Brown was leading the league in rushing at the time, and Johnson had led the league in touchdowns. The one good thing about this annual occurrence is that it gives me a great alibi for losing. I'm not sure how I subconsciously determine whose ACL will blow out in advance; I guess I'm just a natural.
What do I get for playing fantasy football? I get to see my guys put forth tremendous efforts, like when my receivers do that dumb thing where they try to stick the ball out at the goal line and fumble it away. I get to see my players set records, like when my quarterback Donavan McNabb got sacked 12 times in one game. I see my guys defy all odds, like when my defense gives up 42 points to the stinking Falcons. I get to see amazing forces of nature such as playing my hot second string quarterback against the lousy Cleveland pass defense and it snows so hard his receivers can't hold onto the ball. I get the satisfaction of putting guys in the lineup who roll their ankles in pregame warmups and don't play. I get to appreciate the subtlety and element of surprise in football strategy by seeing one of my running backs carry the ball down to the one yard line and then play fake into the line on the next play while the quarterback rolls out and throws the touchdown pass to the tight end. I get to imagine my opponent's elation at that moment because the tight end is on his team.
I've just got to come up with a better game plan next year. Like picking the yellow jerseys and naming my team the Sierra Gold Rush. Get it? Yellow, Sierra Gold Rush? Brilliant. I'll be unstoppable!
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Which Democrat is For Change?
Disagreement swirls among and about the leading Democratic presidential candidates. Who is the true change agent? Democrats are hungry for change. Independents are too. Even majorities of Republicans now say the country is on the wrong track and give negative favorability ratings to the Republican president. Certainly no Democratic contender will gain the nomination without making a winning case that he or she will bring about the change the party's members so fervently desire. Go to the websites of Senators Obama and Clinton or former Senator Edwards or listen to any of their speeches if you want to find out whether they are for change. They all are.
In this year when their party members are crying out for change they all want to be associated with it. But are there serious differences among them on the types of changes they would make? No, there aren't. They all pledge to overcome the moneyed interests they justifiably feel are preventing urgently needed action on a host of issues. The list of their similarities is long. They would all work to achieve universal health care, get out of Iraq, follow the Constitution on such matters as unwarranted spying on Americans and detaining people without trial, charges or access to legal counsel, live up to the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners, refocus our efforts on Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda, require greater vehicle fuel efficiency, invest more in renewable energy, end corporate welfare and preferential tax loopholes, especially those that encourage the loss of American jobs, allow the Bush tax cuts to lapse for upper income earners, take serious action on global warming, drastically change or eliminate "no child left behind," fix Social Security, institute comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship, seek economic solutions that work from the bottom up instead of the top down, use science and reason as a basis for decision making, support comprehensive sexual education and choice on abortion, reverse government privatization and the use of mercenary troops, change the threatening, bullying tone of American diplomacy...the list goes on and on. There are a few differences. Edwards has a problem with gay marriage. Obama wants to take a look at nuclear power. Clinton would not meet with Iran's Ahmadinejad. But on the whole, their positions are rather amazingly consistent for opposing candidates. They are all for a great deal of change, and they largely agree on what the changes should be.
Where they differ is on how to accomplish the changes they all seek, and in this Obama does seem to differ, at least in his approach. Edwards and Clinton appear to follow a more conventional path. They want to convince the voters they are right and stand for the people, who will then elect them and presumably a congressional majority that can vote in the desired changes. Obama's aims are more extensive. He wants to so energize the electorate that its deafening voice will make the changes irresistible. Edwards and Clinton want to win an election that will deliver the goods and in so doing cement a majority. Obama wants not just to win an election but to create a movement that will make the old party labels obsolete. In this he is considerably more ambitious than either of his rivals.
Can Obama's "movement" approach work? As with most unconventional, dare I say visionary approaches, the greater the risk the greater the reward. If he creates a tidal wave of popular enthusiasm he may be able to change the dialogue in the way Theodore Roosevelt did and usher in a new age of bipartisan Progressivism. On the other hand, if such popular enthusiasm cannot be sustained we could see a flameout like that of Howard Dean or a disappointing presidency like that of Jimmy Carter, who came in with a nation ready for change but lasted only one term and was followed by a revived and stronger conservatism.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
No Inevitables
There's a great scene in Lawrence of Arabia where Lawrence goes back to rescue a man who has fallen behind in the desert. Others try to convince him it's a fool's errand, that he too will perish alone in the blazing sun. Lawrence is told to accept that the man is lost and get over it. "It is written," they say. The next day Lawrence returns with the man draped over his camel's back, still alive. "Nothing is written," says Lawrence.
That's also the narrative of America. Nothing is written. It is our deepest cultural myth and the way to our hearts. It explains our very soul as a people. Never give up. There is always hope. The Amazin' Mets can win the World Series, Appalachian State can beat Michigan and an amateur American hockey team can humble the mighty Soviet Union.
An entire industry, perhaps our most beloved industry, exists because of that myth, to nourish it and be nourished by it in turn. The appetite for it is insatiable. Walt Disney, Frank Capra, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg understood this and became very wealthy men. American Idol is predicated on it, for as Jiminy Cricket reminds us, "when your heart is in your dream, no request is too extreme."
The conviction that nothing is written defines our spirit, and because we believe it we make it reality often enough to keep believing. "It's always darkest before the dawn," the proverb tells us. It is woven into the most treasured tales of our past. It's why a militia of farmers defeated an empire, why a people in bondage were set free, why one president could galvanize a nation in need by saying, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," why another could convince us to shoot for the moon, "not because it is easy, but because it is hard," and why another could look on a continent in chains and command, "Tear down this wall!"
I was reminded of these lessons while watching the New Hampshire primary returns come in. Six months ago John McCain was written off. "Non Factor," "Over the Hill Mac" read the headlines. Today he is the victor. His dream lives on. On Monday Hillary Clinton was written off. "Panic," "She's So Yesterday" read the headlines. Today she is the victor. Her dream lives on. The man she defeated is himself an exemplar of the same tenet, an apostle of the possible, a surmounter for whom nothing is written. His dream too lives on.
