In yesterday's post I explained why John McCain is essentially and genuinely a conservative. Today I'll take a look at why, if that is the case, he has frequently diverged from the Republican Party line on important issues. When he does this it is invariably for one of three reasons. Sometimes he doesn't feel the Party is being truly conservative. At other times he is flexible enough to be persuaded by the facts. And on other occasions he is simply tacking with the flow for political advantage.
Sometimes McCain opposes his own party because he feels it is not being conservative enough, based on the way he understands conservatism. This is particularly true on ethics issues. That's why McCain helped assemble a coalition composed mainly of Democrats to pass the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform in 2002, why he has tried to include provisions against torture in intelligence authorization bills since the invasion of Iraq and why he pursued the Abramoff corruption scandal so avidly. His view of conservatism includes the concept of America as moral beacon.
His early brush with special interest scandal in the Keating Five case back in the 1980s opened his eyes to the corrosive and corrupting effects of special interest money on the political process. Like many Democrats he shares this view for moral reasons, but reasons that he sees as conservative. The people's money gets wasted on things that aren't necessary because of special interest influence-buying. America's moral influence in the world is compromised by the use of torture. Free and honest political debate does not take place when unaccountable organizations are able to flood the political parties with unlimited amounts of money with strings attached. He has often run afoul of his own party on these issues because they were the ones getting the lions' share of these monies and did not want to change a system that advantaged them. He pushed for them anyway, based on the moral considerations he saw as "true" conservatism.
On matters of pragmatic policy McCain has been at odds with many in his party because he has been sincerely persuaded by the facts. He opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 because he felt that too much of the relief went to the richest few and the cuts would balloon the deficit. He has come to the conclusion, based on nearly unanimous scientific consensus, that global warming is real and largely caused by human activity. He supports a carbon cap and trade system to provide incentives for remediation. He worked for comprehensive immigration reform with Ted Kennedy rather than simply support a "wall 'em off, round 'em up and ship 'em out" strategy because he recognized the utter futility of such an approach. In all these instances he, unlike most of his congressional Republican colleagues, prioritized fact and logic over preconception and political calculation in coming to his decisions.
Finally, despite his predilection for taking what he sees as principled stands, he is politician enough to turn one hundred eighty degrees when the political winds change direction. Note that his "flip flops" have all been cases of diverging from Republican orthodoxy, getting stopped and then returning to embrace the party line. This tendency became pronounced as he sought the Republican nomination and now moves to unify his party base in preparation for the general election campaign. It is the case on the tax cuts, which he now endorses and claims he opposed only because they were not accompanied by commensurate spending cuts. He has similarly done an about-face on immigration, speaking no more about guest workers and paths to citizenship but only of stronger border enforcement. He finally dropped his insistence on anti-torture language, voting for President Bush's intelligence bill without it. When it came down to it, he wouldn't allow anyone an opening to call him "soft on terrorism." McCain also remains all but mute on economic issues. If you go to his web site you will find no heading on "economy," or "jobs." These disingenuous tendencies are part of the man as well.
So all in all, the picture of John McCain that emerges in our two-part investigation is that of a candidate who remains as true as he can to what he sees as conservative principles but is more open than most conservatives to facts that challenge their conventional wisdom. And, when blocked, he will make the political moves he feels necessary to get where he wants to go.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Saturday, March 29, 2008
John McCain's Conservatism
John McCain presents a fascinating anomaly to most recent Republican national figures. He is often described as a maverick and unpredictable because he does not always toe the conventional party line. Some have said this shows he is without convictions or merely an opportunist, but such characterizations are neither fair nor accurate. McCain is essentially a conservative with a strong pragmatic streak. His views and positions are products of the interaction of sincerely-held core values with his experiences and understanding of real-world facts and developments. Today I'll comment on his fundamental conservatism. My next post will examine the apparent exceptions and explain McCain the maverick.
McCain qualifies as a conservative due to his core belief that "least government is best government." He prefers market approaches to problem-solving over government programs. He is unabashedly patriotic, subscribing to a faith in democracy and the idea the America is a beacon of hope to the world, the "shining city on a hill." He is also a spending hawk, objecting to earmarks, looking for waste and advocating the elimination of programs that he feels do not justify their expense. McCain has said that up to 20% of federal programs fit this description. He would like to see the re-introduction of the line-item veto for these reasons. He wants to keep taxes as low as is reasonably practicable, especially on business and investment, and wants to completely repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax.
On social issues, McCain is pro-life and anti-gay marriage. He feels that Rowe v. Wade ought to be reversed and promises to appoint supreme court justices who share that view. He believes these matters should be decided by the states. He also likes the idea of incorporating faith and community-based organizations into social efforts whenever possbile. He opposes embryonic stem-cell research. He agrees there are serious problems in access to health care, and feels that tax credits and market practices encouraging greater competition in the industry can rectify the situation. These views, growing out of his basic outlook, seem to square with conventional conservative doctrines.
McCain is famously pro-military and a leading supporter of continuing the War in Iraq. This is founded on his deep-seated view that practitioners of violent radical fundamentalist Islam represent "an existential threat to Western Civilization." To him it is a simple case of good versus evil, and good cannot back down in the face of evil. He sees no moral alternative to carrying on the fight where the fight exists. To those who point out that there were no jihadi groups in Iraq prior to our invasion, he quickly responds, "Well, they are there now. And they must be defeated."
For all these reasons, it is quite appropriate to describe John McCain as staunchly within the ranks of American conservatism. The American Conservative Union's tally of selected votes gives McCain a conservative rating of 82% for the 20 years from his election to the Senate in 1986 through 2006. When McCain describes himself as a conservative he is telling the truth, and his stance is founded on bedrock principles he has always believed in and advocated.
McCain qualifies as a conservative due to his core belief that "least government is best government." He prefers market approaches to problem-solving over government programs. He is unabashedly patriotic, subscribing to a faith in democracy and the idea the America is a beacon of hope to the world, the "shining city on a hill." He is also a spending hawk, objecting to earmarks, looking for waste and advocating the elimination of programs that he feels do not justify their expense. McCain has said that up to 20% of federal programs fit this description. He would like to see the re-introduction of the line-item veto for these reasons. He wants to keep taxes as low as is reasonably practicable, especially on business and investment, and wants to completely repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax.
On social issues, McCain is pro-life and anti-gay marriage. He feels that Rowe v. Wade ought to be reversed and promises to appoint supreme court justices who share that view. He believes these matters should be decided by the states. He also likes the idea of incorporating faith and community-based organizations into social efforts whenever possbile. He opposes embryonic stem-cell research. He agrees there are serious problems in access to health care, and feels that tax credits and market practices encouraging greater competition in the industry can rectify the situation. These views, growing out of his basic outlook, seem to square with conventional conservative doctrines.
McCain is famously pro-military and a leading supporter of continuing the War in Iraq. This is founded on his deep-seated view that practitioners of violent radical fundamentalist Islam represent "an existential threat to Western Civilization." To him it is a simple case of good versus evil, and good cannot back down in the face of evil. He sees no moral alternative to carrying on the fight where the fight exists. To those who point out that there were no jihadi groups in Iraq prior to our invasion, he quickly responds, "Well, they are there now. And they must be defeated."
For all these reasons, it is quite appropriate to describe John McCain as staunchly within the ranks of American conservatism. The American Conservative Union's tally of selected votes gives McCain a conservative rating of 82% for the 20 years from his election to the Senate in 1986 through 2006. When McCain describes himself as a conservative he is telling the truth, and his stance is founded on bedrock principles he has always believed in and advocated.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Hint to Hillary?
The apparent collapse of efforts to hold Democratic primaries in Michigan and Florida got me to thinking. Why wouldn't the party want to have these elections? Then an answer struck me: the leaders are trying to signal Hillary Clinton it's time to bow out, time to wrap the contest up.
There are some good reasons to have do-overs in the two states that held primaries early in violation of party rules and saw all their delegates stripped. In terms of democratic principles, ideally a party should want to hear from all the states. Holding votes there would remove any grounds for complaint from the trailing candidate that the absence of those two delegations had unfairly decided the race. By voting any time after February 4 they would be in compliance with the rules. The campaigns would energize Democratic voters in the two states and help the party's chances there in November. The results would not be likely to change the nomination race; Clinton needs to average 20-point victories in all the remaining states in order to catch Barack Obama in pledged delegates, even if Florida and Michigan are included.
The negotiating and planning seem to have fizzled out. Clinton is crying foul, still calling for the votes and threatening a floor fight at the convention to seat the delegations. Everyone understands that holding the elections would work to her probable advantage, likely drawing her closer to Obama in delegates and perhaps even giving her a chance to surpass him in total primary popular vote across the nation.
But it seems party leaders don't want to bother. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said the superdelegates should vote for the pledged delegate leader--almost certainly Obama. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said, in effect, not to worry, things will be over with long before the convention. When asked, "Are you sure about that?" he simply responded, "Yep." DNC Chairman Howard Dean, the figure one would expect to be working to resolve things, has been strangely noncommittal, displaying no sense of urgency. It all conveys the impression they aren't interested in lifting a finger to take any action that might help Sen. Clinton.
These three, together with Al Gore and John Edwards, constitute the Democratic Party's major leaders who have not endorsed either candidate. It could well be that if Clinton does not take the hint they are planning to come out in unison at some point and publicly ask the superdelegates to rally around the leader (Obama) for the good of the party. I wouldn't be surprised if that's how this all plays out.
There are some good reasons to have do-overs in the two states that held primaries early in violation of party rules and saw all their delegates stripped. In terms of democratic principles, ideally a party should want to hear from all the states. Holding votes there would remove any grounds for complaint from the trailing candidate that the absence of those two delegations had unfairly decided the race. By voting any time after February 4 they would be in compliance with the rules. The campaigns would energize Democratic voters in the two states and help the party's chances there in November. The results would not be likely to change the nomination race; Clinton needs to average 20-point victories in all the remaining states in order to catch Barack Obama in pledged delegates, even if Florida and Michigan are included.
The negotiating and planning seem to have fizzled out. Clinton is crying foul, still calling for the votes and threatening a floor fight at the convention to seat the delegations. Everyone understands that holding the elections would work to her probable advantage, likely drawing her closer to Obama in delegates and perhaps even giving her a chance to surpass him in total primary popular vote across the nation.
