Debt Deal?

With only 48 hours before the "deadline" (I'll explain why that is in quotations in a minute), the media hype is all focused on the possibility of a debt deal between House GOP, also read 'the Tea Party', and Senate Democrats/the President, also read 'Centrist Democrats'.

If you want to know the importance I place on a balanced budget, under-control debt, and a lack of wasteful spending feel free to read some of my past posts. This post is more about the subtle things that are happening behind the scenes that have gone under the radar with the Mainstream Media.

1. Why the "deadline"?
As Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has asked, how much money (cash) does the Treasury really have? That is a question that has gone unanswered and purposefully so to apply even more pressure on lawmakers to reach a deal.

2. What if the "deadline" passes?
If there is no deal the United States and her government will continue existing the real question comes down to two things: what will our limited funds be spent on? and how does this affect markets, domestic and foreign?

The first question is answered the same way a government shutdown would be handled, by prioritizing our needs and monies until we don't have anymore money. Comments like those made by Adm. Mullen in which he states he is unsure if the military would be paid if the debt ceiling is not raised are perposterous, irresponsible, and false. Pretty much everyone in the federal government would have to be furloughed before anyone even mentioned cutting wages to active military personnel.

The second question's answer is easy, "pretty badly." I don't know about 'disasterous' or 'depression' or any of these other doom and gloom predictions but let's just say if you knew someone had just declared bankrupcy it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in you lending that person any money soon. The problem for our foreign creditors, China and Japan, is that there aren't a whole of other good options right now.

3. Did I read right, Obama is a "Centrist Democrat" now?
Yup, Presidents always move towards the center of the political spectrum with time and I would argue democrats more than republicans. The President is almost the most right-leaning democrat right now! President Obama gave up on tax increases early which could have been used as leverage late in the game (now). Basically in desperation for a deal the President has limited his options and so far it seems he would only use his veto pen on a bill with a balanced budget amendment or cuts that he couldn't spin on certain social programs.

4. Impressions of the majority of each House of Congress?

House of Representatives: Republicans and the Tea Party

At this point there are two majorities, each with its own interests at heart. Republicans are willing to play ball to compromise to a deal as almost all polls say that this crisis is affecting Republican numbers negatively as they are seen as holding up progress.

The Tea Party is playing the "no compromise" card which is hugely popular within their own constituencies but is not in the best interests of the country, which correct me if I'm wrong here but I think that is their JOB. If you think you send a newly-minted member of Congress to DC and s/he doesn't have to compromise once then you must be living in lala land. The Tea Party is hurting their image deeply here, transforming themselves from principled patriots to infantile and stuborn fools who are acting on their own self interests instead of the nation's future. (House GOP 1994, anyone?)

Senate: Harry Reid and Centrist Democrats

For the first month and a half there was a generally open and yielding position for this group, "whatever the President says!" was their call. Now in the 11th hour they are getting a little fiesty, hoping to empower the President with the ability to use the Constitutional option to raise the debt ceiling. While that takes away from their own power and makes them look a little like last-minute objectors, it does bolster their ability to spend while a Democratic President is in office.

Anything I missed? Feel free to comment!

Is Vicky Hartzler the Most Anti-Gay Candidate in America? Nope!

Is Vicky Hartzler the Most Anti-Gay Candidate in America? | Mother Jones: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"

I was perusing the internet for stories on interesting candidates that aren't shining bright in the media spotlight (for positive or negative reasons) and I came upon this story of Vicky Harzler. Ms. Harzler is running for congress in Missouri's 4th Congressional District against Democrat Rep. Ike Skelton. You may have heard of Rep. Skelton... he fought against He-Man during the years of my youth... wait that's not right! Ah... he was one of the creators of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy our military used/uses/used/uses or something.

This article on Mother Jones, admittedly a more liberal publication, painted Harzler as the "most anti-gay candidate" in an election this year. She is one of the creators of first gay-marriage bans that passed a state election and led to a handful of others in 2004. Does that make her anti-gay? I don't think so. Anti-gay marriage? Yes.

The whole problem with defining a person by their campaign is that in almost all cases they are simply dichotomies. Democrat vs. Republican. Incumbent vs. Newcomer. Veteran vs. New blood. The story is the same. That story for each campaign has to be all about widening the gap between themselves and the opposition.

In this case, Candidate A is running against a founder of DADT at a time where that policy is in the news and is controversial. I don't think it matters who it is, that Candidate A is going to be anti-DADT! So to call her the MOST Anti-Gay is simply ridiculous. She used the avaliable political environment, first in 2004 and now in 2010 to achieve full political potential.

When you go to the polls in a couple weeks keep that in mind. Vote for the person based on their greater record not just the two or three things the candidate or their opposition highlights. Do a little research if you feel it matters. Remember on the Congressional level you have a MAX of THREE races with up to SEVEN people to research (Yeah... Florida messes things up, but more on that another time). Think of this like an investment, piece of furniture, or an appliance you want to buy. It's going to be around for the long haul... so you do more than just read the bullet points! The same goes for Elections:

THINK, then VOTE!

Hoping to Fail or Failing to Hope?

I know it's been awhile since I've posted but something has really been grinding my gears (thanks Peter!).

Recent comments made by Republicans about their desire that President Obama fail are tragically telling of the individuals making the statements, their party (my party, too by the way), and the country as a whole. A few of the offenders (they are indeed offensive to any rational person) include: radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, LA Gov. Bobby Jindal, Rep. Party Chairman Micheal Steele, and most recently fmr Sen. (and actor) Fred Thompson. That list includes very crazy persons.. and seemingly quite sane people and they all repeat the same thing they either "hope he (Obama) will fail" or they support those statements in a wholehearted way.