The analysts had the people of little New Hampshire all figured out. They had been surveyed and dissected from every conceivable angle, their preferences and predilections measured, their hot buttons mapped and their demographics tabulated. The results were but a formality. They were written. The political strategists were already at work charting the next phase of the campaign and developing spin to take best advantage of the situation. The pundits were busy opining on what it all meant and debating whether the vanquished would be able to go on. Then the people of New Hampshire decided they were going to do something else. They would do the writing themselves, thank you.
Americans revel in these narratives. We resist being categorized, pigeonholed, sorted and boxed. We love proving the experts wrong. We love waking up in the morning to a picture of a grinning Harry Truman holding a copy of the Chicago Tribune with the banner headline "Dewey Defeats Truman." We hate being told we cannot. That is exactly the way to get us started. For us there are no inevitables. Nothing is written.
That's also the narrative of America. Nothing is written. It is our deepest cultural myth and the way to our hearts. It explains our very soul as a people. Never give up. There is always hope. The Amazin' Mets can win the World Series, Appalachian State can beat Michigan and an amateur American hockey team can humble the mighty Soviet Union.
An entire industry, perhaps our most beloved industry, exists because of that myth, to nourish it and be nourished by it in turn. The appetite for it is insatiable. Walt Disney, Frank Capra, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg understood this and became very wealthy men. American Idol is predicated on it, for as Jiminy Cricket reminds us, "when your heart is in your dream, no request is too extreme."
The conviction that nothing is written defines our spirit, and because we believe it we make it reality often enough to keep believing. "It's always darkest before the dawn," the proverb tells us. It is woven into the most treasured tales of our past. It's why a militia of farmers defeated an empire, why a people in bondage were set free, why one president could galvanize a nation in need by saying, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," why another could convince us to shoot for the moon, "not because it is easy, but because it is hard," and why another could look on a continent in chains and command, "Tear down this wall!"
I was reminded of these lessons while watching the New Hampshire primary returns come in. Six months ago John McCain was written off. "Non Factor," "Over the Hill Mac" read the headlines. Today he is the victor. His dream lives on. On Monday Hillary Clinton was written off. "Panic," "She's So Yesterday" read the headlines. Today she is the victor. Her dream lives on. The man she defeated is himself an exemplar of the same tenet, an apostle of the possible, a surmounter for whom nothing is written. His dream too lives on.
The analysts had the people of little New Hampshire all figured out. They had been surveyed and dissected from every conceivable angle, their preferences and predilections measured, their hot buttons mapped and their demographics tabulated. The results were but a formality. They were written. The political strategists were already at work charting the next phase of the campaign and developing spin to take best advantage of the situation. The pundits were busy opining on what it all meant and debating whether the vanquished would be able to go on. Then the people of New Hampshire decided they were going to do something else. They would do the writing themselves, thank you.
Americans revel in these narratives. We resist being categorized, pigeonholed, sorted and boxed. We love proving the experts wrong. We love waking up in the morning to a picture of a grinning Harry Truman holding a copy of the Chicago Tribune with the banner headline "Dewey Defeats Truman." We hate being told we cannot. That is exactly the way to get us started. For us there are no inevitables. Nothing is written.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Presidential Timbre: The Republicans
Moving on from my previous synopsis of the Democrats, here's a rundown on how the Republican contenders might operate as president. First the major contenders, then the longshots.
The Major Contenders:
Rudy Giuliani jumped into the national spotlight as Mayor of New York City during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Giuliani's persona as the energetic, resolute, optimistic leader directing the city's recovery response endeared him to millions of Americans and earned him the nickname "America's Mayor." It is this effort and image that forms the foundation of his standing and run for the White House. But there is much more to this native Brooklynite. He has a long record of driven success, decisiveness, scandal and temperamental vendettas. He is also a very different kind of Republican, embracing its tax, crime and business platform but departing sharply from the social agenda that has energized the core of its support since 1980. Like the city he governed, he is in many ways paradoxical.
Giuliani came to national attention in the 1980s as a crusading federal prosecutor, securing numerous convictions of top Mafia figures. His political style is to bull his way straight ahead. As mayor he adopted the "broken windows" approach, moving rapidly to eliminate blight and unleash the police. He is given credit for economic progress, budgetary prudence and making areas such as Times Square safe for families again, though the zealous police tactics also gave rise to heightened charges of racial profiling and police brutality during his tenure. Headstrong and confident, Giuliani showed little inclination to compromise and engaged in bitter public feuds with his opponents. He also had a high profile affair with his current (third) wife while still married to his second. Breaking the typical Republican mould, he championed abortion rights and gun control, and roomed with a gay couple when he was between wives. Several of his close associates, most notably his former police commissioner, have fallen afoul of the law on corruption charges.
As president Giuliani would make a major effort on terrorism and strengthening the military. He has not gone into detail on other domestic plans, but he could be expected to avoid tax hikes and favor business-friendly policies. Relations with congress could be very confrontational if the Democrats retain control; Rudy does not like to be opposed or contradicted. In order to better appeal to his party's base he has softened his rhetoric on gun control and promised to appoint "strict constructionist" judges to the federal bench, i.e. those who could be expected to limit abortion rights. Giuliani has little foreign policy experience and would need to do a good job of picking advisors. He has taken the unusual stance of avoiding the early caucus and primary states to focus on bigger urban states, where he is presumably more popular, later in the race. This could prove wise in saving his resources for the winnable battles, or foolish if other candidates gather momentum while Giuliani sits on the sidelines.
Mike Huckabee emerged from the second tier of Republican hopefuls to capture Iowa and vault himself into contention for the nomination. Huckabee graduated from theological seminary and served as a Baptist minister for 16 years. He ascribed his ascension in the polls to the will of God. Interestingly, Huckabee was born in Hope, the same small town as that other Arkansas governor, Bill Clinton. Huckabee's greatest appeal is to fellow evangelicals; he shares their social positions and runs as a "Christian leader" who is defined by his faith. As governor for 11 years he proved flexible in working with the legislature and was able to get things done on the budget and education through compromise, even including raising taxes at times. While he hews to firm Republican positions on issues like immigration and abortion, he does so while evidencing a tolerance and empathy for those who disagree to a far greater extent than the other Republican candidates. His soft-spoken affability, leavened by humor, is effective on the stump.