But it seems party leaders don't want to bother. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said the superdelegates should vote for the pledged delegate leader--almost certainly Obama. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said, in effect, not to worry, things will be over with long before the convention. When asked, "Are you sure about that?" he simply responded, "Yep." DNC Chairman Howard Dean, the figure one would expect to be working to resolve things, has been strangely noncommittal, displaying no sense of urgency. It all conveys the impression they aren't interested in lifting a finger to take any action that might help Sen. Clinton.
These three, together with Al Gore and John Edwards, constitute the Democratic Party's major leaders who have not endorsed either candidate. It could well be that if Clinton does not take the hint they are planning to come out in unison at some point and publicly ask the superdelegates to rally around the leader (Obama) for the good of the party. I wouldn't be surprised if that's how this all plays out.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Iraq is Still the Other Shoe
Much of attention in the presidential race has lately gone to the economy. Most of the rest has gone to the increasingly nasty war of insults that continues to drag both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama down and threatens to mire both of them irretrievably in the muck. There is another war that has been somewhat on the back burner for awhile, but which could at any time return front and center to dominate the campaign and largely determine its outcome. That, of course, is the War in Iraq.
Iraq leaves the candidates of both parties at the mercy of events they cannot control. John McCain believes the war must continue and can be won. He was calling for more troops even before President Bush announced the surge. In early to mid 2007, when violence was widespread and American military and Iraqi civilian casualties remained high, McCain languished far behind in the Republican field. When the situation began to improve so did his popularity. As long as things go relatively well in Iraq he will claim credit for "being right" and reap the benefits. But should the situation degenerate back to chaotic levels the principal reason for his candidacy will be dashed and he will likely go down to crushing defeat in November.
The opposite dynamic holds true for Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Though Clinton initially voted for the war authorization back in 2002, both are identified now with wanting to wind down American involvement. If violence stays relatively low Iraq will recede as a strong motivator for their election. But if it ratchets back up again the American people, already disenthralled with the conflict, will look to the Democrats with renewed urgency. John Kerry was unable to defeat Pres. Bush in 2004 before the insurgency had dragged on long enough to exhaust the American peoples' patience. By 2006, with both insurgency and incipient civil war well underway the GOP suffered a landslide repudiation in the midterms. The same dynamic will be in play this summer and fall.
In the past few days Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki has directed forces to Basra, heart of the nation's oil fields and stronghold of rival Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army. Clashes are underway there and in Baghdad between the rival factions, with the Sadrists using the renewed hostilities to fire dozens of rockets into the US-occupied Green Zone on the banks of the Tigris. The cease-fire has been broken, and now we shall see whether the renewed fighting spirals to the levels of 2006 and 2007. John McCain desperately hopes not. His presidential prospects will rise or fall based on the complicated and volatile rivalries between a minority president, a radical mullah, assorted tribal sheiks, a collection of Baathist retreads and a few hundred foreign Sunni fanatics eleven thousand miles away. Such is the reality of American politics in 2008.
Iraq leaves the candidates of both parties at the mercy of events they cannot control. John McCain believes the war must continue and can be won. He was calling for more troops even before President Bush announced the surge. In early to mid 2007, when violence was widespread and American military and Iraqi civilian casualties remained high, McCain languished far behind in the Republican field. When the situation began to improve so did his popularity. As long as things go relatively well in Iraq he will claim credit for "being right" and reap the benefits. But should the situation degenerate back to chaotic levels the principal reason for his candidacy will be dashed and he will likely go down to crushing defeat in November.
The opposite dynamic holds true for Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Though Clinton initially voted for the war authorization back in 2002, both are identified now with wanting to wind down American involvement. If violence stays relatively low Iraq will recede as a strong motivator for their election. But if it ratchets back up again the American people, already disenthralled with the conflict, will look to the Democrats with renewed urgency. John Kerry was unable to defeat Pres. Bush in 2004 before the insurgency had dragged on long enough to exhaust the American peoples' patience. By 2006, with both insurgency and incipient civil war well underway the GOP suffered a landslide repudiation in the midterms. The same dynamic will be in play this summer and fall.
In the past few days Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki has directed forces to Basra, heart of the nation's oil fields and stronghold of rival Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army. Clashes are underway there and in Baghdad between the rival factions, with the Sadrists using the renewed hostilities to fire dozens of rockets into the US-occupied Green Zone on the banks of the Tigris. The cease-fire has been broken, and now we shall see whether the renewed fighting spirals to the levels of 2006 and 2007. John McCain desperately hopes not. His presidential prospects will rise or fall based on the complicated and volatile rivalries between a minority president, a radical mullah, assorted tribal sheiks, a collection of Baathist retreads and a few hundred foreign Sunni fanatics eleven thousand miles away. Such is the reality of American politics in 2008.
Monday, March 24, 2008
McCain and Iran
While Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continue to bash away at each other here in the states, John McCain has left the country to burnish his foreign policy credentials. Foreign affairs and defense are generally regarded as McCain's strong suits to begin with, so it comes as a surprise that he continues to repeat the same gaffe-if indeed it is a gaffe.
Why does McCain keep saying (in four different speeches and news conferences as of this writing) that Iran is supporting al Qaeda? Shiite Iran is a mortal enemy of fanatically Sunni al Qaeda. Joe Lieberman even whispered in his ear and McCain then turned back to reporters and corrected himself about this in one of his press conferences. Is the supposed foreign policy/defense expert unaware of the lack of connection and indeed enmity between Iran and al Qaeda? Is age making him continually confuse this basic fact? Is he so eager to establish a justification to attack Iran that he will say anything about them?
As for the first question, it doesn't seem possible that McCain is ignorant on the subject. Many of the most spectacular bombings in Iraq are acknowledged to have been carried out by al Qaeda in Iraq against Shiite neighborhoods and mosques. The accepted reason for this is to provoke continued hatred between the rival sects in the hope of fomenting Shiite reprisals against Sunnis, thus driving them into alliance with their fellow Sunnis in al Qaeda. All the intelligence briefings McCain has received in the Senate have reiterated this. He cannot fail to be aware of it.
Is it age? That's doubtful. He has not been reported making similar misstatements on other subjects. One could see him having a slip-up once or even twice. But four times in the course of a couple of days? If anything, it's reminiscent of Dick Cheney, who kept repeating it was "pretty well established" that Saddam Hussein was in league with Osama bin Laden even after all intelligence reports had publicly debunked that argument. Cheney successfully operated according to the principle that if something is said often enough a lot of people will believe it.
The last scenario, that it is intentional, unfortunately therefore seems to be the most likely. McCain has been rattling the saber against Iran with regularity for some time. He has even made a joke of it, singing "Bomb, bomb Iran" to the Beach Boys' tune "Barbara Ann." The recent state visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Iraq, in which he was warmly received by Iraqi President and fellow Shiite Nouri al-Maliki, underscores the danger neoconservatives and McCain may see ahead. The prospect of having invaded Iraq, toppled Saddam, and waged a five-year guerilla war to pacify the country only to see it fall into the Iranian orbit cannot be a pleasant one for the diehard pro-war senator to contemplate. What better way to prepare the American people for a new military adventure than to play the al Qaeda card yet again?
Whichever it is, this strange repetition of the counterfactual does not bode well for McCain's capacity, judgment, honesty or intentions. If he is elected and widens the war into Iran, don't say he didn't warn you.
Why does McCain keep saying (in four different speeches and news conferences as of this writing) that Iran is supporting al Qaeda? Shiite Iran is a mortal enemy of fanatically Sunni al Qaeda. Joe Lieberman even whispered in his ear and McCain then turned back to reporters and corrected himself about this in one of his press conferences. Is the supposed foreign policy/defense expert unaware of the lack of connection and indeed enmity between Iran and al Qaeda? Is age making him continually confuse this basic fact? Is he so eager to establish a justification to attack Iran that he will say anything about them?
As for the first question, it doesn't seem possible that McCain is ignorant on the subject. Many of the most spectacular bombings in Iraq are acknowledged to have been carried out by al Qaeda in Iraq against Shiite neighborhoods and mosques. The accepted reason for this is to provoke continued hatred between the rival sects in the hope of fomenting Shiite reprisals against Sunnis, thus driving them into alliance with their fellow Sunnis in al Qaeda. All the intelligence briefings McCain has received in the Senate have reiterated this. He cannot fail to be aware of it.
Is it age? That's doubtful. He has not been reported making similar misstatements on other subjects. One could see him having a slip-up once or even twice. But four times in the course of a couple of days? If anything, it's reminiscent of Dick Cheney, who kept repeating it was "pretty well established" that Saddam Hussein was in league with Osama bin Laden even after all intelligence reports had publicly debunked that argument. Cheney successfully operated according to the principle that if something is said often enough a lot of people will believe it.
The last scenario, that it is intentional, unfortunately therefore seems to be the most likely. McCain has been rattling the saber against Iran with regularity for some time. He has even made a joke of it, singing "Bomb, bomb Iran" to the Beach Boys' tune "Barbara Ann." The recent state visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Iraq, in which he was warmly received by Iraqi President and fellow Shiite Nouri al-Maliki, underscores the danger neoconservatives and McCain may see ahead. The prospect of having invaded Iraq, toppled Saddam, and waged a five-year guerilla war to pacify the country only to see it fall into the Iranian orbit cannot be a pleasant one for the diehard pro-war senator to contemplate. What better way to prepare the American people for a new military adventure than to play the al Qaeda card yet again?
Whichever it is, this strange repetition of the counterfactual does not bode well for McCain's capacity, judgment, honesty or intentions. If he is elected and widens the war into Iran, don't say he didn't warn you.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Democratic Fratricide
Things ought to be set up for a Democratic landslide for the presidential race in 2008. Yet the most recent polling shows a dead heat between John McCain and either of his two potential rivals. Some surveys even show him moving ahead into a slim lead. It is early yet, with the election more than seven months away, but McCain and the Republicans have to be encouraged so far.
All the conventional markers point to a big Democratic win. We are finishing a president's second term, and only once in the past five times has a party been able to win three in a row. The incumbent Republican is extremely unpopular. His party was trounced in the most recent congressional midterms. We are in the midst of an unpopular war, a war the Republican candidate supports. The economy is in recession, the candidate by his own admission doesn't know much about the economy, and no incumbent party has retained the White House during a recession since 1908. The candidate has yet to unify the Republican Party; 52% of Republicans still say they would rather someone else was their nominee.