These people who are joining this chorus are losers. Plain and simple. I know at least a few of you who are reading this are already looking for the comment button to blast me for blindly supporting the President's policies and probably are ready to use a liberal sprinkling of the words : koolaid, messiah, sheep, brain dead, and biased media. If you really are that simple-minded go ahead.. but I'll just respond by letting you know you should have read past the first two paragraphs....

Like I said, these people are losers. They are failing themselves, their ideology, and the American people. First, they fail themselves. How petty do you have to be to lose a popularity contest and then hope the other side trips on their way to the podium? Pretty dang petty. These politicians and critics are doing just the opposite of what a responsible person who disagrees should do, find alternate solutions and try to convince others their way is better. Simply saying that you hope the ones with the coherent plan don't do so hot basically says "I hope the front-runner falls so I'll come in first!" Folks, that's just the voice of pettiness, anger, and desperation at work.

Second, these people are taking the Republican Party's elephant 'round back, replacing it with a giant elephant balloon than going out and publicly poking holes in it... all for the cause of advancing the party (with the notable exception of Rush, who does it for the money and power). Of all the public figures who have spewed these sentiments Rush is the only one who hasn't done harm to the party.. which is remarkable. He is one man, a man who can be (very easily) discredited at very little true political cost. I know he has tens of millions of listeners but most of these folks would be equally swayed by the next nutcase (liberal, conservative, crazy, sane, or possibly dead) who takes over the time slot. Before you go off firing the cannon on me ponder this, his listeners call themselves 'ditto heads'! They reference the fact that they are COPYING someone else, not thinking for themselves! 'Ditto head' ought to be used as a derogatory term for the blind followers of anyone (especially in a democracy that is based on the fact that people will think then vote).. not as a self-imposed label. What's wrong with us?

Enough about Rush.. back to my point, the Republican party is being hurt. By only "hoping" that the President's policies fail you basically shoot yourself in the foot and demonstrate pretty clearly that you have no idea what you actually support. Solving the economic crisis is not a two solution game where you can simply say "that is wrong" and logically that means you are right, it is the economy for goodness sake, a million solutions exist. The right way of criticizing the Obama policies should be to tie all democrats to it then say that it WILL fail, give evidence (this is important!), then inform the public of your better solution. Simply saying 'i think that's bad just cuz...' then saying tax-cuts a few times before shrugging your shoulders and going home is not going to cut it. Don't believe me.. watch for the 2010 election results.

Lastly, this approach is terrible for the American electorate and the nation as a whole. When policy debates keep gravitating to personal and distracting issues faster and faster the American people find themselves uniting less and dividing more. That is isn't good for us as a nation. I'm not saying one side should lay down and surrender, what I am saying is that if we both just agreed that we both want the same thing then debated how to get there we would have some progress. Simply pointing fingers and name-calling doesn't produce solutions it produces doubts, political demons, and more problems.


Remember that fear, smears, and lies only go so far before we, the American people, get fed up and vote in your replacements. Be careful.

Stimulus... for WHAT?

Republicans leaders are finding the new $825 Billion dollar stimulus package that passed the House (without a single GOP vote) a little hard to swallow.. and rightfully so. As the minority party the responsibility falls to them to propose alternate ideas and better solutions. Since being the majority party and having their President in the White House Republicans have really fallen off and the way they are acting so far this year has been downright sad and regrettable.

So Republicans decided instead of coming up with a cleaner, leaner, and possibly more effective bill they went to the "well your plan is terrible" path and just offered a list of some of the items they consider useless, pork, or unnecessary spending. The list, which follows, has some of each.. and then there is some stuff that just sounds a little childish to dispute or items which should be fully funded but have nothing to do with a "stimulus" package. , The bullet pointed the items are the ones the GOP Congresspeople object to and I decided to follow each item they object to with a little comment of my own... enjoy. Some of the items are hilarious... hilariously sad.

• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.

Because all the US Government needs is a coal power plant! I guess they wanted something familiar (especially in Illinois): dirty AND inefficient.

• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.

This is really outrageous. Has Hollywood had any problems buying motion picture film? Is there a shortage? With all the garbage Hollywood produces every year having a limited amount of film might actually make them make a good movie every once in awhile.

• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.

Why? The government has been broadcasting warnings about the digital tv conversion for TWO YEARS! If folks haven't got a box yet they ought to be penalized, by NOT getting a free $40 bucks off.

• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).

I actually don't see much of a problem with this however this spending belongs in the 2.65 trillion dollar defense budget not a stimulus package.

• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.

• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.

Building a headquarters for the DHS isn't a bad idea. spending more than half of what you did on constructing the place on furniture is baloney. Some furniture makers are getting rich selling DHS $4,000 desk chairs and $50,000 toilets! Once again, this doesn't belong in a stimulus package, it belongs in the appropriations bill for the DHS.

• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.

Umm... I'm not sure if this means they will be giving tax incentives for employees to buy hybrids... or they plan on purchasing hybrids as fleet vehicles (a good idea by the way in terms of fuel economy).. or Oprah decided that the President ought to tell federal employees: "You get a new car, and you get a new car, and you get a new car...." Oh yeah, how does this stimulate the economy again?

• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.

That's nice.. I support funding the CDC but this really isn't stimulating the economy, there isn't a financial meltdown because sexually promiscuous individuals have STD's.

• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.

This could be very useful and helpful if done correctly... but it belongs in the Department of Agriculture or Dept of the Interior's appropriations bill.

• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.

Careful folks! Improving the sewer system might cause more waste to end up in the Potomac. Congress, I suggest you begin investing in swimming lessons! Seriously, complete pork.

• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.

They need it! The Smithsonian museum system is a national treasure but this isn't really going to stimulate the economy.

• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.