As president Huckabee would work to reduce inflammatory partisanship. Based on his record as governor he could be expected to compromise where necessary. He has promised to continue President Bush's Iraq policy, though he has criticized the current president's conduct of foreign affairs as "arrogant" and having a "bunker mentality." In probably his most radical proposal, Huckabee favors eliminating income taxes and the IRS and raising all federal revenues from a national sales tax. This is a crackpot idea that fuels questions about his grasp of economics. Yet Huckabee's demeanor might serve to turn down the volume of the partisan noise machines in Washington.
Mitt Romney is an accomplished executive, venture capitalist and former Massachusetts governor who did a great deal to salvage the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics as they headed toward scandal and financial collapse. Romney would make history by being the first Mormon president. As son of a former governor of Michigan who ran for president in 1968, Romney knows politics, though he likes to run as an outsider. Displaying outstanding aptitude for business and investment, Romney founded his own company and built a fortune estimated in the high tens of millions of dollars. He has never suffered the slightest hint of scandal or appearance of impropriety. Romney showed considerable skill in getting elected governor of the overwhelmingly liberal Democratic state of Massachusetts, using $6 million of his own funds to bankroll his campaign and air a slew of negative ads against his opponent. As governor he sought to administer the state in the businesslike fashion of a CEO. His most important accomplishment was to team with Ted Kennedy to introduce mandated health insurance in the state (everyone is required to buy it.) He did not raise taxes but did raise fees and transfer some expenditures to local government.
Romney was already reasonably well known nationally from the Olympics and as governor when he entered the public eye in a big way following the Massachusetts Supreme Court's 2004 ruling in favor of gay marriage. Romney strongly spoke out against the court decision and became a favorite of social conservatives. Though this appeal catapulted his entry into national Republican politics it has exposed his candidacy to charges of blatant flip-flopping on the gamut of conservative social issues. In his Massachusetts campaigns Romney came out for gay rights, stem cell research, permissive immigration policies and choice on abortion. To make headway with Republican primary voters Romney has reversed all these positions and comes across as a political chameleon. Romney is handsome and articulate but lacks spontaneity, has a patrician air and has trouble connecting with an audience emotionally. He has detailed proposals on government reorganization and most issues, favoring market solutions and strongly backing the Iraq War.
If he is elected the Romney White House would likely hum with efficiency and produce a spate of business-friendly initiatives. He has shown plenty of willingness to compromise with legislators to get things done. Depending on what he might try to do with the social issues platform, he could either antagonize a Democratic-majority congress by pushing the conservative line or the Republican base by not doing so. He's painted himself into a corner in this aspect.
Fred Thompson is a former Tennessee senator, lobbyist, and movie and television actor who got into the race as a Bush conservative when it seemed Republicans were unenthusiastic about their candidate field. A draft movement created a bit of a groundswell that finally tempted him into the race. Thompson is a big man with a fetching drawl and a homey sense of humor. He had a solid conservative record in the Senate and usually adheres to the party line, though he angered some Republicans by supporting the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. In terms of policy, if you like Bush you will love Thompson. Thompson has conducted a lackluster campaign that has disappointed many of his early backers. He hangs around in third or fourth place in most state polls.
As president Thompson would continue the initiatives of the current Administration with few changes. He is not as polarizing as Bush but seems bereft of original ideas and would accomplish little without Republican control of congress. He has a reputation for laziness, a view hardly dispelled by the manner in which he has conducted his campaign. His Administration would probably be a dull one aside from his press conferences, which would be peppered with down home aphorisms and self-deprecating humor.
The longshots:
Duncan Hunter is a hardline conservative California congressman who has garnered scant support in the campaign. He appeals almost entirely to fear: of terrorists, illegal immigrants, homosexuals and liberal ideas. Any administration of his would be rife with acrimonious dispute.
Dr. Ron Paul is far and away the most unusual Republican running for president. This Texas congressman is a former obstetrician and Libertarian presidential candidate. He is 72 years old and would make history as the oldest president elected for a first term. Paul takes pride in voting against any measure that he feels is not explicitly permitted by the Constitution. He wants to drastically curtail taxes and government and sharply reduce the American presence around the world. Alone among the Republican hopefuls he favors a rapid withdrawal from Iraq and has come out strongly against warrantless surveillance and the use of torture. He opposes abortion but otherwise feels government should avoid meddling in people's lives. He has developed a small (high single digits) but highly devoted and generous coterie of followers who have set single-day internet fundraising records. Paul has zero chance of securing the Republican nomination and would preside over complete gridlock if he were somehow to be elected. That's because he could be expected to veto practically any budget congress would pass.
The Major Contenders:
Rudy Giuliani jumped into the national spotlight as Mayor of New York City during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Giuliani's persona as the energetic, resolute, optimistic leader directing the city's recovery response endeared him to millions of Americans and earned him the nickname "America's Mayor." It is this effort and image that forms the foundation of his standing and run for the White House. But there is much more to this native Brooklynite. He has a long record of driven success, decisiveness, scandal and temperamental vendettas. He is also a very different kind of Republican, embracing its tax, crime and business platform but departing sharply from the social agenda that has energized the core of its support since 1980. Like the city he governed, he is in many ways paradoxical.
Giuliani came to national attention in the 1980s as a crusading federal prosecutor, securing numerous convictions of top Mafia figures. His political style is to bull his way straight ahead. As mayor he adopted the "broken windows" approach, moving rapidly to eliminate blight and unleash the police. He is given credit for economic progress, budgetary prudence and making areas such as Times Square safe for families again, though the zealous police tactics also gave rise to heightened charges of racial profiling and police brutality during his tenure. Headstrong and confident, Giuliani showed little inclination to compromise and engaged in bitter public feuds with his opponents. He also had a high profile affair with his current (third) wife while still married to his second. Breaking the typical Republican mould, he championed abortion rights and gun control, and roomed with a gay couple when he was between wives. Several of his close associates, most notably his former police commissioner, have fallen afoul of the law on corruption charges.