Democratic primary enthusiasm has been running high; their turnouts exceeded the Republicans' by 70% and their fundraising by 100% when both nomination fights were still competitive. Surveys consistently show the voters more in agreement with the Democratic positions on most issues, including the economy, Iraq, health care, education, the environment, civil liberties and fiscal policy. Yet though they show a generic preference of 9% for congressional Democrats, they reveal a tie for president, at best. What accounts for the discrepancy?
The simple and obvious explanation is fratricide. Earlier samples showed both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton defeating McCain in head to head contests. That is no longer the case. As the Democratic race has proceeded, both candidates have become increasingly effective at attacking each other. Ironically, the unity among Democrats and their two major candidates on the issues has left but one way to highlight their differences, and that has meant raising questions about competence, credibility and personality. Obama continually makes the case that Clinton personifies an old politics, in the thrall of special interests and tied to rancorous Washington disputes of the past. He hints that she represents division and cannot appeal to independents or the young. Clinton paints Obama as flashy but vacuous, untested and unready to assume the office of president. She insinuates that he cannot appeal to the party's blue-collar core or to Hispanics, the nation's largest minority. Both onslaughts have had effect.
Given their immense advantages on the issues and the fierce determination of the Democratic faithful to win this one, there is still time for the eventual nominee to repair the damage and emerge victorious in November. That will, however, require the runner-up to bury the hatchet and offer solid support. But the nastier things get the more uncertain that becomes. The sooner the fighting ends the better for the party's chances. Yet with Clinton looking very strong in Pennsylvania it is a safe bet the demolition derby will go on until May 6 at the earliest. Meanwhile, John McCain remains an increasingly happy spectator. It has been said that politics is the art of the possible, and if so then Sen. McCain grows a little more artistic every day.
All the conventional markers point to a big Democratic win. We are finishing a president's second term, and only once in the past five times has a party been able to win three in a row. The incumbent Republican is extremely unpopular. His party was trounced in the most recent congressional midterms. We are in the midst of an unpopular war, a war the Republican candidate supports. The economy is in recession, the candidate by his own admission doesn't know much about the economy, and no incumbent party has retained the White House during a recession since 1908. The candidate has yet to unify the Republican Party; 52% of Republicans still say they would rather someone else was their nominee.
Democratic primary enthusiasm has been running high; their turnouts exceeded the Republicans' by 70% and their fundraising by 100% when both nomination fights were still competitive. Surveys consistently show the voters more in agreement with the Democratic positions on most issues, including the economy, Iraq, health care, education, the environment, civil liberties and fiscal policy. Yet though they show a generic preference of 9% for congressional Democrats, they reveal a tie for president, at best. What accounts for the discrepancy?
The simple and obvious explanation is fratricide. Earlier samples showed both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton defeating McCain in head to head contests. That is no longer the case. As the Democratic race has proceeded, both candidates have become increasingly effective at attacking each other. Ironically, the unity among Democrats and their two major candidates on the issues has left but one way to highlight their differences, and that has meant raising questions about competence, credibility and personality. Obama continually makes the case that Clinton personifies an old politics, in the thrall of special interests and tied to rancorous Washington disputes of the past. He hints that she represents division and cannot appeal to independents or the young. Clinton paints Obama as flashy but vacuous, untested and unready to assume the office of president. She insinuates that he cannot appeal to the party's blue-collar core or to Hispanics, the nation's largest minority. Both onslaughts have had effect.
Given their immense advantages on the issues and the fierce determination of the Democratic faithful to win this one, there is still time for the eventual nominee to repair the damage and emerge victorious in November. That will, however, require the runner-up to bury the hatchet and offer solid support. But the nastier things get the more uncertain that becomes. The sooner the fighting ends the better for the party's chances. Yet with Clinton looking very strong in Pennsylvania it is a safe bet the demolition derby will go on until May 6 at the earliest. Meanwhile, John McCain remains an increasingly happy spectator. It has been said that politics is the art of the possible, and if so then Sen. McCain grows a little more artistic every day.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Obama In Trouble
The sudden appearance of three clips of Chicago Minister Rev. Jeremiah Wright's more disagreeable ravings presented Barack Obama with a serious problem. Obama was married by and had his children baptized by Wright and has attended his church for 20 years when at home in Chicago. To what extent, it is being asked, does Obama share the views presented in the clips, including the legacy of bitterness, of conspiracy paranoia, and of a desire to see God damn America?
To his credit, Obama used the opportunity to respond in a way emblematic of his campaign. His speech "A More Perfect Union" was probably the most honest ever given by an American politician on the topic of black-white relations. He took both big-picture and intimate looks, incisively understanding and explaining the feelings that motivate people of both groups. He called authentically for a new level of comprehension, for an empathy and commitment to responsibility that can help society better bridge the divide and move the nation forward on a host of fronts. This is all good.
Politically, though, Obama neglected to do one thing. He neglected to exile Wright to St. Helena or the far side of the moon. He neglected to kick Wright under the bus. And he needed to. Yes, he said he disagreed with the tone and opinions shown in these three clips. Yes, Rev. Wright no longer occupies an official position within the Obama campaign as spiritual adviser or anything else. But no, he could not disavow the man entirely. And that is a problem.
That is a problem because for most Americans, those three video clips are all they know about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. They will hear him screaming "God damn America!" in their memories for the rest of their lives. Most Americans do not like to hear people say things like that about their country. Most cannot fathom how someone who wants to be their president would want anything to do with a person who apparently feels that way. I am not talking just of partisan Republicans who have seized on this incident to attack Obama. A woman in my area, a registered Democrat, announced she would no longer serve as an Obama delegate at the convention this summer in Denver as a result of this. I am sure she is not alone.
Barack Obama is running for president. He is now in the big leagues; this is not patty cake. He ought to have distanced himself from this man as though he were radioactive. He will need to "clarify" his position vis a vis the Rev. Wright, and he should do it as soon as possible. The Republicans and their allied media outlets and 527 groups will most assuredly destroy him otherwise.
To his credit, Obama used the opportunity to respond in a way emblematic of his campaign. His speech "A More Perfect Union" was probably the most honest ever given by an American politician on the topic of black-white relations. He took both big-picture and intimate looks, incisively understanding and explaining the feelings that motivate people of both groups. He called authentically for a new level of comprehension, for an empathy and commitment to responsibility that can help society better bridge the divide and move the nation forward on a host of fronts. This is all good.
Politically, though, Obama neglected to do one thing. He neglected to exile Wright to St. Helena or the far side of the moon. He neglected to kick Wright under the bus. And he needed to. Yes, he said he disagreed with the tone and opinions shown in these three clips. Yes, Rev. Wright no longer occupies an official position within the Obama campaign as spiritual adviser or anything else. But no, he could not disavow the man entirely. And that is a problem.
That is a problem because for most Americans, those three video clips are all they know about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. They will hear him screaming "God damn America!" in their memories for the rest of their lives. Most Americans do not like to hear people say things like that about their country. Most cannot fathom how someone who wants to be their president would want anything to do with a person who apparently feels that way. I am not talking just of partisan Republicans who have seized on this incident to attack Obama. A woman in my area, a registered Democrat, announced she would no longer serve as an Obama delegate at the convention this summer in Denver as a result of this. I am sure she is not alone.
Barack Obama is running for president. He is now in the big leagues; this is not patty cake. He ought to have distanced himself from this man as though he were radioactive. He will need to "clarify" his position vis a vis the Rev. Wright, and he should do it as soon as possible. The Republicans and their allied media outlets and 527 groups will most assuredly destroy him otherwise.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Iraq: Five Years Later
Today we mark the fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. March 19th, 2003 saw the inception of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Bush Administration expected to slice off an easy victory. It was to be a campaign of shock and awe, made necessary by the presence of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a tyrant in league with America's terrorist enemies. Americans were assured the war would cost no more than 20 billion dollars, that it would be over in weeks not months, that our troops would be greeted with flowers as liberators, and that a free and democratic Iraq would spring up in the aftermath. Seldom in human history have a government's justifications, assurances and expectations been proven more utterly and absolutely wrong.
No weapons of mass destruction were found. No terror links existed. Including civilian contractors, 4,500 Americans are dead. 30,000 are wounded. No one knows how many Iraqis are dead: certainly 100,000, maybe 300,000. $700 billion is gone. Iraq's tribes are at each others' throats. Radical Islamist groups, previously unknown in the country, are there now. Iran and Turkey are beginning to intervene. America's allies have almost all left. The Afghan Taliban are resurgent. Osama Bin Laden lives. The effort has been, as the title of a popular book on the subject proclaims, a fiasco.
So, what do we do now? President Bush has succeeded in tying the hands of his successor to a great extent. If no jihadists were in Iraq before, they are there now, Bush argues, and cannot be allowed to gain a secure foothold. He says that progress is clearly being made due to the year-long "surge" of 30,000 extra troops under the improved strategic plan of Gen. David Petraeus. Violence levels are down from 1500 attacks a week on US forces to "only" 500. Iraqi civilian casualties appear to have dropped a similar 70%.
John McCain says to continue the war at full throttle. He believes the insurgents of all stripes can be defeated and the country pacified. He's basing his entire presidential campaign on this premise. 70% of the American people now feel the war was a mistake and want to end it. But over 40% now once again feel that a "victory" is possible. If conditions continue to improve he will be in a position to run as the only candidate to stand firm when prospects were bleakest and claim to be proved right by events.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaign on withdrawal, but not "precipitate" withdrawal. Obama says, "we must be as careful getting out as we were reckless getting in." Clinton suggests she would withdraw one brigade a month for 16 months. Neither wants to be blamed for ordering a rapid American exit if that results in a quick return to chaos and all-out civil war. In this sense, Bush and McCain have them in a dilemma.
The US presence is an accelerant of insurgency and Islamist attacks, but is also the cork in the bottle between Iraq's own contending factions. Once this is all over, all signs point to the Kurds wanting de facto independence in the north and all signs point to the Sunnis and Shias battling to the death for power in the center. The Sunnis complain that the Shiite-dominated government of Nouri al-Maliki will not fund or arm them to police their areas. The U.S. has begun doing it instead. Al-Maliki views this with the gravest unease. He knows where those weapons will be trained once the Americans leave. Meanwhile the Shiite Mahdi Army of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr remains in a cease-fire, also until the Americans leave. The Sunnis know what to expect once the Americans leave, too. Just yesterday the meeting of the Iraqi legislature broke up when the Sunnis and the Sadrists all walked out. "Reconciliation" is but a grim jest among the parties in Iraq.