Completing a Census is very important. It tells us about the direction of the country in so many ways and it leads to the reapportionment of districts for the House of Representatives and countless state/local legislative bodies. Something troubling.. how does a program run a $3 billion dollar overrun with a budget of $13 billion? Was someone trying to impress the new boss with a ridiculously low estimate for costs or are these people just incompetent spending money?

• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."

Great. That's right I'm a HUGE anti-smoking advocate. Go cry about it. Better yet, go cough, wheeze, and give yourself serious disease.. far away from me. Oh yea, this is a good investment because it does decrease health costs down the line, so it is borderline OK to include in a stimulus package but it doesn't do anything for the "now" or "today" of this crisis.

• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.

Why do the GOP object to this? This is a great idea. In bad economic times people who are out of work often turn to education to help them find gainful employment and are trained in new areas giving the American worker more skills and a wider variety of experience. Computer centers can add to that by giving community college student access to more resources, including online job listing and resume-makers (and this blog!)

• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.

The FBI has a budget. This is a stimulus package. The stimulus package is not the FBI budget. 'Nuf said.

• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.

Great... a good $25 million dollars to spend on the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget. This could really uplift reservations out of their third-world environment if the money was allocated in the right place and used wisely on programs that have been proven to work not sunk into the same old programs that have shown no promise over the years.

• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.

Ok... going for the whole TVA thing (Tennessee Valley Authority, for those who didn't pay attention in High School US History). A nice FDR touch could actually be helpful if it was used to protect cities (like New Orleans) while respecting wildlife.

• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.

Speaking of New Orleans... I'm not sure this is quite a "stimulus", it is needed but still.. I'm not sure it applies

• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.

A great idea.. that sounds like it is going to turn into a stimulus for "green" contractors who will be rolling around in our "green". "Green" buildings are good for saving on costs down the road, but maybe this could be done piecemeal, with the most cost-efficient work done first then work our way towards true eco-friendlier buildings.

• $500 million for state and local fire stations.

Good. They are feeling the pain out there. Not sure if this belongs in a stimulus package but they really do need it, as do the communities these fire stations serve courageously.

• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.

NO. The over-protection of the forests from fire is one of the leading causes of the current crisis that has killed MILLIONS of acres of trees across the country, from the Rockies clear out to the Pacific Northwest. If you want more info on this leave a comment.

• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.

How about instead of "including" we cut out all the non-work/service related program funding and focus in on pushing the next generation of American worker into positive programs that will really help in the long run.

• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.

1) Sounds like too much, 2) Public Health is important 3) their building may need some repairs - they should include an extra $88 million on their next budget request

• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.

Too ambiguous. Possibly reasonable, maybe not.

• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.

*sniff* Oh yeah.. smells like pork, a big half billion dollar load of pork. These facilities fall in Rep. Van Hollen's Congressional district.. who is that you ask? Rep. Van Hollen is Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and serves on the House Committee on Ways and Means as well as the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform" --quote from Rep. Van Hollen's website

• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

This is a good idea, one thing the country could really use this period of economic downturn for is to renew the Community service spirit and get people involved in their own communities, helping each other so the government doesn't have to help them. Ask for a cup of sugar from your neighbor and offer to carpool to work instead of putting your hand out and asking for a bailout from Uncle Sam. A community can serve as a helping hand to help you find those bootstraps and get you out of despair.

• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.

This one stinks so bad... well, you can finish that one. If they need it then they should ask for it in their annual budget, it seems that Congress is willing to give anything to the VA, no matter how useless, in order to prove to their voters that they "care" about returning soldiers. Hardly. Most are just token supporters who only cared for vetrans when Walter Reed (the hospital, not middle school) came up. Most have already forgotten and almost none have worked towards projects like the Hagel/Webb G.I. Bill.

• $850 million for Amtrak.

Why? Oh yeah.. it IS a bailout. I don't even know what Amtrack would use the money on! Their trains, service, employees, and scheduling has been terrible for years (except the DC-Wilmington, Del. service). Heck, most folks are use to it, don't change it now - especially when that money could go to better uses like stimulating the economy!

• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.

Congress: Tell companies to stop putting lead in paint.

I'll be expecting my $100 million dollar check in the mail, thank you.

• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.

This is a good idea, it think all State Dept personnel should be well trained especially with the hazards of the current age, none larger than the threat of a ballistic Hillary Clinton. Oh yeah, put this in the Dept of State budget.

• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.

I'm really not sure how badly this is needed or what its effect will be so I won't judge. That's right, I didn't know the answer and I decided to own up to it instead of putting a snarky comment here. How many bloggers do that? Not a lot.

• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.

Lease? Leasing is the biggest scam in the auto industry since the advent of the "Under-vehicle protective coating" that "must" be purchased with a new car. Stop leasing and just buy vehicles, negotiate sane service plans, and put this spending in the Dept of Defense budget where it belongs.


Wow. Wasn't sure if I was gonna make it through that heap of garbage but I think it'll be ok.

Agree? Disagree? Think there is something more outrageous in the bill? Leave a comment and let everyone know. Thanks.

Conservatives for Obama?

Conservatives for Obama... that doesn't make much sense, does it? Let's remind ourselves of some of the key positions that Senator Obama has taken: Government provided health care for all, support for Big Labor, support for abortion rights, opposition to the limitations of "marriage" benefits to homosexual couples, and the expansion of nearly every government entity he can get his hands on. Sounds grim. Then why are so many Republicans and Conservatives voting for him?

The answer is simple, he is running for the Office of President of the United States. The President occupies a very unique space in the American body politic, he (for this election) not only represents America to the world but he also is the chief executive of all things Political and Military. The President has the power to appoint and remove every high official in the Executive Branch and appoints all of the Judges in the Federal Judicial Branch (including the Supreme Court).

