Sunday, September 28, 2008
First Debate dust-settling
Well, I guess it was a wash. I asked some people over the weekend and most people I talked to were disappointed, like it was a waste of time. The candidates stuck to their talking points, and looking at Factcheck.org, they both lied a few times. I caught part of Meet the Press this morning, and Steve Schmidt and David Axelrod kept repeating the lies while accusing the other of lying.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Clintonian Tactic?
One thing Bill Clinton was willing to do in his debates is mention whenever he agreed with his opponents. Barack Obama has said "I agree with John" about six times now.
McCain / Obama debate
Live-blogging here.
This, so far, has been an even, substantive debate. This is the kind of debate I was hoping for a year ago, before campaigns devolved into their usual muck-and-mire silliness.
I'm watching CNN's feed, and my eyes keep going to their live-streaming lines of how their focus-grouped Republicans, Democrats and Independents feel about about what's being said at that moment.
This, so far, has been an even, substantive debate. This is the kind of debate I was hoping for a year ago, before campaigns devolved into their usual muck-and-mire silliness.
I'm watching CNN's feed, and my eyes keep going to their live-streaming lines of how their focus-grouped Republicans, Democrats and Independents feel about about what's being said at that moment.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The $700 billion bailout
Maybe I'm naive, but wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to review every customer of Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae and whichever other bank or company the Feds plan to bail out, simply get a list of all the customers who still owe, pay 20% of the mortgages still owed by people, and 10% of the mortgages still owed by businesses, and of those in ARMs or with fixed-rates above 7%, they refinance them for free? I think that would take less than half of the proposed $700 billion bailout, and it would be the people, the bottom-line people helped most, rather than letting Congress skate out of its own neglect and corruption and increasing their power. It would drastically reduce foreclosures and bankruptcies, and meanwhile they can still get rid of some of their laws that were forcing institutions like Freddie & Fannie to take on high-risk sub-prime loans.
I have a hard time seeing why, if they're going to dramatically increase the national debt again, why they're not giving it back to the people that are hurting. Call it trickle-up economics.
While we're at it, make it illegal to charge anyone any interest above 15% for anything. Credit card companies and payday loan companies are immoral in this regard, and if you did that, there'd be a lot less mass mailings offering million of dollars in credit to Current Resident.
I have a hard time seeing why, if they're going to dramatically increase the national debt again, why they're not giving it back to the people that are hurting. Call it trickle-up economics.
While we're at it, make it illegal to charge anyone any interest above 15% for anything. Credit card companies and payday loan companies are immoral in this regard, and if you did that, there'd be a lot less mass mailings offering million of dollars in credit to Current Resident.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
More 269-269 electoral fun
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/sep/23/an-electoral-college-doomsday/
If it comes to a 269-269 electoral college tie, the House would pick the President, which would be Obama, but the Senate picks the Vice-President. If Joe Lieberman decides to vote with the Democrats, it would be a 50-50 tie, and Dick Cheney would have the tie-breaking vote. So it's plausible we could have President Barack Obama and Vice-President Sarah Palin.
If it comes to a 269-269 electoral college tie, the House would pick the President, which would be Obama, but the Senate picks the Vice-President. If Joe Lieberman decides to vote with the Democrats, it would be a 50-50 tie, and Dick Cheney would have the tie-breaking vote. So it's plausible we could have President Barack Obama and Vice-President Sarah Palin.
Friday, September 19, 2008
What Obama Should Do
In a recent softball interview on MSNBC's Countdown, Keitho didn't so much ask Barack questions as he did solicit campaign advice. He asked when Barack was going to get angry and say, "Enough!"
Barack Obama is getting angrier. He's getting more pointed, more snarky, and veering away from what appeals about him. Obama conveys that he's above the usual political fray. The new dishonest Barack is killing the "hope" and "change" ideals for which he stood.
Political ads are historically distortive and inaccurate. Henry Clay was brutal against Andrew Jackson, portraying him as a simian fool. Abraham Lincoln's opponents compared him to Satan.