As president Giuliani would make a major effort on terrorism and strengthening the military. He has not gone into detail on other domestic plans, but he could be expected to avoid tax hikes and favor business-friendly policies. Relations with congress could be very confrontational if the Democrats retain control; Rudy does not like to be opposed or contradicted. In order to better appeal to his party's base he has softened his rhetoric on gun control and promised to appoint "strict constructionist" judges to the federal bench, i.e. those who could be expected to limit abortion rights. Giuliani has little foreign policy experience and would need to do a good job of picking advisors. He has taken the unusual stance of avoiding the early caucus and primary states to focus on bigger urban states, where he is presumably more popular, later in the race. This could prove wise in saving his resources for the winnable battles, or foolish if other candidates gather momentum while Giuliani sits on the sidelines.
Mike Huckabee emerged from the second tier of Republican hopefuls to capture Iowa and vault himself into contention for the nomination. Huckabee graduated from theological seminary and served as a Baptist minister for 16 years. He ascribed his ascension in the polls to the will of God. Interestingly, Huckabee was born in Hope, the same small town as that other Arkansas governor, Bill Clinton. Huckabee's greatest appeal is to fellow evangelicals; he shares their social positions and runs as a "Christian leader" who is defined by his faith. As governor for 11 years he proved flexible in working with the legislature and was able to get things done on the budget and education through compromise, even including raising taxes at times. While he hews to firm Republican positions on issues like immigration and abortion, he does so while evidencing a tolerance and empathy for those who disagree to a far greater extent than the other Republican candidates. His soft-spoken affability, leavened by humor, is effective on the stump.
As president Huckabee would work to reduce inflammatory partisanship. Based on his record as governor he could be expected to compromise where necessary. He has promised to continue President Bush's Iraq policy, though he has criticized the current president's conduct of foreign affairs as "arrogant" and having a "bunker mentality." In probably his most radical proposal, Huckabee favors eliminating income taxes and the IRS and raising all federal revenues from a national sales tax. This is a crackpot idea that fuels questions about his grasp of economics. Yet Huckabee's demeanor might serve to turn down the volume of the partisan noise machines in Washington.
John McCain is a conservative Arizona senator with a pronounced independent streak. At 71 he would make history as the oldest candidate elected to his first term. As a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five and a half years McCain suffered torture and is justifiably regarded as a hero. He has tremendous experience in Washington, having served a total of 24 years in congress, the last 20 of that in the senate. McCain is extremely well informed on practically any subject, especially foreign and defense policy. Investigated in a savings and loan scandal in the late eighties due to his close association and advocacy for one of the convicted criminals, McCain has ever since supported reducing the influence of money in politics and angered many in his own party by teaming with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) to pass a landmark campaign finance reform law. McCain says what he thinks and is known to have a hot temper.
McCain is a conventional conservative in that he doesn't like taxes, supports most of the "family values" agenda, likes market solutions to problems and is a wholehearted advocate of military expenditure in general and the Iraq War in particular. But he is famous as a "maverick" for refusing to toe the party line when he feels it doesn't make sense. He opposed the Bush tax cuts, fearing they would balloon the deficit. (They have.) He helped put together a bipartisan comprehensive immigration plan that combined border enforcement with a path to citizenship. It was excoriated by conservatives and defeated, at political cost to him. He supports nuclear power generation but is unusual among Republicans for acknowledging global warming and considering it a serious priority. McCain's independent streak tends to make him annoying to loyal Republicans but attractive to independents. It often stands as an impediment to his presidential ambitions within his party but could make him an effective candidate in the general election should he get the nomination.
As president, McCain would vigorously prosecute the Iraq War and the war on terror as a whole. He would beef up border security against illegal immigration. He would look for ways to cut the nonmilitary budget, but given the realities of Republican primary politics is now committed to the Bush tax cuts and would not rescind them. He would appoint conservative judges who might overturn Roe v. Wade. On the other hand he would end the use of torture on detainees, propose sweeping carbon reductions and try to find more money for the national parks. He likes to make deals and would be more than open to them on things he agreed with. When challenged with things he does not agree with he would tend to be quite stubborn and even irascible at times. One thing is for certain--he would always see things from his own perspective, regardless of the party orthodoxies. That could either make him a popular change agent or turn everyone against him, depending on how things played out.
Mitt Romney is an accomplished executive, venture capitalist and former Massachusetts governor who did a great deal to salvage the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics as they headed toward scandal and financial collapse. Romney would make history by being the first Mormon president. As son of a former governor of Michigan who ran for president in 1968, Romney knows politics, though he likes to run as an outsider. Displaying outstanding aptitude for business and investment, Romney founded his own company and built a fortune estimated in the high tens of millions of dollars. He has never suffered the slightest hint of scandal or appearance of impropriety. Romney showed considerable skill in getting elected governor of the overwhelmingly liberal Democratic state of Massachusetts, using $6 million of his own funds to bankroll his campaign and air a slew of negative ads against his opponent. As governor he sought to administer the state in the businesslike fashion of a CEO. His most important accomplishment was to team with Ted Kennedy to introduce mandated health insurance in the state (everyone is required to buy it.) He did not raise taxes but did raise fees and transfer some expenditures to local government.
Romney was already reasonably well known nationally from the Olympics and as governor when he entered the public eye in a big way following the Massachusetts Supreme Court's 2004 ruling in favor of gay marriage. Romney strongly spoke out against the court decision and became a favorite of social conservatives. Though this appeal catapulted his entry into national Republican politics it has exposed his candidacy to charges of blatant flip-flopping on the gamut of conservative social issues. In his Massachusetts campaigns Romney came out for gay rights, stem cell research, permissive immigration policies and choice on abortion. To make headway with Republican primary voters Romney has reversed all these positions and comes across as a political chameleon. Romney is handsome and articulate but lacks spontaneity, has a patrician air and has trouble connecting with an audience emotionally. He has detailed proposals on government reorganization and most issues, favoring market solutions and strongly backing the Iraq War.
If he is elected the Romney White House would likely hum with efficiency and produce a spate of business-friendly initiatives. He has shown plenty of willingness to compromise with legislators to get things done. Depending on what he might try to do with the social issues platform, he could either antagonize a Democratic-majority congress by pushing the conservative line or the Republican base by not doing so. He's painted himself into a corner in this aspect.