It is because of this that you find more cross-party voting in the Presidential race then you do any other type of partisan race in this country. Conservatives aren't voting for policies when they vote for Obama on Nov 4th, they are voting for a type of President that they'd like to see after eight years of "Us vs. Them" Republican rule. "Republicons" are hoping that an Obama Administration will not be vengeful one especially seeing as how (in a very modest estimate) Democrats will probably gain 6-8 seats in the Senate.

Another "positive" that conservatives are hoping for is a collapse of the Republican Party as it has existed in the past eight years. Why? Are they all self-hating Republicans? Nope. They want to reshape the GOP into a winning coalition once again. Depending on rich white folks, big business, evangelicals, and rural whites just isn't enough. The politics of fear that the Bush Administration worked up into a victory in 2004 are good for a one-time win but not good enough for continual electoral success. The Republican Party is hoping for a Reagan Revolution (or at the very least a Gingrich one) with new energetic leaders, preferably young ones so they don't have to reinvent themselves every 15 years. These leaders should be able to attract new young voters, the "base" - whatever it looks like, and capture Independents as well. What pro-Obama Republicans are looking for is a political calm where they can safely attack liberal policy while repairing and re-inventing themselves into a "cool" moderate conservative party with clear party planks that will endure. Now is the time for Republicans to start thinking about how to hold ground in 2010 and gain Congressional seats in 2012.

It is for the above reasons and so much more that I support the candidacy of Barack Obama. I do hope he gets elected, but don't think for one moment I have wavered from my values or beliefs because I will attack him any day if he is elected 44th President of the United States tomorrow. Good Luck Sen. Obama!

McCain Suspension - Analysis

Wow. Democrats really asked for it on this one, didn't they?!

All this complaining about the negative Rove tactics.. then Senator McCain pulls out a real great maneuver that I'm sure has the Obama people either scratching their heads or running around like they don't have any. John McCain just schooled the young Democrat about how you turn a disadvantage into a huge (free) PR campaign and put the opponent on the defensive.

The move to his suspend his campaign was so brilliant... I can scarcely believe it. It works on so many levels in so many ways... Senator McCain, my hat is off to you.

That being said.. his plan does have some (major) drawbacks but we'll get back to those later. First, let's talk positives:

1. "Bipartisanship" is the key to winning over Independents who are the key to winning elections



2. Why not dominate a day with free press? (Especially when behind in fund raising numbers)


3. Take the wind out of the Obama's campaigns sails after recent surge in the polls


4. Take pressure off of Sarah Palin and give her some time to prep for interviews, press conferences, and a show down with Joe Biden in next weeks VP debate


5. Show how deeply McCain cares about the economy (a topic he has admitted he knows little about)


6. Cast a few votes in the Senate, try to rally House Republicans around your cause


7. Throw a monkey wrench in the Democratic Party's strategy of linking McCain to Bush by opposing some of the Bush Administration's bailout measures


8. Have I mentioned FREE press?

Oh boy.. I'm sure I've missed quite a few more, but as you see the move really was an excellent one politically and strategically. Whether you think it was all political or you believe that John McCain is putting "Country First" by suspending his campaign to focus on the economy, it doesn't matter. You have to agree the move was brilliant.

Brilliance, however, comes at a price in this case. There are a few drawbacks that have occurred.

1. Senate/House Republicans weren't expecting the sudden media focus/scrutiny into the politics of the bailout


2. Makes McCain look like he cannot multi-task, focusing on the economy and other things


3. Why cancel Letterman and then go show up on CBS News with Katie Couric? You know Letterman is going to air out his concerns to his multimillion person audience!


4. Was suspension necessary? Does McCain not believe Palin could take the helm of the campaign ship while he's in DC? What does that say about what he thinks about her abilities and weaknesses.


5. I know McCain wants to take the attention away from the Democrats' blame for the bad economic conditions on Republicans but is saying that this crisis is so bad that everything is the world (aka the election cycle) but come to a complete halt because of the enormity of the problem really the right message to send?

I'm not sure if that list is quite complete yet either.. but time will tell.

So tell me what you think of my lists, and tell me what you think: Political Stunt or Patriotic Selflessness?

P.S. Go Huskers, beat those Hokies!!!

BREAKING NEWS: McCAIN SUSPENDS CAMPAIGN!

This just in:

Senator John McCain has suspended his campaign.

He has also asked for a postponement of the debate scheduled for Friday (on Foreign Policy, set for Oxford, Miss.)

He has asked Senator Barack Obama to also suspend his campaign.

He reasons that the "historic" crisis on Wall Street should lead both candidates to focus on the economy for a bit instead of campaigning. It is possible that he wishes for time to have a big hand on the 700 Billion dollar bailout being crafted in the Senate because Republicans are largely being punished in the polls for the crisis.

Barack Obama has spoken and he has let the American people know that he will NOT be suspending his campaign so far and that he wishes to keep the debate on Friday going because there's only 40 days left until the election.

The White House and many Senate Republicans are applauding the move by John McCain and his call for bipartisan compromise to get the bailout passed as early as possible.

In response to the question about if he would consider participating in the debate if the bailout passes on Friday, his answer was "Yes".

More UPDATES AS THEY BECOME AVAILABLE.

Links:

McCain suspends campaign, calls for Obama to do same - CNN
McCain Suspending Campaign, Asks for Debate Delay - Washington Post
McCain to 'Suspend' Campaign Amid Crisis, Return to D.C. - Wall Street Journal
McCain seeks to delay Friday's debate - MSNBC

Another One Bites the Dust... Abramoff Crony Indicted

Kevin Ring was indicted today on charges of corruption and trying to bribe Legislators and members of the Executive branch with items of value. Kevin Ring prior to becoming a lobbyist with Abramoff worked as Chief of Staff for Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA). Rep. Doolittle himself is also under suspicion and is currently under investigation by the Abramoff probe.