John McCain rode the Straight Talk Express in 2000, and the press loved him. And he lost. McCain saw himself in fourth place early in the Republican primaries, and he got a little more Machiavellian with his tactics. Mitt Romney tried to engage McCain on his dishonest tactics, and he lost. He looked like a whiner.
Obama didn't engage in anything Hillary Clinton threw at him. Plagairism? He laughed it off. Lack of experience? Let's focus on judgment.
McCain's ads against Obama have been playfully misleading. But Obama saw the Palin bounce and overreacted, leading to a bigger Palin bounce. Now he's telling his followers to get in people's faces, and putting out race-baiting ads. I don't see how he's going to sway independents by appealing to the desires of the left-wingers who are angry all the time.
What is McCain doing for the righties? He gave them Sarah Palin. That's all he has to do. Republicans know Bush has not been a good president, they know their six years of controlling Congress yielded a higher deficit. Everyone knows McCain will be different than Bush, just not as different as Obama would be.
It all comes down to the debates, and Obama can hammer McCain with specifics, what he will specifically do versus what McCain has not specifically said he would do. But Obama, master speaker, needs to keep the sunny optimism about him. He's complemented Reagan a few times, and he can follow Reagan's lead. Talk about what's good about America, what's good about the American people. Then he can address what he will do to make people's lives better, stregthen the economy, and restore our standing in the world.
And quit taking campaign advice from the DailyKos crowd.
Barack Obama is getting angrier. He's getting more pointed, more snarky, and veering away from what appeals about him. Obama conveys that he's above the usual political fray. The new dishonest Barack is killing the "hope" and "change" ideals for which he stood.
Political ads are historically distortive and inaccurate. Henry Clay was brutal against Andrew Jackson, portraying him as a simian fool. Abraham Lincoln's opponents compared him to Satan.
John McCain rode the Straight Talk Express in 2000, and the press loved him. And he lost. McCain saw himself in fourth place early in the Republican primaries, and he got a little more Machiavellian with his tactics. Mitt Romney tried to engage McCain on his dishonest tactics, and he lost. He looked like a whiner.
Obama didn't engage in anything Hillary Clinton threw at him. Plagairism? He laughed it off. Lack of experience? Let's focus on judgment.
McCain's ads against Obama have been playfully misleading. But Obama saw the Palin bounce and overreacted, leading to a bigger Palin bounce. Now he's telling his followers to get in people's faces, and putting out race-baiting ads. I don't see how he's going to sway independents by appealing to the desires of the left-wingers who are angry all the time.
What is McCain doing for the righties? He gave them Sarah Palin. That's all he has to do. Republicans know Bush has not been a good president, they know their six years of controlling Congress yielded a higher deficit. Everyone knows McCain will be different than Bush, just not as different as Obama would be.
It all comes down to the debates, and Obama can hammer McCain with specifics, what he will specifically do versus what McCain has not specifically said he would do. But Obama, master speaker, needs to keep the sunny optimism about him. He's complemented Reagan a few times, and he can follow Reagan's lead. Talk about what's good about America, what's good about the American people. Then he can address what he will do to make people's lives better, stregthen the economy, and restore our standing in the world.
And quit taking campaign advice from the DailyKos crowd.
Monday, September 15, 2008
My Case for McCain/Palin
I've always said John McCain was my guy in 2000. I think most could look at the country and the Republican party now and say both would have been better off if he had beaten George W. Bush in the 2000 primaries. I voted for Bush in 2000 because I was against Gore.
George W. Bush ran as a compassionate conservative. It turns out that meant was he was socially conservative, fiscally liberal, and diplomatically tone-deaf. No wonder the deficit grew so much.
I voted Libertarian in 2004.
I believe McCain would have implemented some if not all of Bush's tax cuts. I also believe he would have fought back against spending. I believe after 9/11, McCain would have gone to Afghanistan, would not have tried to come up with an excuse to go to Iraq, and McCain would not have announced to the world, "You're with us or against us. Iraq, Iran and North Korea are the axis of evil." We'll never know for sure unless the afterlife has a "What If" Holodeck machine we can play with for eternity. I believe under McCain, Osama bin Laden would be dead by now.