McCain may have been more right than most Americans realize. In order to keep the lid on this situation American forces might indeed have to stay for 100 years, but even that would be no guarantee of peace, democracy, or progress in the Iraqi people's standard of living. The question is whether the matter is of sufficient gravity to most Americans that they feel it is worth the continued costs in lives, treasure, international paralysis and opportunities lost at home. Whoever frames the answer to that question most convincingly will be the next President of the United States.
No weapons of mass destruction were found. No terror links existed. Including civilian contractors, 4,500 Americans are dead. 30,000 are wounded. No one knows how many Iraqis are dead: certainly 100,000, maybe 300,000. $700 billion is gone. Iraq's tribes are at each others' throats. Radical Islamist groups, previously unknown in the country, are there now. Iran and Turkey are beginning to intervene. America's allies have almost all left. The Afghan Taliban are resurgent. Osama Bin Laden lives. The effort has been, as the title of a popular book on the subject proclaims, a fiasco.
So, what do we do now? President Bush has succeeded in tying the hands of his successor to a great extent. If no jihadists were in Iraq before, they are there now, Bush argues, and cannot be allowed to gain a secure foothold. He says that progress is clearly being made due to the year-long "surge" of 30,000 extra troops under the improved strategic plan of Gen. David Petraeus. Violence levels are down from 1500 attacks a week on US forces to "only" 500. Iraqi civilian casualties appear to have dropped a similar 70%.
John McCain says to continue the war at full throttle. He believes the insurgents of all stripes can be defeated and the country pacified. He's basing his entire presidential campaign on this premise. 70% of the American people now feel the war was a mistake and want to end it. But over 40% now once again feel that a "victory" is possible. If conditions continue to improve he will be in a position to run as the only candidate to stand firm when prospects were bleakest and claim to be proved right by events.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaign on withdrawal, but not "precipitate" withdrawal. Obama says, "we must be as careful getting out as we were reckless getting in." Clinton suggests she would withdraw one brigade a month for 16 months. Neither wants to be blamed for ordering a rapid American exit if that results in a quick return to chaos and all-out civil war. In this sense, Bush and McCain have them in a dilemma.
The US presence is an accelerant of insurgency and Islamist attacks, but is also the cork in the bottle between Iraq's own contending factions. Once this is all over, all signs point to the Kurds wanting de facto independence in the north and all signs point to the Sunnis and Shias battling to the death for power in the center. The Sunnis complain that the Shiite-dominated government of Nouri al-Maliki will not fund or arm them to police their areas. The U.S. has begun doing it instead. Al-Maliki views this with the gravest unease. He knows where those weapons will be trained once the Americans leave. Meanwhile the Shiite Mahdi Army of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr remains in a cease-fire, also until the Americans leave. The Sunnis know what to expect once the Americans leave, too. Just yesterday the meeting of the Iraqi legislature broke up when the Sunnis and the Sadrists all walked out. "Reconciliation" is but a grim jest among the parties in Iraq.
McCain may have been more right than most Americans realize. In order to keep the lid on this situation American forces might indeed have to stay for 100 years, but even that would be no guarantee of peace, democracy, or progress in the Iraqi people's standard of living. The question is whether the matter is of sufficient gravity to most Americans that they feel it is worth the continued costs in lives, treasure, international paralysis and opportunities lost at home. Whoever frames the answer to that question most convincingly will be the next President of the United States.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Brief Interruption
My computer is being serviced so I may not be posting for a couple of days. For some reason the available memory has gotten very low, making the dang thing operate excruciatingly slowly. I hope to have the equipment back within the next couple of days, so please bear with me.
My next post will commemorate the fifth anniversary of the beginning of the War in Iraq.
My next post will commemorate the fifth anniversary of the beginning of the War in Iraq.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
States Propose Immigration Programs
Pressed by a growing shortage of agricultural labor, the states of Arizona and Colorado have begun working on plans to set up their own guest worker programs. The new movement highlights the foolishness of the "enforcement-only" approach to the immigration controversy, showing that the more successful the effort is to prevent illegal immigration the more it damages our own economy. It is clear that only a comprehensive approach that takes into account both economic requirements and humane considerations can be a sensible response to the immigration issue.
Arizona is a particularly ironic case. The state first cracked down on illegal immigration, mandating serious penalties for hiring the undocumented and directing police to check the citizenship status of anyone stopped for any reason in order to deport as many as possible. In addition to increased federal border patrols, vigilante groups have set up shop and are active along the border too. The result? According to the Associated Press, "Last year ripe romaine lettuce sometimes went bad in the fields around Yuma, Arizona because (labor contractor Francisco) Chavez didn't have enough people to harvest the crop." Republican State Representative Bill Konopnicki owns a restaurant and says "the labor shortage has been mounting for several years."
Konopnicki is co-author of the Arizona legislation that would set up a state-supervised program allowing employers to, "recruit workers through Mexican consulates if they can document a labor shortage and unsuccessful efforts to find local employees." The bill was approved unanimously in a bipartisan Arizona House committee vote in February and now goes to the full body.
In Colorado, State Senator Able Tapia's bill would allow "the state to hire labor firms in Mexico to find workers" for labor-starved Colorado farms. The plan is an effort to get around cumbersome federal procedures that render it nearly impossible to get foreign workers by the time they are needed. The Colorado bill requires employers, "As an incentive for workers to return to their homelands...to withhold 20 percent of workers' wages and send the money after the workers return home."
The state efforts will likely come to naught. Former Border Patrol head and current Congressman Silverstre Reyes (D-Texas) says, "It's ironic that Arizona and Colorado are so eager for cheap foreign labor because in recent years both states have cracked down on undocumented immigration." He also feels, "It's unlikely the states would get the necessary (federal) permission to arrange their own foreign labor." That's because immigration is a federal responsibility under the constitution, a power the U.S. government and Congress would be unlikely to concede to the states. Law professor Kris Kobach of the University of Missouri at Kansas City said, "The proposals would never hold up in court."
True as that may be, it only underscores the failure of Congress to pass immigration reform in 2006 and 2007, when it folded in the face of extremist anti-immigrant criticism. Now some of the very states formerly at the forefront of the opposition have begun to recognize the shortsightedness of their earlier policies. It will be interesting to see whether common sense can prevail in time for the 2008 harvest, or whether election-year posturing will delay action until a new administration is inaugurated and a new Congress seated next January. I wouldn't bet on common sense, so be prepared for soaring produce prices the rest of this year.
Arizona is a particularly ironic case. The state first cracked down on illegal immigration, mandating serious penalties for hiring the undocumented and directing police to check the citizenship status of anyone stopped for any reason in order to deport as many as possible. In addition to increased federal border patrols, vigilante groups have set up shop and are active along the border too. The result? According to the Associated Press, "Last year ripe romaine lettuce sometimes went bad in the fields around Yuma, Arizona because (labor contractor Francisco) Chavez didn't have enough people to harvest the crop." Republican State Representative Bill Konopnicki owns a restaurant and says "the labor shortage has been mounting for several years."
Konopnicki is co-author of the Arizona legislation that would set up a state-supervised program allowing employers to, "recruit workers through Mexican consulates if they can document a labor shortage and unsuccessful efforts to find local employees." The bill was approved unanimously in a bipartisan Arizona House committee vote in February and now goes to the full body.
In Colorado, State Senator Able Tapia's bill would allow "the state to hire labor firms in Mexico to find workers" for labor-starved Colorado farms. The plan is an effort to get around cumbersome federal procedures that render it nearly impossible to get foreign workers by the time they are needed. The Colorado bill requires employers, "As an incentive for workers to return to their homelands...to withhold 20 percent of workers' wages and send the money after the workers return home."
The state efforts will likely come to naught. Former Border Patrol head and current Congressman Silverstre Reyes (D-Texas) says, "It's ironic that Arizona and Colorado are so eager for cheap foreign labor because in recent years both states have cracked down on undocumented immigration." He also feels, "It's unlikely the states would get the necessary (federal) permission to arrange their own foreign labor." That's because immigration is a federal responsibility under the constitution, a power the U.S. government and Congress would be unlikely to concede to the states. Law professor Kris Kobach of the University of Missouri at Kansas City said, "The proposals would never hold up in court."
True as that may be, it only underscores the failure of Congress to pass immigration reform in 2006 and 2007, when it folded in the face of extremist anti-immigrant criticism. Now some of the very states formerly at the forefront of the opposition have begun to recognize the shortsightedness of their earlier policies. It will be interesting to see whether common sense can prevail in time for the 2008 harvest, or whether election-year posturing will delay action until a new administration is inaugurated and a new Congress seated next January. I wouldn't bet on common sense, so be prepared for soaring produce prices the rest of this year.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
McCain Interview
Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain was interviewed for an hour today on Fox by conservative commentator Sean Hannity. The lengthy discussion provided a window into McCain's thinking and his approach to the upcoming election battle against Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
Personally, McCain projected an earnest image. Throughout the interview his temperament was even and under control. He was engaged and smiled a lot. He took pains to show a gentlemanly respect for opposing views and for his potential opponents. He complimented both Obama and Clinton and referred to them as people of integrity. When Hannity tried to goad him into personal attacks on the Democrats McCain said that isn't the kind of campaign the American people want. He stated over and over that his problem with them was over their basic approach to governing, that they were "liberal Democrats" while he is a "conservative Republican." He defined his conservatism as the view that "least government is best government."
On taxes, McCain emphasized his support for making the Bush tax cuts permanent. When Hannity asked why he hadn't supported them in 2001 and 2003 McCain said it was because they weren't accompanied by commensurate spending cuts to balance the budget. McCain said he would address this by vetoing any bills with earmark expenditures passed to him as president. He said he will allow no "bridges to nowhere." He said these earmarks amounted to $35 billion over the past two years of appropriations. It should be noted that this year's projected federal deficit is $400 billion. Refusing the earmarks and leaving the tax structure in place would have reduced the deficit this year by a little over 4%, to $383 billion. It is clear that McCain is looking forward to running as the candidate who will keep taxes low and paint the Democrat as someone who will raise them.
On Iraq, McCain repreated his firm stance in support of continuing the war. He said a U.S. withdrawal would lead to chaos in the country that could result in al Qaeda seizing control. An American "retreat" would be trumpeted as an al Qaeda victory which would embolden them to "follow us home and attack us here."