This new arrest and indictment has some implications on the 2008 elections. First, it won't be hard to notice the "R" next to Representative Doolittle's name when it comes to scandal mongerers. It was this scandal and others (Mark Foley, etc..) that played a part in prompting the US electorate to vote democrat in 2006. Bring this scandal up again is going to remind them of their reasons to boot out what seemed to be a disproportionally corrupt Republican party from power.

On the flipside though, the probe that brought Abramoff to justice was initiated by the Committee on Indian Affairs, chaired by a Senator John McCain (R-AZ).. you may have heard of him, he is running for President. Sen. McCain has brought up this investigation countless times as proof that he is a straight guy (or at least since the Keating Five incident). If this story makes some heavy circulation in the MSM then it shouldn't be difficult for him to link himself to the Justice Dept's probe. If the story doesn't and he brings it up he risks seeming like he is overreaching to tie himself to the probe.

Keep an eye on this in the next couple days...

John McCain accepts Republican Nomination

Now that I've had a day to let the John McCain nomination acceptance speech stew in my head.. I've made my decision. It was great. Not perfect.. but definitely as close as John McCain could have come.

McCain's speech, unlike Palin's, was geared almost 100% towards independents and moderates of both parties. The speech touched on a few subjects: the refuting of the current administration, the Maverick McCain, and reinvention of the Republican Party in his image. McCain talked about change in almost the same way he did in 2000 when he was talking about a change from the Clinton Administration. He managed to weave in his POW story in a artful way so that it added to the narrative instead of just coming across as boasting. John McCain also spoke almost admirably about Barack Obama, saying he respected him but said that their disagreements were clear and it was the job of the voter to choose the better person for the job.

McCain really pushed his theme of trying to make this election about the candidates themselves instead of the parties. His strategy is to say that if it came down to just two people and if you didn't know their party affiliations you'd pick McCain. He spoke to one of the most partisan audiences about the benefits of bipartisanship and going against the party when it served the country. The "Country First" perspective is being reinvented to appeal more to Independents who are sick of the deep partisan divide in Washington and the "do nothing Congress".

John McCain Acceptance Speech Grade: B+

The speech brought back the John McCain of 2000 and for many independents (myself included) that brought him back into competition for their votes. Thoroughly tired of partisanship and Day 3 of the RNC... the final speech was a breath of fresh air.

Let's talk about Day 3 for a moment.. it was disgusting. Absolutely abhorrent. ex-Gov. Mitt Romney attacked the "eastern elites" in his speech.. ARE YOU SERIOUS?! Mitt Romney need I remind you.. your father owned a big auto company and was a Governor himself of Michigan. You, his son, became governor of one of the most "eastern" style states and you are extremely wealthy... 300 Million Dollars is rich even by Cindy McCain standards! Next, they brought up some black guy to prove that they had a minority in their party too. Hmm... sorry guys, but the Republicans basically gave up on the minority vote this cycle - 93% of delgates were white. After that, came Rudy Guliani. Boy, Am I glad this guy did not have a chance! He ought to pursue a career in insult comedy. He got up to deliver a hundred punchlines in a sarcastic and bitter tone about Obama. Of course he mentioned 9/11 a thousand times, often followed by patting himself on the back. Then the insulter-in-chief acted as though there were basically no domestic problems due to the magic pefection of the Bush Administration. Any Independent or Reagan Democrat turned off their TVs at this point in disgust and decided they would never vote for this party. Sarah Palin of course was the highlight... and I have already covered that. All that Party energizing, playing to the base (and right-wingnuts), and scaring away independents and they had the audacity to name the night's theme "Peace"! What a joke... a sad, sick joke.

Day 3 Overall Grade: D-

What did you think? Share by adding your comments!

Palin @ GOP Convention

Governor Sarah Palin's speech wasn't exactly what I expected.. and that's her fault. For a couple days now Republican talking heads have been trying to convince us that she is an aggressive reforming social conservative with expertise on just about everything that matters to the American people. She ruined her own coming out party.. for anyone who isn't a staunch Republican. In fact, the entire night had problems.. but that is for another post.

Sarah Palin came out swinging. Her speech could be broken down into three main themes: 1) Attacking Barack Obama, 2) Extolling the virtues of John McCain, and 3) Energizing the Republican base.

1) Attacking Barack Obama

She came out hard and she did not stop. In true attack dog form (she called herself a pitbull with lipstick), Palin lambasted and vilified Obama and his campaign to the very core. One of the main attack points was that she was a mayor and Obama was a Community Organizer. Palin told the crowd that the two are similar but that she "actually had responsibility". There were so many barbs and mud thrown that you'd have to actually read the speech to believe that it was given. I mean, it is one thing to attack your opponent.. but it is an entirely different thing to do it all the time, it hardly leaves any time for you to tell us why you are any better!

2) All Praise John S. McCain

The S stands for Sidney, in case you are interested. Anyone remember John Edwards acceptance speech in 2004? This is how it went: blah blah blah John Kerry blah blah John Kerry blah blah blah John and I blah blah blah John Kerry. Sarah Palin must have studied that speech and just replaced all the "Kerry"s with "McCain". Now I understand she basically owes her new career options to the man but it was more like she was a fangirl than a running mate. Supposedly she should be able to do his job if he is ever stricken ill or incapacitated but she made it sound as though he was an anomaly of service that we should worship instead of a man who is far better qualified than her but she is still within reach of (according to her party).