Fred Thompson is a former Tennessee senator, lobbyist, and movie and television actor who got into the race as a Bush conservative when it seemed Republicans were unenthusiastic about their candidate field. A draft movement created a bit of a groundswell that finally tempted him into the race. Thompson is a big man with a fetching drawl and a homey sense of humor. He had a solid conservative record in the Senate and usually adheres to the party line, though he angered some Republicans by supporting the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. In terms of policy, if you like Bush you will love Thompson. Thompson has conducted a lackluster campaign that has disappointed many of his early backers. He hangs around in third or fourth place in most state polls.
As president Thompson would continue the initiatives of the current Administration with few changes. He is not as polarizing as Bush but seems bereft of original ideas and would accomplish little without Republican control of congress. He has a reputation for laziness, a view hardly dispelled by the manner in which he has conducted his campaign. His Administration would probably be a dull one aside from his press conferences, which would be peppered with down home aphorisms and self-deprecating humor.
The longshots:
Duncan Hunter is a hardline conservative California congressman who has garnered scant support in the campaign. He appeals almost entirely to fear: of terrorists, illegal immigrants, homosexuals and liberal ideas. Any administration of his would be rife with acrimonious dispute.
Dr. Ron Paul is far and away the most unusual Republican running for president. This Texas congressman is a former obstetrician and Libertarian presidential candidate. He is 72 years old and would make history as the oldest president elected for a first term. Paul takes pride in voting against any measure that he feels is not explicitly permitted by the Constitution. He wants to drastically curtail taxes and government and sharply reduce the American presence around the world. Alone among the Republican hopefuls he favors a rapid withdrawal from Iraq and has come out strongly against warrantless surveillance and the use of torture. He opposes abortion but otherwise feels government should avoid meddling in people's lives. He has developed a small (high single digits) but highly devoted and generous coterie of followers who have set single-day internet fundraising records. Paul has zero chance of securing the Republican nomination and would preside over complete gridlock if he were somehow to be elected. That's because he could be expected to veto practically any budget congress would pass.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Presidential Timbre: The Democrats
What kind of president would Hillary Clinton be? Or Rudy Giuliani? I'll offer some speculations today based on such things as their personalities, records and campaign themes. I'll start with the Democrats today beginning with the Big Three in alphabetical order, then the longshots.
The longshots:
Mike Gravel is a former Alaska senator who is nearly 80 years old, irascible and cantankerous. His politics are very liberal. Gravel is not a serious candidate, and if by some form of voodoo magic or conjunction of the planets he were to become president he would quickly alienate practically everyone in and out of government. His Administration would be a disaster.
Dennis Kucinich is the true liberal purist in the campaign. He stands wholeheartedly for choice, gay rights, withdrawal from Iraq, a single-payer health care plan, reducing the military and militarism, stringent efforts on the environment and alternative power, heavily taxing and diminishing the power of corporations, raising the minimum wage substantially, and so on down the line. He has introduced articles of impeachment in the House against Dick Cheney. He is pretty close to a pacifist unless the United States is directly attacked. Kucinich seems not to care about political games and always stands firmly for his principles, beginning with his record as the "boy mayor of Cleveland" at the age of 31 nearly thirty years ago. Kucinich is smart and knows the issues. He is also so inflexibly to the far left and lacking charisma that most Democratic voters sense his unelectability and very few have rallied to his cause, though many no doubt sympathize in their hearts with most of his views. Were he miraculously to get elected president he would get very little past the senate unless the Democrats held 60 or more seats and could overcome repeated Republican filibusters. He probably couldn't hold all the Democrats together, for that matter.
Bill Richardson has the best resume of anyone running for president in either party. If he is elected he will make history as the first Mexican-American president. He has served in local government, private business, congress, as Secretary of Energy, Ambassador to the United Nations and Governor of New Mexico. This combination of local, state and national government, the private sector, and federal executive and diplomatic leadership reads like a primer on how to train someone to be president. As might be expected he is knowledgeable about a wide range of topics and has had considerable success in getting his ideas adopted across party lines. He was re-elected governor with 69% of the vote, including a remarkable 40% of Republicans. Politically, Richardson is moderate to moderately liberal. He is smart and affable with a sense of humor, and known as something of a bon vivant. Despite his resume credentials Richardson's campaign has made little headway against the star power of the Big Three. He might well be on their short lists for Vice President.
The Big Three:
Hillary Clinton is a pragmatist and a tough customer. If she is elected she will make history as the first woman president. Her very public life in the line of fire over many years has given her a hard shell that masks a warm personality now rarely seen outside intimate settings. Like most of the candidates she is extremely intelligent and well informed. She is a strong-willed woman, and self-disciplined nearly in proportion to the extent that her husband is not. She does her homework, has a large, capable, dedicated staff, and has detailed policy plans on a host of points. She would be competent in the office. She is not the radical her political opponents have painted her as. Her instincts are those of a moderate liberal, and she has worked across the aisle with the Republicans often in the Senate. She would be smart and tough in foreign affairs, as progressive domestically as the budget and congress would allow, and always keep one calculating eye on the next election. She will make deals for half a loaf when necessary or expedient. The antipathy with which the Republicans and her other opponents view her would make her presidency combative; there would indeed be a good measure of polarization.
John Edwards is charming, handsome, glib and smart. The sunny progressive of 2004 has become much more of an irate populist in 2008. He won his spurs in lawsuits targeting corporate negligence and liability over many years, and established a phenomenal success record. All the Democratic candidates are running against moneyed influence in Washington, but Edwards does so with a sense of urgency and passion that indicates he really means it. Though his Senate record is fairly conventional, his attorney past and campaign present say that as president he would pursue liberal reform with a vengeance. Campaigning for president virtually nonstop for the past five years, Edwards knows his stuff and positions on every issue. He'd push hard for the liberal agenda on health care, trade, education, Iraq and the like. If he were to get a receptive congress the times would for sure be a-changin'. If not he would face a mountain of bitter resistance from the institutions that like things as they are.