On energy, the Arizona senator painted the issue in national security terms. We send $400 billion a year to "countries that don't like us very well, and some of that money finds its way into the hands of terrorists." He supports a rapid expansion of nuclear power, pointing out that over 70% of France's electricity comes from nuclear power plants. He cited the experience of the Navy to say that nuclear power is safe, mentioning that the Navy has used nuclear power in its submarines and many other ships for forty years without an accident. He favored other energy developments such as hybrid cars and solar cells. Unlike many other Republicans, he opposes drilling for oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve, calling it a "pristine" area that should be shielded from development. And again unlike many in his party he believes that global warming is a real threat and that using alternative energy sources can help restrain it.
McCain defended his support for McCain-Feingold controls on advocacy campaigns, saying he helped conduct the Abramoff investigation and that he has seen the corrupting effects of money on the political system. He did quickly say he was against the "fairness doctrine," though, a former broadcast regulation repealed in the Reagan years that used to require balanced reporting or equal time to opposing viewpoints. Both he and his interviewer agreed such a rule would mean the end of shows like Sean Hannity's.
On immigration, Hannity asked about "McCain-Kennedy," the defeated immigration bill. McCain said he had gotten the message that the American people want "border control first." In response to another question about the suspicions some conservatives have about McCain's efforts to reach across the aisle to craft compromises, McCain said he is willing to talk to anyone and can work with members of both parties, though he stressed that he can always be counted on to defend his conservative principles. It would be interesting to see a debate between McCain and Obama on bipartisanship.
All in all McCain acquitted himself quite well. He certainly displays more flexibility than most congressional Republicans, which is one reason he will make a strong candidate in the general election this fall. He will try to appeal to conservatives on the war and taxes and to moderates on the environment and bipartisanship. It will be most interesting to see how this starts to play out.
Personally, McCain projected an earnest image. Throughout the interview his temperament was even and under control. He was engaged and smiled a lot. He took pains to show a gentlemanly respect for opposing views and for his potential opponents. He complimented both Obama and Clinton and referred to them as people of integrity. When Hannity tried to goad him into personal attacks on the Democrats McCain said that isn't the kind of campaign the American people want. He stated over and over that his problem with them was over their basic approach to governing, that they were "liberal Democrats" while he is a "conservative Republican." He defined his conservatism as the view that "least government is best government."
On taxes, McCain emphasized his support for making the Bush tax cuts permanent. When Hannity asked why he hadn't supported them in 2001 and 2003 McCain said it was because they weren't accompanied by commensurate spending cuts to balance the budget. McCain said he would address this by vetoing any bills with earmark expenditures passed to him as president. He said he will allow no "bridges to nowhere." He said these earmarks amounted to $35 billion over the past two years of appropriations. It should be noted that this year's projected federal deficit is $400 billion. Refusing the earmarks and leaving the tax structure in place would have reduced the deficit this year by a little over 4%, to $383 billion. It is clear that McCain is looking forward to running as the candidate who will keep taxes low and paint the Democrat as someone who will raise them.
On Iraq, McCain repreated his firm stance in support of continuing the war. He said a U.S. withdrawal would lead to chaos in the country that could result in al Qaeda seizing control. An American "retreat" would be trumpeted as an al Qaeda victory which would embolden them to "follow us home and attack us here."
On energy, the Arizona senator painted the issue in national security terms. We send $400 billion a year to "countries that don't like us very well, and some of that money finds its way into the hands of terrorists." He supports a rapid expansion of nuclear power, pointing out that over 70% of France's electricity comes from nuclear power plants. He cited the experience of the Navy to say that nuclear power is safe, mentioning that the Navy has used nuclear power in its submarines and many other ships for forty years without an accident. He favored other energy developments such as hybrid cars and solar cells. Unlike many other Republicans, he opposes drilling for oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve, calling it a "pristine" area that should be shielded from development. And again unlike many in his party he believes that global warming is a real threat and that using alternative energy sources can help restrain it.
McCain defended his support for McCain-Feingold controls on advocacy campaigns, saying he helped conduct the Abramoff investigation and that he has seen the corrupting effects of money on the political system. He did quickly say he was against the "fairness doctrine," though, a former broadcast regulation repealed in the Reagan years that used to require balanced reporting or equal time to opposing viewpoints. Both he and his interviewer agreed such a rule would mean the end of shows like Sean Hannity's.
On immigration, Hannity asked about "McCain-Kennedy," the defeated immigration bill. McCain said he had gotten the message that the American people want "border control first." In response to another question about the suspicions some conservatives have about McCain's efforts to reach across the aisle to craft compromises, McCain said he is willing to talk to anyone and can work with members of both parties, though he stressed that he can always be counted on to defend his conservative principles. It would be interesting to see a debate between McCain and Obama on bipartisanship.
All in all McCain acquitted himself quite well. He certainly displays more flexibility than most congressional Republicans, which is one reason he will make a strong candidate in the general election this fall. He will try to appeal to conservatives on the war and taxes and to moderates on the environment and bipartisanship. It will be most interesting to see how this starts to play out.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Tortured Logic
On Saturday President Bush vetoed legislation that would have prohibited the CIA from using waterboarding and other coercive interrogation methods beyond the 19 techniques approved in the Army Field Manual. On Tuesday the House of Representatives voted 225-188 to override the veto, a 37-vote majority but 51 votes short of the 2/3 necessary to overcome the president's veto.
Because of the bill's failure, the intelligence authorization contained in it will not go into effect. Television ads quickly appeared blaming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for leaving America unprotected against terrorists. The ads called on citizens to contact their congressional representatives to urge passage of an intelligence bill without the restrictions.
In his Saturday radio address Bush explained, "I cannot sign into law a bill that would prevent me, and future presidents, from authorizing the CIA to conduct a separate, lawful intelligence program, and from taking all lawful actions necessary to protect Americans from attack."
Bush's logic is specious on two counts here. First, it was not congressional Democrats who scuttled the Intelligence Authorization bill. It was Bush's veto that did that. They passed a bill that continued U.S. intelligence efforts except for the banned practices. He decided he would rather have no bill than agree to one that does not let him torture.
Second, U.S. law already specifically bans waterboarding. It is not lawful. His use of the term "lawful" twice in one sentence does not change that fact. Congress passes the laws. Bush's opinion that something ought to be lawful does not make it so.
In terms of the presidential race, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supported the ban. John McCain, who was tortured himself as a prisoner of war and who used to oppose torture, sided with Bush. When told earlier in the Iraq War that Americans should torture captives because insurgents there sometimes did so, McCain famously said, "It's not about who they are. It's about who we are." Who we are has apparently changed, in his view.
As columnist Eugene Robinson points out, if Osama Bin Laden were to perform such dangerous and sadistic practices on Americans it would be regarded as evil. Bush asks us to believe, however, that if we do it it is moral. His tortured logic is as unpersuasive as it is hypocritical.
Because of the bill's failure, the intelligence authorization contained in it will not go into effect. Television ads quickly appeared blaming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for leaving America unprotected against terrorists. The ads called on citizens to contact their congressional representatives to urge passage of an intelligence bill without the restrictions.
In his Saturday radio address Bush explained, "I cannot sign into law a bill that would prevent me, and future presidents, from authorizing the CIA to conduct a separate, lawful intelligence program, and from taking all lawful actions necessary to protect Americans from attack."
Bush's logic is specious on two counts here. First, it was not congressional Democrats who scuttled the Intelligence Authorization bill. It was Bush's veto that did that. They passed a bill that continued U.S. intelligence efforts except for the banned practices. He decided he would rather have no bill than agree to one that does not let him torture.
Second, U.S. law already specifically bans waterboarding. It is not lawful. His use of the term "lawful" twice in one sentence does not change that fact. Congress passes the laws. Bush's opinion that something ought to be lawful does not make it so.
In terms of the presidential race, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supported the ban. John McCain, who was tortured himself as a prisoner of war and who used to oppose torture, sided with Bush. When told earlier in the Iraq War that Americans should torture captives because insurgents there sometimes did so, McCain famously said, "It's not about who they are. It's about who we are." Who we are has apparently changed, in his view.
As columnist Eugene Robinson points out, if Osama Bin Laden were to perform such dangerous and sadistic practices on Americans it would be regarded as evil. Bush asks us to believe, however, that if we do it it is moral. His tortured logic is as unpersuasive as it is hypocritical.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Recession: Steps to Take
If we are in a recession, and it is increasingly clear we are, what are the main causes? And what can be done about them?
The primary and immediate cause is the housing bubble. Home prices have been bid up beyond their intrinsic values and beyond the means of too many people to sustain. A corollary factor is the subprime "solution" that was devised to sustain the bubble itself. This means that a large number of homeowners were extended loans based not on their abilities to pay but on the expected appreciation of the homes themselves. It was assumed they could draw on additional funds whenever needed by taking out seconds and thirds on their ever-growing equity. This perpetual motion machine reached critical mass when prices peaked and began falling. Homeowners now find themselves without the income or assets to meet their rising adjustable rate payments. This created a cascade effect with lenders, who now have billions in loans that will not be repaid. Foreclosures, though rising dramatically, are not solving their problem because lenders are repossessing homes they cannot sell and that often are worth less than when they financed them. Millions of consumers will lose their homes and lenders will have to swallow hundreds of billions in delinquent loans. There will be blood-in the form of personal and business bankruptcies.
From this we should learn that, as in previous historical bubbles, clever financing mechanisms based on psychology and the notion of endlessly rising prices are houses of cards. The South Sea Bubble and Tulip Bubble of earlier centuries and the Stock Bubble of the 1920s were earlier versions of the same phenomenon. Margin buying in housing is no more financially sound than it was in stocks. In the short term there may need to be allowances made to keep families in their homes. Over the longer haul regulations will have to be written to prevent a recurrence of such unstable financing schemes.
The trade imbalance, led by our constantly worsening energy picture, is a second contributing cause. Oil closed today at an incredible $108 per barrel. That is more than four times the $26 a barrel that prevailed when the Bush Administration took office just seven years ago. We are hemorrhaging more than a billion dollars a day to pay for this oil. The blind obstinacy of this government's refusal to act on the problem is truly one of the great derelictions of American economic history. The inflationary effect of this dynamic is poorly understood. It strikes most Americans as hard to believe that energy and food are no longer included in calculations of the consumer price index. One can only speculate on the reasons for this, but when inflation is officially declared to be 4.3% without including these basic and rapidly escalating items it is not hard to imagine the real figure at 7 or 8% if calculated the former, responsible way. That level of inflation is ruinous over any sustained period. We need a crash program along the lines of the Apollo space program to develop renewable domestic energy supplies.