3) Energizing the Base

Is it not hilarious that "the base" in Arabic is "al quaeda"? Ok.. I crack myself up.. but seriously! She did a great job! There was not a single phrase or sentence that did not get huge ovation and recognition. Although the speech was better suited for a surrogate than a VP nomination acceptance it worked none the less and brought together a party that was honestly struggling when they arrived. As the days went on the cheers didn't grow much louder... but Palin really opened up the audience and got them going. From defeatists to optimists in under an hour... that's good delivery (although her voice has already begun to annoy me).

Problems with her speech? Oh yeah... she didn't talk much about why or how she is ready to be Vice President or act as President. That's HUGE. That should have been the bulk of her speech, instead of just just saying Obama isn't ready.. tell us why you are any better! Also, sometimes her attacks were so strongly worded that they were just not true. For instance, saying that you don't think Obama did anything useful is one thing but saying that he "never authored" any legislation of value is another. (Remember that bill to control nuclear material or the huge ethics reform bill?) Another thing that really bugged me was the negative tone that was used throughout... for a party that is suppose to be energizing the electorate they seemed more intent on just scaring it (worked in 2004, I guess...)

Overall Grade: C

Rove: Biden is a "blowhard doofus"

Honestly the most surprising thing about the comment made by Karl Rove at a dinner at the GOP convention was that he didn't curse. Now I know that there are a lot of differing opinions about Karl Rove and his tactics but everyone has to admit, the guy is a genius of winning campaigns. He's the James Carville of the 2000's.

Rove was telling a room full of people that what he thought of Obama's VP pick when he relayed to them the fact that everyone in Washington who is familiar with the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee knows that Joseph Biden (the chair) is verbose and often doesn't know when to stop talking. In Rove's words that makes him a "blowhard doofus".

This comment could be serving one of two purposes - he could have just spoke this off the top of his head to a little table full of die-hard GOPers or he could have been aware that someone was bound to leak this to the press (as any Rove quote seems to do) and would prompt the media to seriously ask the question, "Is Biden really a blowhard doofus?!" Since the Press seems to have replaced with ratings mongerers and people who believe the press's role is primarily to entertain not inform, the quote is makings its rounds on all the 24 hr cable news channels.

Biden loves making his point.. and another.. and another..

But.. is he? and what does that mean? Biden is very, very, very talkative. If there was some sort of superlative for verbose... I'd call him that. (Incidentally, if you know one tell me) I've been to, watched, and listened to quite a few of his Committee hearings and boy.. does he talk. His problem is that he has so much knowledge to share and tends to go on tangents.. so one tangent leads to another, leads to another.. This is where the gaffe-machine comes in. Every once in awhile, he says something that while you can tell it is purely innocent sounds TERRIBLE without context. I don't think anyone really thinks Biden is sexist, racist or a bigot of any kind but sometime the way stuff comes out of his mouth and then get printed... it makes people who are unfamiliar with him wonder.

Does that disqualify him or reduce his ability to be Vice-President? No, not really but it does give some serious heartburn to the Obama press team who have to be ready to put out fires wherever Biden goes. If I remember correctly, the current President wasn't exactly the well-oiled slick nominee that Barack Obama is.. and he managed to win. There is a fundamental difference between a lovable doofus and an incompetent one. The real task comes down to Joe Biden working his hardest to keep himself focused and reduce his talk time. The backup task goes to the Democratic PR people to present Biden as a loveable guy who just has so many good stories he can't stop himself.. a guy that just wants to share.. and share.. and share.

If they can do that they will be able to reduce the effectiveness of the Republicans who will pounce on every misstep or missquote. So far however Obama is looking like a Teflon Nominee and Biden may change that or just cling to the Teflon just as hard as he can!


Links:

Biden reacts to Rove insult - CNN

Sarah Palin: Rubber.. meet Road

Sarah Palin... what can I say that hasn't been regurgitated, repeated, editorialized then regurgitated in the media in the past couple days?

Sometimes it is better to just take a little while to think (a foreign word to many pundits and shouting-heads). Thinking and pondering as it turns out allows a person to form their opinion based on a larger collection of facts and a little mind-check for logic and meaning. Although it is still early I'm ready to start analyzing her and her entry into the race a little..

First, the election's tone and attack points have changed drastically because of the pick and second, she is going to either be a huge dangerous liability or a home-grown gem for John McCain based on how she deals with the sudden massive scrutiny of the nation and media...

1) How does this change the election? First off, the experience and racism/sexism cards have been taken off the table. You won't be hearing as extensively the attacks from the McCain camp about Obama's "lack of experience" because Sarah Palin has... pretty much close to zilch and Obama now has Biden to back him up. You won't hear a whisper campaign from the Democratic Party about McCain's views on women. Same does for the Republican Party appartatus whispers of Obama as a young black extremist surrounding himself with young angry blacks. You will hear a lot about the connections of Palin and the McCain campaign to oil and gas companies and their disagreement on drilling in the Arctic.

2) What does Palin bring to the field? She definately has spunk, confidence, and character. Palin also has inexperience being in the national limelight or as an object of major scrutiny by the lower 48 states. Something either troublesome or inspiring about Palin is that she only met McCain once and according to quite a few sources did not meet him again until he had basically decided she was going to be his VP pick. She is also suppose to be working hard on bringing in disgruntled Hillary supporters but in the two days shes tried.. so far nothing is really materializing. I hope McCain did not pick her just because she is a woman because that would be an insult to females everywhere.

You know that story of a little town girl who suddenly makes it big in the city... well Palin is going to decide if this is a depressing drama that ends up with her moving back in with her little town or a romantic comedy that ends with a fadeout of her moving into the Dirksen Office Building, the Eisenhower Executive Suite, and the West Wing of the White House.

I'm sure there is more to her than we are hearing about... and I'll be right here to analyze and report on it when it arrives. So until next time.. stay safe.