Barack Obama is a phenomenon, a combination of brains and charisma. If he is elected he will make history as the first president of African descent (his father was from Kenya.) Obama is a big-picture guy. His issue positions are very liberal but not as fleshed out in detail as his two major rivals. He has experience and a talent for organization, as shown in his Chicago community work and in his political campaigns, especially the current one. His appeal to a transformative postpartisanship strikes a resonant chord among many wearied by the red and blue wars of recent decades. He has demonstrated an ability to work across the aisle, especially in Springfield, though his accomplishments in Washington are a bit sparse so far. If he were to enter office with a decisive wave of popular support he might be able to overcome inertia and partisan wrangling to an unprecedented extent, but otherwise his visionary approach could founder amid the minutiae and interest politics of the old-fashioned D.C. power game. He will make deals when they further his purposes. His basic approach to foreign affairs makes sense, but given his relative inexperience it would be important for him to assemble a strong team of advisors.The longshots:
Mike Gravel is a former Alaska senator who is nearly 80 years old, irascible and cantankerous. His politics are very liberal. Gravel is not a serious candidate, and if by some form of voodoo magic or conjunction of the planets he were to become president he would quickly alienate practically everyone in and out of government. His Administration would be a disaster.
Dennis Kucinich is the true liberal purist in the campaign. He stands wholeheartedly for choice, gay rights, withdrawal from Iraq, a single-payer health care plan, reducing the military and militarism, stringent efforts on the environment and alternative power, heavily taxing and diminishing the power of corporations, raising the minimum wage substantially, and so on down the line. He has introduced articles of impeachment in the House against Dick Cheney. He is pretty close to a pacifist unless the United States is directly attacked. Kucinich seems not to care about political games and always stands firmly for his principles, beginning with his record as the "boy mayor of Cleveland" at the age of 31 nearly thirty years ago. Kucinich is smart and knows the issues. He is also so inflexibly to the far left and lacking charisma that most Democratic voters sense his unelectability and very few have rallied to his cause, though many no doubt sympathize in their hearts with most of his views. Were he miraculously to get elected president he would get very little past the senate unless the Democrats held 60 or more seats and could overcome repeated Republican filibusters. He probably couldn't hold all the Democrats together, for that matter.
Bill Richardson has the best resume of anyone running for president in either party. If he is elected he will make history as the first Mexican-American president. He has served in local government, private business, congress, as Secretary of Energy, Ambassador to the United Nations and Governor of New Mexico. This combination of local, state and national government, the private sector, and federal executive and diplomatic leadership reads like a primer on how to train someone to be president. As might be expected he is knowledgeable about a wide range of topics and has had considerable success in getting his ideas adopted across party lines. He was re-elected governor with 69% of the vote, including a remarkable 40% of Republicans. Politically, Richardson is moderate to moderately liberal. He is smart and affable with a sense of humor, and known as something of a bon vivant. Despite his resume credentials Richardson's campaign has made little headway against the star power of the Big Three. He might well be on their short lists for Vice President.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
The Old New Hampshire Take Down
I'd call tonight's back-to-back Republican and Democratic debates in New Hampshire the "Take Down Debates." The majority in each debate seemed intent on crippling one candidate in particular. The Republicans went after Mitt Romney and the Democrats went after Hillary Clinton.
It's clear the Republican field is most afraid of Romney. His money gives him staying power and the organizational prowess his money provides is good at turning out the voters who support him. It's apparent his opponents would like to get him out of the way to help level the playing field, and they spent a lot of time directing shots his way. If they are successful we could see a regional split among the Republican candidates, with Thompson and Huckabee going head to head in the South and Giuliani and McCain squaring off in the North. We'll see on Tuesday how effective they were at whittling him down to size. If Romney fails to win New Hampshire after failing to win Iowa it will be a blow to his legitimacy. Just keep in mind his resources will allow him to continue the campaign as long as he likes. If no one emerges as the leader, Romney's ace in the hole is his popularity with the GOP establishment, its wealthy movers and shakers with whom he fits in quite well.
On the Democratic side, both Obama and Edwards seem to have identified Clinton as the main enemy and at times acted almost like a tag team against her. The wild card in this was Edwards. He could have decided to undermine Obama as the current holder of momentum. Instead he went after Clinton even harder than Obama did. He seems to have determined she is the most vulnerable after Iowa and by crippling her would like to set up a one on one versus Obama. This is a pretty risky strategy for him and indicates a measure of desperation in his position. If Obama wins New Hampshire big he may be awfully tough to stop, certainly by Edwards. Clinton's nationwide lead will likely begin to erode badly if she finishes third on Tuesday. But if she squeezes out a victory it's quite a race again. Both Clinton and Obama have the organizational and financial resources to go the distance. Edwards needs some good news to set up a few wins on Super Tuesday, February 5. His appeal is a populist one directed to the middle and lower middle class. It could be he's hoping to clean up in the South, but the Democratic vote there is heavily African American. Or it could be he hopes to capitalize on economic disaffection in the Rust Belt. The Clinton organization is strong there, so its neutralization might give him his only chance. Either way, he's really in a box.
It's clear the Republican field is most afraid of Romney. His money gives him staying power and the organizational prowess his money provides is good at turning out the voters who support him. It's apparent his opponents would like to get him out of the way to help level the playing field, and they spent a lot of time directing shots his way. If they are successful we could see a regional split among the Republican candidates, with Thompson and Huckabee going head to head in the South and Giuliani and McCain squaring off in the North. We'll see on Tuesday how effective they were at whittling him down to size. If Romney fails to win New Hampshire after failing to win Iowa it will be a blow to his legitimacy. Just keep in mind his resources will allow him to continue the campaign as long as he likes. If no one emerges as the leader, Romney's ace in the hole is his popularity with the GOP establishment, its wealthy movers and shakers with whom he fits in quite well.