The imbalanced federal budget is a third important contributing factor. It soaks up funds from lending and investment and weakens the dollar. It necessitates the wasting of $400 billion a year to pay interest on the accumulated debt, much of which goes to China, Japan and Saudi Arabia. To rectify this problem the tax structure must be returned to honesty, so that revenues cover expenditures. It simply is not possible to cut enough to balance the budget without causing social and economic mayhem. The Bush tax cuts must be allowed to lapse when they expire next year.
A fourth contributing factor are unnecessary war expenditures. For one thing they are all borrowed funds that worsen the deficit, funds spent unproductively that could go to build the economy. They also mask a host of other expenses, not only economic but in health and social costs that further strain an already stressed economic picture. $150 billion a year in direct costs and an equal amount in indirect are making a bad economic picture worse.
Finally, for the longer term, a serious shift in educational emphasis is needed to restore American competitiveness in the world. This means providing the incentives to get more of the best and brightest college students to become teachers. It also means making it easier to reward effective teachers, to require remediation in ineffective teachers and to make it easier to get rid of those teachers who are not only ineffective but who cannot or will not improve. It means making it possible for all students of proven ability and drive to attend college. They are a resource we cannot afford to waste. And it also means a concerted national effort to encourage responsibility in parents and students by driving home the crucial nature of academic and vocational preparation. We must rekindle a strong respect for the values of education and responsibility throughout society or in the long run we will surely never remain competitive in the global economy.
The primary and immediate cause is the housing bubble. Home prices have been bid up beyond their intrinsic values and beyond the means of too many people to sustain. A corollary factor is the subprime "solution" that was devised to sustain the bubble itself. This means that a large number of homeowners were extended loans based not on their abilities to pay but on the expected appreciation of the homes themselves. It was assumed they could draw on additional funds whenever needed by taking out seconds and thirds on their ever-growing equity. This perpetual motion machine reached critical mass when prices peaked and began falling. Homeowners now find themselves without the income or assets to meet their rising adjustable rate payments. This created a cascade effect with lenders, who now have billions in loans that will not be repaid. Foreclosures, though rising dramatically, are not solving their problem because lenders are repossessing homes they cannot sell and that often are worth less than when they financed them. Millions of consumers will lose their homes and lenders will have to swallow hundreds of billions in delinquent loans. There will be blood-in the form of personal and business bankruptcies.
From this we should learn that, as in previous historical bubbles, clever financing mechanisms based on psychology and the notion of endlessly rising prices are houses of cards. The South Sea Bubble and Tulip Bubble of earlier centuries and the Stock Bubble of the 1920s were earlier versions of the same phenomenon. Margin buying in housing is no more financially sound than it was in stocks. In the short term there may need to be allowances made to keep families in their homes. Over the longer haul regulations will have to be written to prevent a recurrence of such unstable financing schemes.
The trade imbalance, led by our constantly worsening energy picture, is a second contributing cause. Oil closed today at an incredible $108 per barrel. That is more than four times the $26 a barrel that prevailed when the Bush Administration took office just seven years ago. We are hemorrhaging more than a billion dollars a day to pay for this oil. The blind obstinacy of this government's refusal to act on the problem is truly one of the great derelictions of American economic history. The inflationary effect of this dynamic is poorly understood. It strikes most Americans as hard to believe that energy and food are no longer included in calculations of the consumer price index. One can only speculate on the reasons for this, but when inflation is officially declared to be 4.3% without including these basic and rapidly escalating items it is not hard to imagine the real figure at 7 or 8% if calculated the former, responsible way. That level of inflation is ruinous over any sustained period. We need a crash program along the lines of the Apollo space program to develop renewable domestic energy supplies.
The imbalanced federal budget is a third important contributing factor. It soaks up funds from lending and investment and weakens the dollar. It necessitates the wasting of $400 billion a year to pay interest on the accumulated debt, much of which goes to China, Japan and Saudi Arabia. To rectify this problem the tax structure must be returned to honesty, so that revenues cover expenditures. It simply is not possible to cut enough to balance the budget without causing social and economic mayhem. The Bush tax cuts must be allowed to lapse when they expire next year.
A fourth contributing factor are unnecessary war expenditures. For one thing they are all borrowed funds that worsen the deficit, funds spent unproductively that could go to build the economy. They also mask a host of other expenses, not only economic but in health and social costs that further strain an already stressed economic picture. $150 billion a year in direct costs and an equal amount in indirect are making a bad economic picture worse.
Finally, for the longer term, a serious shift in educational emphasis is needed to restore American competitiveness in the world. This means providing the incentives to get more of the best and brightest college students to become teachers. It also means making it easier to reward effective teachers, to require remediation in ineffective teachers and to make it easier to get rid of those teachers who are not only ineffective but who cannot or will not improve. It means making it possible for all students of proven ability and drive to attend college. They are a resource we cannot afford to waste. And it also means a concerted national effort to encourage responsibility in parents and students by driving home the crucial nature of academic and vocational preparation. We must rekindle a strong respect for the values of education and responsibility throughout society or in the long run we will surely never remain competitive in the global economy.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Consensus: Recession Has Arrived
Today I'll go over the economic news. In my next post I'll offer an analysis and propose some solutions. The bottom line for today is that the consensus of the financial community now agrees the U.S. economy has entered a recession. The textbook definition of a recession, two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, will take some time to become official. In the meantime, the investment community needs to understand what is happening now, not after the fact. The straw that broke the camel's back came with employment figures. The job numbers were released at 8:30A. M. on Friday and within one minute the last holdouts, J.P. Morgan and Lehman Brothers, joined the rest of the business economists in declaring the dreaded "R" word. The facts and figures below will tell you why.
Net job loss for the month was 63,000. The private sector job loss was 100,000. Job losses for the last two months average 47,000. Paul Ashworth, economist at Capital Economics, explains that such a decline has been followed by a recession every time in the last fifty years. The historical record shows that unemployment starts to rise after a recession starts and keeps climbing even after a recovery begins. In every recession recovery did not take place until after job losses peaked at 200,000 per month.
Remarkably, in the face of such job losses the official unemployment figure dropped from 4.9 to 4.8% last month. How is this possible? This is because the figures have been gamed by the administration to hide the full effect. CNN reports that 600,000 people have given up and stopped officially looking for work, and according to the new rules they are no longer counted as unemployed. The actual unemployment rate calculated by the old reporting rules is 7.4%. Average wages fell the last two months and are $105 per month below those of a year ago.
The Mortgage Bankers Association reports that 6% of all mortgages, 900,000 in total, are in foreclosure and another 1.9% are past due. These are all-time records. For the first time since World War II homeowners have less equity than debt on their mortgages. The equity percentage has fallen from 53% in 2003 to 48% today. Giants Carlyle Capital and Thornburg Mortgage have joined their competitors in requiring large mortgage surcharges to extend loans, even those backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Under heavy assault from the subprime meltdown, lenders are freezing even blue-chip customers. They are afraid, and credit is drying up. 1,400 banks are on the FDIC watch list.
Bankruptcies jumped to 4,000 a day in January, an 18% increase over December and a 28% increase over January of 2007. Overdraft penalties are up 11% over last year. Gasoline consumption is down 1% from last year. 91% of consumers rate the economy as negative or poor. The dollar stands at $1.54 to the euro, down from 2.00.
There were outflows of $40 billion from equities in both January and February, continuing a trend that has seen 10 consecutive months of negative investment. Investors, in other words, are pulling their money out of the stock market. Where is it going? Savings, formerly negative, are up by 2.3%. Certificates of Deposit are up 3% and money market funds by 18%. Why? Everyone is fleeing from risk. Equity is tapped, loans have been choked off, and not only individuals but huge institutions are playing things as safe as they can. The feeling is that this is no time to take chances and bet on the economy.
The Federal Reserve has cut its overnight discount rate five times since August, from 5.25% to 3%. The speculation is that another cut of one-half to three-quarters of a percent will be announced at the next meeting. It is reported that the Fed will also shortly make $200 billion available to the banking system at extremely low interest rates. The question is whether such measures can have any effect. Who wants to take on more debt, even at favorable rates, to expand operations and hire more employees when the economy is contracting?
Net job loss for the month was 63,000. The private sector job loss was 100,000. Job losses for the last two months average 47,000. Paul Ashworth, economist at Capital Economics, explains that such a decline has been followed by a recession every time in the last fifty years. The historical record shows that unemployment starts to rise after a recession starts and keeps climbing even after a recovery begins. In every recession recovery did not take place until after job losses peaked at 200,000 per month.
Remarkably, in the face of such job losses the official unemployment figure dropped from 4.9 to 4.8% last month. How is this possible? This is because the figures have been gamed by the administration to hide the full effect. CNN reports that 600,000 people have given up and stopped officially looking for work, and according to the new rules they are no longer counted as unemployed. The actual unemployment rate calculated by the old reporting rules is 7.4%. Average wages fell the last two months and are $105 per month below those of a year ago.
The Mortgage Bankers Association reports that 6% of all mortgages, 900,000 in total, are in foreclosure and another 1.9% are past due. These are all-time records. For the first time since World War II homeowners have less equity than debt on their mortgages. The equity percentage has fallen from 53% in 2003 to 48% today. Giants Carlyle Capital and Thornburg Mortgage have joined their competitors in requiring large mortgage surcharges to extend loans, even those backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Under heavy assault from the subprime meltdown, lenders are freezing even blue-chip customers. They are afraid, and credit is drying up. 1,400 banks are on the FDIC watch list.
Bankruptcies jumped to 4,000 a day in January, an 18% increase over December and a 28% increase over January of 2007. Overdraft penalties are up 11% over last year. Gasoline consumption is down 1% from last year. 91% of consumers rate the economy as negative or poor. The dollar stands at $1.54 to the euro, down from 2.00.
There were outflows of $40 billion from equities in both January and February, continuing a trend that has seen 10 consecutive months of negative investment. Investors, in other words, are pulling their money out of the stock market. Where is it going? Savings, formerly negative, are up by 2.3%. Certificates of Deposit are up 3% and money market funds by 18%. Why? Everyone is fleeing from risk. Equity is tapped, loans have been choked off, and not only individuals but huge institutions are playing things as safe as they can. The feeling is that this is no time to take chances and bet on the economy.