Strong Moderate

P.S. Major Kudos if you caught the veiled reference to Oil, Arctic drilling, and High gas prices in the title of this post...

Democratic Convention Coverage

The Democratic Convention this week in Denver, CO will be a collection of liberals and media personnel getting drunk in the Mile High City 24 hrs a day for 5 days. There. If I didn't say another word that ought to be the boiled down straight talk version of the event... but I don't want everyone to hate me, so I'll give it a little more flourish.

The purpose of these conventions, both Democrat and Republican, is to get together and energize the party base and activists while holding a coming out party for the Presidential candidates. The convention is like a handover ceremony, from now until November the Presidential candidates are in full control of their parties in every way. Forget the sitting President, their respective party chief, high-profile politicians, or even common sense. Whatever the candidate says.. is what the party says. Oh, and what better way to have that ceremony than having a huge party in Denver or St. Paul?!

In addition to the ecstasy that each party experiences when they all congregate in one place, the media is treated like royalty and often are just as inebriated (that is drunk) as everyone else. For the media it is like taking a wonderful vacation, all their talking points are fed to them from either party releases or opposition groups and they get all kind of perks. Think about it, when else do TV anchors get to cover 5 day long circuses complete with a big top, balloons, confetti, parrots, monkeys and hooligans? I know I wouldn't miss it for the world!

Enough about that, though. I'll be keeping you updated if anything really interesting happens outside the alcoholic pomp. Stay Tuned.

McCain's VP Pick: Moderation is the Key

Dear Senator John McCain,

As a military man you know the new guy in a squad is always the target of criticism but mostly adapt to their comrades. The "new guy" is also a topic of speculation and mystery when a position needs to be filled. Obviously I'm talking about your pick for a Vice-Presidential candidate... Here's a couple names that have been floated that just plain won't work: Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge.

Here's Why: If there is one thing that has united the Republican Party through thick (Reagan) and thin (Nixon), it is the focus of the Republican Party on conservative social values. I'm talking about the biggies here: abortion, death penalty, and gay marriage. The Republican Party's answers to those issues have been No, Yes, and No, respectively. Now, of course, different brands of Republicans have succeeded in reaching the country's highest elected office but they have all shared those values. Some Presidents have had new or different views of domestic policy or foreign policy or both and the media as well as political commentators have chided each as "breaking" party unity or "gutting" the party's core, so far they haven't really quite got it. There are many simple people who just want to vote based on one thing, God. They believe that as long as the President doesn't like abortion, likes the death penalty, and is opposed to homosexual marriages nothing can penetrate or corrupt the invincible American fortress. You and I know that these people are wrong but these people vote and sometimes you gotta give the people what they want.. especially if you agree with those positions.

Back to the Vice-Presidential pick, both of the politicians I mentioned are not pro-life, Lieberman is neither anti-death penalty nor anti-gay marriage. In fact if we rewind just eight years there is a plethora of sound bites, articles, quotes, interviews, op-eds, and press releases stating those positions very strongly and attacking George W. Bush for supporting these conservative values. Now I don't agree with you at all about the way you believe the War in Iraq should be run or where the course of US Foreign Policy is headed but as a person who gives a great deal of weight to values.. you've stayed in tied as my top choice for President (the other being Senator Obama). If you decide to choose either Lieberman or Ridge my confidence in your ability to stick to your own morals will be shaken and possibly completely broken. I would rather have a person with a strong character that I respect than a politician with a weak character in the White House. It is character after all that is truly tested in trying times of crisis.

Many people who are in politics are mere politicians, those people who make plays for power, and some are statesmen and stateswomen who do what is best for their country given all the information they have. These statesmen and stateswomen don't come from a specific party but they share many character traits amongst them a firm understanding of when to change their positions based on facts and reality and when to stand tall and stick to their ideology no matter how popular it is. Picking someone who is pro-choice to attract centrists and blue dog democrats would be a clear example of being a politician first and a statesman last. Please do not do this.

Thank You,

Strong Moderate

Links:

Conservatives upset over abortion rights VP contenders - CNN

Hagel to Keynote Democratic Convention?

Back to some news for Nebraska.. which has been very politically predictable.


This is from Meet the Press on NBC, August 3rd, 2008:

MR. BROKAW: Who's going to be the keynoter at the Democratic convention?

MR. TODD: Oh, my money's on Chuck Hagel. And I, I think it would be a Republican. That's the message that Obama wants to send. I mean, the whole idea of the Democratic convention, I think, is going to be two parts. One is you are going to see them be more aggressive on McCain than John Kerry was on Bush. I mean, I talked to an Obama person, and I asked them what they thought of that 2004 convention as a whole, was it too soft on Bush? And immediately said, "Oh, absolutely." So expect--in fact, don't be surprised if Obama starts ratcheting up rhetoric against McCain this week. Forget the convention. But I've always--my money's always been on Chuck Hagel as the, as the keynote. But it's not--you know, technically Hillary Clinton may dominate that night because she's, she's the, she's the big speaker that night. But you send a message with your keynote, and I think we may have seen the other keynote on this, at this desk.

Wait.. what did you just say? Chuck Hagel.. keynoting the Democratic Convention?! Isn't that slightly.. you know.. insane?

Chuck Todd is an analyst for NBC and a former writer for the National Journal. He brought up Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) as a possible keynote for the Democratic Convention. The idea of bringing someone from the opposite party to keynote is nothing strange... the Republicans did it with Zel Miller in 2004. The big question mark is of course Chuck Hagel. There have been rumors of a want (or need) to bring in someone from across the aisle or an independent to do the keynote to boost the chances of Obama capturing important swing votes. More than a few big names that have come up such as Hagel, Colin Powell, NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg, or former Sen. Sam Nunn.