On the Democratic side, both Obama and Edwards seem to have identified Clinton as the main enemy and at times acted almost like a tag team against her. The wild card in this was Edwards. He could have decided to undermine Obama as the current holder of momentum. Instead he went after Clinton even harder than Obama did. He seems to have determined she is the most vulnerable after Iowa and by crippling her would like to set up a one on one versus Obama. This is a pretty risky strategy for him and indicates a measure of desperation in his position. If Obama wins New Hampshire big he may be awfully tough to stop, certainly by Edwards. Clinton's nationwide lead will likely begin to erode badly if she finishes third on Tuesday. But if she squeezes out a victory it's quite a race again. Both Clinton and Obama have the organizational and financial resources to go the distance. Edwards needs some good news to set up a few wins on Super Tuesday, February 5. His appeal is a populist one directed to the middle and lower middle class. It could be he's hoping to clean up in the South, but the Democratic vote there is heavily African American. Or it could be he hopes to capitalize on economic disaffection in the Rust Belt. The Clinton organization is strong there, so its neutralization might give him his only chance. Either way, he's really in a box.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Iowa: Two Underlying Messages
By now you've seen the results from Iowa. On the Democratic side Barack Obama pulled away from John Edwards and Hillary Clinton in a race that had been very tight. On the Republican side Mike Huckabee surged from nowhere three months ago to take the lead from Mitt Romney, then held off Romney's comeback attempt to post a solid victory.
Here are the latest, nearly complete figures:
Democrats (caucuses) Obama 38%, Edwards 30%, Clinton 29%, Richardson 2%, Biden 1%. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd are ending their campaigns. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel vow to fight on.
Republicans (straw vote) Huckabee 34%, Romney 25%, Thompson 13%, McCain 13%, Paul 10%, Giuliani 3%.
Most media reporting has concentrated on Obama's groundbreaking win as an African-American and Huckabee's remarkable win despite Romney's immense financial advantage. They seem to feel Obama may be all but unstoppable now but that Huckabee may face rough sledding in Northern and urban states against Romney, Giuliani and McCain. Whether or not these prognostications materialize, time will tell. I'll have more to say in future posts. For tonight, though, I can't help drawing two conclusions from what transpired. The first has been talked about quite a bit, perhaps no better than by John Edwards, who said, "Tonight change won. The status quo lost." The second is that the Iowa voting bodes extremely well for the Democrats in 2008.
The big message of the evening was change. Of the Democrats Obama is the vision candidate. Edwards is the populist. Clinton ran on competence and change largely within the system. She came in third. A close third, to be sure, but third nonetheless. Democrats tend to favor change more than Republicans to begin with, and after seven years of a Republican president and six of a Republican congress that have thoroughly infuriated them this impulse for change has seldom been stronger. The only question for Democrats is how to effect it. Edwards's promise is to fight the institutions and groups that have been holding it back. Clinton pledges to work the levers of power to gain change politically. The similarity between both is the likelihood of partisan confrontation. Obama's tone has been quite different; he evokes instead a transformational appeal that he sometimes refers to as "postpartisan." His eloquent Iowa victory speech is one of the finest expositions of it yet given in American politics. Whether this can actually work in Washington is anybody's guess, and the historical record is not promising. But there is no question it speaks to a deep yearning that has been building in American society for some years now.
Serious problems beset the republic. Energy, education, debt, social security, exporting jobs, crime and Iraq are examples of problems that have been around for a long time now. There has been a great deal of sound, fury and finger pointing about them. And still they go unsolved while the parties and advocacy groups hurl blame. This is why Obama won. Although his voting record and proposals are quite liberal, his tone is inclusive and his approach conciliatory. Americans, fed up with anger and division, seek deliverance. Obama, by virtue of who he is and how he appeals for change, calls us to hear "the better angels of our nature," as Lincoln put it, and strikes a healing chord many are hungry to hear. It is also no surprise to learn that entrance and exit polls indicate Obama's margin of victory is attributable to the large numbers of independent voters at the Democratic caucuses. His "postpartisan" message is doubtlessly particularly appealing to them.
Change was also the strong message in the Republican results. Together, Huckabee, McCain and Paul garnered 57% of the Republican votes. The more conventional hard-edged candidates, Romney, Thompson, Giuliani and Hunter polled only 43%. Huckabee's ideas are conservative, but expressed in a calm and personable manner that frequently includes a humane element absent from his more hard boiled opponents. His debate admonition not to forget that illegal immigrants are human beings too stands as an instructive example. Its seeming sincerity stands as counterpoint to George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" slogan of 2000 that has in operation appeared more rhetoric than reality. In McCain's case, his predilection for striking an independent course from party orthodoxy is so well known that "maverick" is practically regarded as his middle name. He's opposed the majority of his party on the Bush tax cuts, campaign finance, torture and immigration yet still nearly came in third in Iowa despite hardly campaigning in the state. Paul got 10% as the most obvious change agent due to his opposition to the war in Iraq and his libertarian social and economic stands. Their combined 57% shows that Republicans too were eager to throw a few rocks through the windows of the status quo.
The second underlying message from Iowa tonight is that 2008 could well be shaping up as a banner year for the Democrats and a potentially devastating one for the Republicans. The turnout figures there are ominous for the GOP. The previous record turnout for the Iowa Democratic caucuses was 125,000 in 2004. Tonight they drew an estimated 232,000 people, an 86% gain and a powerful indicator of the interest and enthusiasm for the Democratic race and its candidates. By contrast, the Republican contest attracted about 115,000, still equal to the state record set in 1980, but more than 115,000 behind the Democrats. This comes in a state with 600,000 registered Democrats, 574,000 Republicans and 737,000 "undeclared" voters, who can choose to caucus with either party. For the Republicans to trail by only 26,000 voters statewide but get 115,000 fewer to the polls is extremely worrisome for their prospects in November. Certainly a great number of these were "undeclared" voters who found the Democratic race or candidates more appealing. No doubt many others were Democrats who haven't usually participated in the past. Entrance polls showed that these first-time caucusers broke heavily for the Democrats and for Obama. Neither development is good news for the Republicans, especially considering George W. Bush won the state in 2004 by less than 1%. It will be telling to see if this trend is repeated in New Hampshire and other upcoming primary and caucus states. Perhaps this was a unique blip just for Iowa. But if not it could be a long year for the GOP.
Here are the latest, nearly complete figures:
Democrats (caucuses) Obama 38%, Edwards 30%, Clinton 29%, Richardson 2%, Biden 1%. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd are ending their campaigns. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel vow to fight on.