The Federal Reserve has cut its overnight discount rate five times since August, from 5.25% to 3%. The speculation is that another cut of one-half to three-quarters of a percent will be announced at the next meeting. It is reported that the Fed will also shortly make $200 billion available to the banking system at extremely low interest rates. The question is whether such measures can have any effect. Who wants to take on more debt, even at favorable rates, to expand operations and hire more employees when the economy is contracting?
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Risky Scenarios
Barack Obama won the Wyoming caucus today. He'll likely get 7 delegates to Hillary Clinton's 5. He'll probably win the Mississippi primary on Tuesday, too. Neither of these will deliver a "knockout," but both will further extend Obama's lead and make it all the more improbable for Clinton to catch him in pledged delegates once all the primaries and caucuses are over. After Mississippi there's no contest on the calendar until Pennsylvania on April 22, which Clinton will probably win.
How does all this play out for the Democratic Party's chances? Well, first I feel there ought to be primaries in Michigan and Florida. It's very much in the Democratic Party's interest to include those state's voters in the process. Both states are crucial to a general election strategy, and allowing Democrats and Independents there to vote for a Democrat in a primary will make it all the easier for them to do so again in November. Neither state's vote will probably change the overall dynamics of the primary race. Clinton could pull a bit closer, but as my last post demonstrates, nothing short of a series of Clinton landslides will overcome Obama's lead in the pledged delegates. Landslides for him in both races might get him closer to getting to the 2025 he needs to get the nomination without the votes of superdelegates, but that is also a remote possibility. Re-voting mainly serves the purpose of engaging the voters of two important states rather than making them angry with the Democrats when it comes time to vote in the big contest at the end of the year. Florida's votes don't count because of Republican officials' political machinations in jumping the primary calendar. Michigan's don't count because of Democratic officials doing the same thing. It's dumb politics to punish the voters for this.
Second, ideally Clinton should drop out of the race, considering she is not going to be able to win more delegates than Obama in the remaining primaries and caucuses. The superdelegates are indeed part of the rules of the game, and she can try to persuade them to her cause by convention time and win the nomination that way. She has every right to do that. But one has to think of what that would do to the party's prospects.
Third, my reading of the voters is that most of Clinton's supporters are also favorable to Obama. If he is the nominee by far the greater part of them will go to the polls in the general election and vote for him. I find that fewer of Obama's supporters are as well disposed to Sen. Clinton, and quite a few are downright angry at her. If she were able to gain the nomination because of the superdelegates many would feel cheated and a fair number might sit out in November. He has also engaged a lot of new voters: particularly young people who are otherwise apathetic and even some Republicans. Many of both groups would not bother to vote for Clinton if she is the standard-bearer. Most of such Republicans would likely vote against her. The one group where Obama might suffer is the Hispanic vote. But I feel the party would suffer more if Clinton gets the nod by the superdelegate scenario. Loyal Democrats and those who are aghast at the Bush administration and see McCain as more of the same will vote for either Democrat no matter what. But I predict it will be costly if Clinton gets a nomination where she trailed in elected delegates. She might win the general against McCain anyway, but she would face a more serious handicap than would Obama over this. It could well be enough to throw the election to McCain.
How does all this play out for the Democratic Party's chances? Well, first I feel there ought to be primaries in Michigan and Florida. It's very much in the Democratic Party's interest to include those state's voters in the process. Both states are crucial to a general election strategy, and allowing Democrats and Independents there to vote for a Democrat in a primary will make it all the easier for them to do so again in November. Neither state's vote will probably change the overall dynamics of the primary race. Clinton could pull a bit closer, but as my last post demonstrates, nothing short of a series of Clinton landslides will overcome Obama's lead in the pledged delegates. Landslides for him in both races might get him closer to getting to the 2025 he needs to get the nomination without the votes of superdelegates, but that is also a remote possibility. Re-voting mainly serves the purpose of engaging the voters of two important states rather than making them angry with the Democrats when it comes time to vote in the big contest at the end of the year. Florida's votes don't count because of Republican officials' political machinations in jumping the primary calendar. Michigan's don't count because of Democratic officials doing the same thing. It's dumb politics to punish the voters for this.
Second, ideally Clinton should drop out of the race, considering she is not going to be able to win more delegates than Obama in the remaining primaries and caucuses. The superdelegates are indeed part of the rules of the game, and she can try to persuade them to her cause by convention time and win the nomination that way. She has every right to do that. But one has to think of what that would do to the party's prospects.
Third, my reading of the voters is that most of Clinton's supporters are also favorable to Obama. If he is the nominee by far the greater part of them will go to the polls in the general election and vote for him. I find that fewer of Obama's supporters are as well disposed to Sen. Clinton, and quite a few are downright angry at her. If she were able to gain the nomination because of the superdelegates many would feel cheated and a fair number might sit out in November. He has also engaged a lot of new voters: particularly young people who are otherwise apathetic and even some Republicans. Many of both groups would not bother to vote for Clinton if she is the standard-bearer. Most of such Republicans would likely vote against her. The one group where Obama might suffer is the Hispanic vote. But I feel the party would suffer more if Clinton gets the nod by the superdelegate scenario. Loyal Democrats and those who are aghast at the Bush administration and see McCain as more of the same will vote for either Democrat no matter what. But I predict it will be costly if Clinton gets a nomination where she trailed in elected delegates. She might win the general against McCain anyway, but she would face a more serious handicap than would Obama over this. It could well be enough to throw the election to McCain.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
The Numbers Game
Senator Hillary Clinton's excellent showing in the Mini Super Tuesday balloting yesterday revived her campaign and all but guaranteed the Democratic race will go down to the wire. Clinton makes the case that by winning the big states of Ohio by 10 points and Texas by 4 to go along with an 18-point win in Rhode Island against only a 22-point loss in Vermont to Senator Barack Obama, she now has the momentum and the big state success to carry her to the nomination. There's only one major problem with this argument: the numbers don't add up.
Clinton entered Tuesday's voting trailing Obama by 155 pledged delegates. Those are the ones who have been officially awarded according to voting or caucuses. Because they are awarded proportionally in Democratic races (no winner-take-all contests like many on the Republican side) and because Obama got the majority of delegates chosen in a Texas caucus process after the polls closed, Clinton gained only 12 delegates from the day's results. She went in trailing by 155 and was only able to whittle that down to 143 by the end of the day.
Obama built such a strong cushion in his February winning streak that it will be nearly impossible for Clinton to overtake him. In a March 4 article in Newsweek, Jonathan Alter calculated what would happen if Clinton were to win every primary from here on out. He gave her unlikely close wins in heavily African-American Mississippi and North Carolina and in made-for-Obama states such as Oregon and Montana. He assumed 20-point Hillary landslides in Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico and solid Ohioesque 10-point Clinton wins in nearby Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky. You can read the whole article at http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240. Even all this would still leave Obama ahead by 56 pledged delegates after Puerto Rico finishes the primary season on June 7.
The Democratic Party may decide to hold do-over elections in previously disqualified Michigan and Florida. But even if so, the chances of her outperforming him by 56 in the two is exceedingly remote. Consider that a 10-point victory in Ohio gave Clinton an advantage of just 9 delegates there. Put another way, she would have to get 61.7% of all the remaining 611 delegates to catch him. She would have to win state after state by 20 points to do this.
So her only viable strategy is to demonstrate her electability in the remaining contests to the convention's 795 super delegates and win the lion's share of them. These are governors and members of congress and the Democratic National Committee who are free to vote for whomever they wish. So far 242 have declared support for Clinton and 207 for Obama. 346 remain uncommitted.
I'd like to pose a question. What do you think the super delegates should do? Should they a) vote freely for either candidate based on their preference or who they feel would be the stronger nominee for the general election; b) vote for the candidate who wins the most pledged delegates; or c) vote for the candidate who won their state or district?
Clinton entered Tuesday's voting trailing Obama by 155 pledged delegates. Those are the ones who have been officially awarded according to voting or caucuses. Because they are awarded proportionally in Democratic races (no winner-take-all contests like many on the Republican side) and because Obama got the majority of delegates chosen in a Texas caucus process after the polls closed, Clinton gained only 12 delegates from the day's results. She went in trailing by 155 and was only able to whittle that down to 143 by the end of the day.
Obama built such a strong cushion in his February winning streak that it will be nearly impossible for Clinton to overtake him. In a March 4 article in Newsweek, Jonathan Alter calculated what would happen if Clinton were to win every primary from here on out. He gave her unlikely close wins in heavily African-American Mississippi and North Carolina and in made-for-Obama states such as Oregon and Montana. He assumed 20-point Hillary landslides in Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico and solid Ohioesque 10-point Clinton wins in nearby Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky. You can read the whole article at http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240. Even all this would still leave Obama ahead by 56 pledged delegates after Puerto Rico finishes the primary season on June 7.
The Democratic Party may decide to hold do-over elections in previously disqualified Michigan and Florida. But even if so, the chances of her outperforming him by 56 in the two is exceedingly remote. Consider that a 10-point victory in Ohio gave Clinton an advantage of just 9 delegates there. Put another way, she would have to get 61.7% of all the remaining 611 delegates to catch him. She would have to win state after state by 20 points to do this.
So her only viable strategy is to demonstrate her electability in the remaining contests to the convention's 795 super delegates and win the lion's share of them. These are governors and members of congress and the Democratic National Committee who are free to vote for whomever they wish. So far 242 have declared support for Clinton and 207 for Obama. 346 remain uncommitted.
I'd like to pose a question. What do you think the super delegates should do? Should they a) vote freely for either candidate based on their preference or who they feel would be the stronger nominee for the general election; b) vote for the candidate who wins the most pledged delegates; or c) vote for the candidate who won their state or district?
Monday, March 3, 2008
Clinton Throws Kitchen Sink
With their backs against the wall, the Clinton campaign has unleashed a barrage of attacks against Barack Obama on the eve of crucial primaries in Texas and Ohio. Unlike earlier Clinton forays against Obama and his adroit team, some of these blows appeared to land.