Chuck Todd thinks that Hagel has the inside track to keynote but a lot of problems exist.... First thing is, when you pick a keynote speaker it is generally a good idea to be sure that the speaker can go on for quite awhile and really articulate the message you want to send. If the Convention is pretty much geared towards having a War Hero talk about the blunders in Iraq then they have their man otherwise.. they are really asking the wrong guy. Hagel owns one of the highest conservative ratings from any thinktank asked according to his votes on everything but the War in Iraq. Seeing how the economy is shaping up to be the big issue of this election (and the failure of promise of 2006 Democrats to end the War in Iraq) maybe using Hagel to hammer the facts home wouldn't be such a bright idea.

What do you think? Post a comment.

Hillary's Media Shenanigans

Hillary Clinton has a secret you don't know about...
and you won't, either.

Hillary Clinton's campaign has led a strong effort on keeping the lid on their most embarrassing moments, ties, and comments. Clinton's Communications Director Howard Wolfson has been at the helm of the media control, crisis management, and sometimes story suppression. The question arises of just how does the Clinton campaign control the media surrounding her so well?

Many stories criticizing the Clinton campaign have come out but the most damaging stories have stayed relatively quiet (a campaign staffer, Mickey Kantor, calling Indiana's people "s**t") in comparison to the Obama campaign's disastrous media control ( Rev. Wright ring a bell?) The Clinton campaign is using some very heavy leverage to stop big media outlets from publicizing her most embarrassing stories, access to Bill Clinton.

Former president Clinton will always be a news story, win or lose for Hillary, and the Clinton campaign are betting their chips that no media outlet is going to want to jeopardize their access to him just to run a hot story on Hillary. So far, the pressure has worked. Barack Obama on the other hand has been sorely missing a good media crisis response team and it is costing him heavily. The Wright controversy and the "bitter" comments cost him a closer finish in Pennsylvania and are seriously hurting his numbers among whites, blue collar workers, and rural voters.

One of the Achilles heels of Hillary Clinton is the perception (rightly so, I believe) that she is disingenuous and ready to do anything to get what she wants. These media suppression tactics are definitely feeding into that perception and are not helping her readiness if in a huge coup she takes the Democratic nomination. Chances are that somewhere down the line, Republicans are going to really turn up the heat and expose something that she will be unable to suppress and what will happen next will be a toss-up, either a well-planned crisis management plan or a complete meltdown. That being said Obama who now has much more experience taking heavy media fire is really going to have to work on his team's response management, time after time his response has been too slow, too weak or too philosophical. Obama is really going to need to get his responses ready and right before the convention if he wants to show super-delegates he has a chance against a GOP that seems to be almost in desperation to take the White House again.

In Conclusion,

Hillary Clinton needs to.. "man" up and start taking some real heat, stop dodging the media
Barack Obama needs to.. work on his responses to attacks, win Indiana in spite of the scandals
John McCain needs to.. raise money, describe his own plan on how to make the situation in Iraq better, raise money, outline his plans for the economy and health care, raise money, just keep cruising until June.

Links:

Newsbusters: Story on another Clinton Campaign Finance Fiasco
Newsbusters: Is the Honeymoon over?
CNN: Hillary's Rove Tacitics

Sen Arlen Specter (R-PA) has Cancer Again

In some very saddening news, we have learned that Senator Specter of Pennsylvania and a true leader on the Judiciary Committee has been diagnosed with Hodgkin's Disease again. He was first diagnosed with this cancer of the lymphatic system in 2005.

Sen. Specter recently published his autobiographical book, "Never Give In: Battling Cancer in the Senate", about his battle with the disease which he first was aware of having in 2005. In the book he describes his battles as friends and enemies began to treat him differently and famously said that President Bush treated him like he was "contagious".

He has stated that he will continue to serve Pennsylvania in the Senate and will go through an intense 12 weeks of chemotherapy. Sen. Specter has also had other medical issues in the past which he has overcome and recovered from fully, such as two cardiac arrests and other heart problems.

We wish him good luck and a speedy path to recovery.

Other Links on this story:

Official Statement - Sen. Specter's Senate Office
Arlen Specter's Hodgkin's disease returns - CNN
Pa. Sen. Arlen Specter diagnosed again with cancer - AP

GOP Congressman states 9/11 a "simply a plane crash"

GOP Representative Issa: 9/11 "not Uncle Sam's problem"



Representative Don Issa (R-CA-San Diego) in a hearing on federal aid to New York Fire Department members (who became ill after the September 11th attacks) blasted the aid as babying New Yorkers who had only suffered a "plane crash" and there was no "dirty bomb.. or chemical munitions". Rep. Issa obviously thinks that if you aren't tortured to the extreme then killed you aren't worthy of aid.

Rep. Issa came under fire from all sides: Congressmen and women, first responders, and victims.

Rep. King (R-NY) who has made quite a few outrageous ignorant things in the past said "New York was attacked by Al Qaeda. It doesn't have to be attacked by Congress."

First responder, Frank Fraone, a Menlo Park, Calif., fire chief who led a 67-man crew at Ground Zero said: That is a pretty distorted view of things.. Whether they're a couple of planes or a couple of missiles, they still did the same damage" (alluding to 9/11 conspiracies as well)

One spouse of a victim of the attack called the comment "cold and heartless" and "discouraging"

Rep. Issa did (kinda-sorta-not-really) apologize "I continue to support federal assistance for the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks."

While it is true that a lot of money was wasted from excess spending and corruption in New York after the 9/11 attacks that is simply no reason to criticize the noble intentions of aid to firefighters who may suffer from respiratory illnesses due to their work in and around Ground Zero.

Contact Rep. Issa and let his office know that his "apology" was not enough.

Washington D.C. Office

211 Cannon House
Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
phone: 202-225-3906
fax: 202-225-3303