Republicans (straw vote) Huckabee 34%, Romney 25%, Thompson 13%, McCain 13%, Paul 10%, Giuliani 3%.
Most media reporting has concentrated on Obama's groundbreaking win as an African-American and Huckabee's remarkable win despite Romney's immense financial advantage. They seem to feel Obama may be all but unstoppable now but that Huckabee may face rough sledding in Northern and urban states against Romney, Giuliani and McCain. Whether or not these prognostications materialize, time will tell. I'll have more to say in future posts. For tonight, though, I can't help drawing two conclusions from what transpired. The first has been talked about quite a bit, perhaps no better than by John Edwards, who said, "Tonight change won. The status quo lost." The second is that the Iowa voting bodes extremely well for the Democrats in 2008.
The big message of the evening was change. Of the Democrats Obama is the vision candidate. Edwards is the populist. Clinton ran on competence and change largely within the system. She came in third. A close third, to be sure, but third nonetheless. Democrats tend to favor change more than Republicans to begin with, and after seven years of a Republican president and six of a Republican congress that have thoroughly infuriated them this impulse for change has seldom been stronger. The only question for Democrats is how to effect it. Edwards's promise is to fight the institutions and groups that have been holding it back. Clinton pledges to work the levers of power to gain change politically. The similarity between both is the likelihood of partisan confrontation. Obama's tone has been quite different; he evokes instead a transformational appeal that he sometimes refers to as "postpartisan." His eloquent Iowa victory speech is one of the finest expositions of it yet given in American politics. Whether this can actually work in Washington is anybody's guess, and the historical record is not promising. But there is no question it speaks to a deep yearning that has been building in American society for some years now.
Serious problems beset the republic. Energy, education, debt, social security, exporting jobs, crime and Iraq are examples of problems that have been around for a long time now. There has been a great deal of sound, fury and finger pointing about them. And still they go unsolved while the parties and advocacy groups hurl blame. This is why Obama won. Although his voting record and proposals are quite liberal, his tone is inclusive and his approach conciliatory. Americans, fed up with anger and division, seek deliverance. Obama, by virtue of who he is and how he appeals for change, calls us to hear "the better angels of our nature," as Lincoln put it, and strikes a healing chord many are hungry to hear. It is also no surprise to learn that entrance and exit polls indicate Obama's margin of victory is attributable to the large numbers of independent voters at the Democratic caucuses. His "postpartisan" message is doubtlessly particularly appealing to them.
Change was also the strong message in the Republican results. Together, Huckabee, McCain and Paul garnered 57% of the Republican votes. The more conventional hard-edged candidates, Romney, Thompson, Giuliani and Hunter polled only 43%. Huckabee's ideas are conservative, but expressed in a calm and personable manner that frequently includes a humane element absent from his more hard boiled opponents. His debate admonition not to forget that illegal immigrants are human beings too stands as an instructive example. Its seeming sincerity stands as counterpoint to George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" slogan of 2000 that has in operation appeared more rhetoric than reality. In McCain's case, his predilection for striking an independent course from party orthodoxy is so well known that "maverick" is practically regarded as his middle name. He's opposed the majority of his party on the Bush tax cuts, campaign finance, torture and immigration yet still nearly came in third in Iowa despite hardly campaigning in the state. Paul got 10% as the most obvious change agent due to his opposition to the war in Iraq and his libertarian social and economic stands. Their combined 57% shows that Republicans too were eager to throw a few rocks through the windows of the status quo.
The second underlying message from Iowa tonight is that 2008 could well be shaping up as a banner year for the Democrats and a potentially devastating one for the Republicans. The turnout figures there are ominous for the GOP. The previous record turnout for the Iowa Democratic caucuses was 125,000 in 2004. Tonight they drew an estimated 232,000 people, an 86% gain and a powerful indicator of the interest and enthusiasm for the Democratic race and its candidates. By contrast, the Republican contest attracted about 115,000, still equal to the state record set in 1980, but more than 115,000 behind the Democrats. This comes in a state with 600,000 registered Democrats, 574,000 Republicans and 737,000 "undeclared" voters, who can choose to caucus with either party. For the Republicans to trail by only 26,000 voters statewide but get 115,000 fewer to the polls is extremely worrisome for their prospects in November. Certainly a great number of these were "undeclared" voters who found the Democratic race or candidates more appealing. No doubt many others were Democrats who haven't usually participated in the past. Entrance polls showed that these first-time caucusers broke heavily for the Democrats and for Obama. Neither development is good news for the Republicans, especially considering George W. Bush won the state in 2004 by less than 1%. It will be telling to see if this trend is repeated in New Hampshire and other upcoming primary and caucus states. Perhaps this was a unique blip just for Iowa. But if not it could be a long year for the GOP.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
New Year's Wishes for 2008
May you enjoy good health, the love of your relatives and the company of good friends. With these in your possession you may count yourself rich.
May your days be filled with interesting work and activities. If they are not then make them so. With the fulfillment these bring you will always feel needed.
May you have the courage to admit your own failings and the grace to forgive those of others. Cultivate these traits and you will never be alone.
May you know the joy of helping others. It is the surest path to loving one's self.
May you never doubt that you are here to leave the world a better place than you found it. Act on this and you will never lack for purpose or hope.
May you live the positive characteristics you wish to see in others wherever you go. You will get back what you put out.
May you pursue your dreams with zeal and enthusiasm. Keep them fresh and you will always feel young.
May you never doubt that a small group of dedicated people can change the world. Indeed it's the only thing that ever has.
Have a wonderful 2008!
May your days be filled with interesting work and activities. If they are not then make them so. With the fulfillment these bring you will always feel needed.
May you have the courage to admit your own failings and the grace to forgive those of others. Cultivate these traits and you will never be alone.
May you know the joy of helping others. It is the surest path to loving one's self.
May you never doubt that you are here to leave the world a better place than you found it. Act on this and you will never lack for purpose or hope.
May you live the positive characteristics you wish to see in others wherever you go. You will get back what you put out.
May you pursue your dreams with zeal and enthusiasm. Keep them fresh and you will always feel young.
May you never doubt that a small group of dedicated people can change the world. Indeed it's the only thing that ever has.
Have a wonderful 2008!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)