The "kitchen sink" strategy-Obama said at a press conference that Clinton was "throwing the kitchen sink at me"-has succeeded in knocking Obama off message and put him constantly on the defensive the past couple of days. Clinton has used the tactics to portray herself as a tough fighter and raise doubts about Obama among men and working class voters while at the same time trying to win sympathy as the candidate who has been abused by the press while Obama has largely avoided tough scrutiny.
At the last debate Clinton complained about being too frequently asked the first question and referred to a Saturday Night Live skit in asking whether Obama wanted another pillow. Obama responded that his campaign does not whine, but Clinton's approach may have resonated with women who feel the press may have been piling on the female candidate.
Clinton followed with the famous "3:00 A. M." security commercial that raised questions about Obama's ability to command in a crisis without referring to him by name. Obama fired back with a similar ad touting his judgment about Iraq versus her claim of experience. This seemed a quick and nimble parry.
The Clinton camp then raised new inferences about Obama's relations with Chicago real estate man and Obama friend and fundraiser Antoin Rezko, who faces corrution charges for bribery and kickbacks. These strike at the heart of Obama's clean image and his appeal as a practitioner of a new politics. Obama admitted erring in a land purchase from Rezko and promised to return money he had raised for the campaign.
Finally, Canadian sources reported a meeting between Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee and Canadian government officials in which Goolsbee allegedly assured them that his candidate's harsh criticism of the NAFTA trade pact was more about "political positioning" for the campaign than actual substantive objections to the policy. At first Obama denied the meeting had taken place but then corrected himself and said he had been unaware of it. The Obama camp then charged the Canadians with either distorting or at least failing to understand Goolsbee's true meaning. In NAFTA-hating Ohio this sequence of events cannot have done Obama any good at all.
They certainly aren't pretty but the successive salvoes may be having effect; a last-minute Zogby poll showed Clinton solidifying her lead in Ohio and narrowly regaining the edge in Texas. Clinton's numbers did not go up but Obama's went down and the undecideds grew by identical amounts. One poll may of course say nothing, or it may have captured a trend. There's little doubt the Clinton team came to the conclusion it was their last best chance. We'll find out Tuesday whether the old politics still has legs.
The "kitchen sink" strategy-Obama said at a press conference that Clinton was "throwing the kitchen sink at me"-has succeeded in knocking Obama off message and put him constantly on the defensive the past couple of days. Clinton has used the tactics to portray herself as a tough fighter and raise doubts about Obama among men and working class voters while at the same time trying to win sympathy as the candidate who has been abused by the press while Obama has largely avoided tough scrutiny.
At the last debate Clinton complained about being too frequently asked the first question and referred to a Saturday Night Live skit in asking whether Obama wanted another pillow. Obama responded that his campaign does not whine, but Clinton's approach may have resonated with women who feel the press may have been piling on the female candidate.
Clinton followed with the famous "3:00 A. M." security commercial that raised questions about Obama's ability to command in a crisis without referring to him by name. Obama fired back with a similar ad touting his judgment about Iraq versus her claim of experience. This seemed a quick and nimble parry.
The Clinton camp then raised new inferences about Obama's relations with Chicago real estate man and Obama friend and fundraiser Antoin Rezko, who faces corrution charges for bribery and kickbacks. These strike at the heart of Obama's clean image and his appeal as a practitioner of a new politics. Obama admitted erring in a land purchase from Rezko and promised to return money he had raised for the campaign.
Finally, Canadian sources reported a meeting between Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee and Canadian government officials in which Goolsbee allegedly assured them that his candidate's harsh criticism of the NAFTA trade pact was more about "political positioning" for the campaign than actual substantive objections to the policy. At first Obama denied the meeting had taken place but then corrected himself and said he had been unaware of it. The Obama camp then charged the Canadians with either distorting or at least failing to understand Goolsbee's true meaning. In NAFTA-hating Ohio this sequence of events cannot have done Obama any good at all.
They certainly aren't pretty but the successive salvoes may be having effect; a last-minute Zogby poll showed Clinton solidifying her lead in Ohio and narrowly regaining the edge in Texas. Clinton's numbers did not go up but Obama's went down and the undecideds grew by identical amounts. One poll may of course say nothing, or it may have captured a trend. There's little doubt the Clinton team came to the conclusion it was their last best chance. We'll find out Tuesday whether the old politics still has legs.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Mini Super Tuesday
Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont vote this Tuesday, March 4 to allot 370 pledged delegates in the latest round of the Democratic primary tussle. Tandem wins by Barack Obama in the big states of Texas and Ohio would end Hillary Clinton's effective chances of capturing the nomination and cause her withdrawal from the race. Twin victories for Clinton would revive her cause and extend the campaign at least seven weeks to the April 22 contest in Pennsylvania. A split decision might leave the door open to either scenario, but Obama would very much retain the upper hand. What lies in prospect?
In Texas Obama has caught up among likely voters and now leads an assortment of polls by an average of 1.2%. That's a razor-thin margin but the trend is clearly for
Obama. Clinton had an average 10-point edge two weeks ago. The delegate apportionment in Texas also favors Obama, since it's based on the Democratic vote in 2004. The African-American districts, where Obama is strongest, turned out in much greater numbers than the Hispanic districts where Clinton is most popular. That means he'll gain extra delegates in his base areas. There is also a caucus procedure that takes place after the balloting on Tuesday to choose about one-third of the total delegates. Don't ask me why; I have no idea for the reasons behind such an unusual system. Whatever the cause, Obama has an army of 155,000 volunteers in Texas and has demonstrated superiority in the caucus format the entire primary season. He's outspent Clinton on media buys about $10 million to $5 million too. Both candidates will spend all day here Monday. With all this considered I feel Obama will garner at least 104 delegates to 89 for Clinton in Tuesday's big prize, even if his percentage win is only 1%.
Ohio has 141 pledged delegates at stake. Clinton is stronger in this heavily white working class state, and leads the poll averages by 5.9%. That includes a Columbus Dispatch survey that has Clinton up by 16. That survey polled registered voters rather than likely voters, an important distinction, and is so far off all the other results I'm inclined to throw it out. The averages of the other six polls have Clinton up by 4.2%. Obama has narrowed an earlier 16-point deficit here, so he is probably closing to within this margin now. Obama has spent about $5.3 million on media buys in Ohio to Clinton's $3 million. Both candidates are stumping in Ohio all day Sunday and will leave things to their surrogates tomorrow. Clinton will probably hold on to win narrowly in the Buckeye State. A charitable delegate outcome for her would give her 74 to Obama's 67.
The two smaller states look like easier picks. Rhode Island gets 21 delegates, and an average of three polls gives Clinton an average of a 10.7% lead in the Ocean State. If that holds give her 12 delegates to Obama's 9. Vermont appears strong for Obama. Two polls give him an average lead of 19%. He should get 9 delegates to 6 for Clinton.
The upshot of the four states looks to be a close win for Obama in Texas and a strong one in Vermont. Clinton should get a squeaker in Ohio and a more comfortable victory in Rhode Island. My estimate, which is pretty conservative, projects Obama to add 189 delegates to his total and Clinton to add 181 to hers. This looks like a pretty even split, and so it is. Clinton's problem is that she already trails by 155 pledged delegates and needs to make up ground, not fall farther behind. After March 4 there are only 611 pledged delegates left in 11 states and 2 U.S. territories. If Obama takes 189 Tuesday, Clinton would need to win 63% of these remaining pledged delegates to catch up. Given the Democratic Party's proportional distribution system it is highly improbable she can achieve that. Unless she rather strongly exceeds the performance I've outlined in this post you can expect to start hearing more frequent calls from Democrats for Clinton to suspend her campaign for the good of party unity beginning Wednesday.
In Texas Obama has caught up among likely voters and now leads an assortment of polls by an average of 1.2%. That's a razor-thin margin but the trend is clearly for
Obama. Clinton had an average 10-point edge two weeks ago. The delegate apportionment in Texas also favors Obama, since it's based on the Democratic vote in 2004. The African-American districts, where Obama is strongest, turned out in much greater numbers than the Hispanic districts where Clinton is most popular. That means he'll gain extra delegates in his base areas. There is also a caucus procedure that takes place after the balloting on Tuesday to choose about one-third of the total delegates. Don't ask me why; I have no idea for the reasons behind such an unusual system. Whatever the cause, Obama has an army of 155,000 volunteers in Texas and has demonstrated superiority in the caucus format the entire primary season. He's outspent Clinton on media buys about $10 million to $5 million too. Both candidates will spend all day here Monday. With all this considered I feel Obama will garner at least 104 delegates to 89 for Clinton in Tuesday's big prize, even if his percentage win is only 1%.
Ohio has 141 pledged delegates at stake. Clinton is stronger in this heavily white working class state, and leads the poll averages by 5.9%. That includes a Columbus Dispatch survey that has Clinton up by 16. That survey polled registered voters rather than likely voters, an important distinction, and is so far off all the other results I'm inclined to throw it out. The averages of the other six polls have Clinton up by 4.2%. Obama has narrowed an earlier 16-point deficit here, so he is probably closing to within this margin now. Obama has spent about $5.3 million on media buys in Ohio to Clinton's $3 million. Both candidates are stumping in Ohio all day Sunday and will leave things to their surrogates tomorrow. Clinton will probably hold on to win narrowly in the Buckeye State. A charitable delegate outcome for her would give her 74 to Obama's 67.
The two smaller states look like easier picks. Rhode Island gets 21 delegates, and an average of three polls gives Clinton an average of a 10.7% lead in the Ocean State. If that holds give her 12 delegates to Obama's 9. Vermont appears strong for Obama. Two polls give him an average lead of 19%. He should get 9 delegates to 6 for Clinton.
The upshot of the four states looks to be a close win for Obama in Texas and a strong one in Vermont. Clinton should get a squeaker in Ohio and a more comfortable victory in Rhode Island. My estimate, which is pretty conservative, projects Obama to add 189 delegates to his total and Clinton to add 181 to hers. This looks like a pretty even split, and so it is. Clinton's problem is that she already trails by 155 pledged delegates and needs to make up ground, not fall farther behind. After March 4 there are only 611 pledged delegates left in 11 states and 2 U.S. territories. If Obama takes 189 Tuesday, Clinton would need to win 63% of these remaining pledged delegates to catch up. Given the Democratic Party's proportional distribution system it is highly improbable she can achieve that. Unless she rather strongly exceeds the performance I've outlined in this post you can expect to start hearing more frequent calls from Democrats for Clinton to suspend her campaign for the good of party unity beginning Wednesday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)