In 2008, there are many reasons for me to vote for Obama. First, I'm in Utah. McCain will win this state by over 20% no matter what. So, more votes for Obama narrows that gap. As long as Republicans control so much, they will continue to take this state for granted, and the Democrats will continue to ignore it.
Second, I do think Obama would send a positive message throughout the world, a world that didn't hate us as much in 2001 as it does now, and most of those in the world who hate America don't really hate the American people; they hate the American government. They hate Bush.
Third, it'd be cool. Two of my kids are from Zambia. How cool would it be to have them grow up knowing a black president?
Every once in a while, a party needs something to remind them who they are and what they stand for. For the GOP, Reagan came along and rescued them. Then they lost it. Then they got it back in 1994. Then they lost it. They lost it by following George W. Bush on everything. There needed to be more questions on Iraq, on the program of pre-emptive strike. Why was the post-strike occupation of Iraq so poorly managed? Why increase the entitlements in Medicare when the deficit is already huge? They did push back occasionally, like the nomination of Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court, but there should have been more.
I think fear of losing power led to their loss of power. They trusted Bush in 2004, and Bush didn't lead. They deserved to lose control of the House and Senate in 2006. In the past year and a half, Bush has wised up on diplomacy and troop levels. He underplays so he doesn't have to admit to many mistakes. Google-search Fareed Zakaria's recent Newsweek article on what Bush is getting right; he did a great concise job of laying it out.
Fifty years from now, I don't think Bush will be considered the worst president in history, which is what many lefties right now believe. I think James Buchanan will always hold that dubious honor, with Andrew Johnson and Warren G. Harding down around there too. Many felt that way about Truman when he left office but decades later, he's viewed as pretty good. History's been kinder to LBJ as well. I'm not saying he'll ever be in the top half. Time will tell.
But with Democratic control sure to remain over the House and Senate, this country would be better off with McCain in charge than Obama.
Watching the GOP convention, this party is ready to reform against itself, ready to throw the bums out (except their own). Gone are Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, Rick Santorum, George Allen. Soon to be gone are Larry Craig and Ted Stevens. With the religious right, Jerry Falwell's dead, Pat Robertson's irrelevant and religious guys like Rick Warren seem more tolerant. (Firm in their beliefs, but tolerant.) I participated in aiding a primary election of throwing out an Republican incumbant to bring in a new guy (Jason Chaffetz) running on fiscal discipline.
Despite how petty the campaigns have become the past few weeks, McCain's demonstrated time and again his ability to compromise and work with the other side of the aisle. This is important. Joe Lieberman got Republicans to cheer Bill Clinton at their convention by point out that hey, Bill worked with you on welfare reform and balancing the budget.
Right now the Dems are running against Sarah Palin, trying to terrify the public that John McCain will die in office and this woman will then have the nuclear codes. But running against a Vice-Preisdential candidate never works. The Dems annihilated Dan Quayle in 1988, but to what end? Besides, Palin was the perfect pick for McCain if he wants to get elected. I can't think of another person who would have energized the base more, with all due respect to Kay Bailey Hutchison. As for McCain dying in office, I keep looking at his 96-year-old mother. And if he did die in office, say at the three-year mark, that's three years of valuable experience Palin would have by then. But the whole experience question is kinda of a joke. Americans like governors as president (Bush 43, Clinton 42, Reagan 40, Carter 39, etc.) and she did more to tackle problems in her two years as governor than Obama did voting the party line in four years in the Senate.
George W. Bush ran as a compassionate conservative. It turns out that meant was he was socially conservative, fiscally liberal, and diplomatically tone-deaf. No wonder the deficit grew so much.
I voted Libertarian in 2004.
I believe McCain would have implemented some if not all of Bush's tax cuts. I also believe he would have fought back against spending. I believe after 9/11, McCain would have gone to Afghanistan, would not have tried to come up with an excuse to go to Iraq, and McCain would not have announced to the world, "You're with us or against us. Iraq, Iran and North Korea are the axis of evil." We'll never know for sure unless the afterlife has a "What If" Holodeck machine we can play with for eternity. I believe under McCain, Osama bin Laden would be dead by now.
In 2008, there are many reasons for me to vote for Obama. First, I'm in Utah. McCain will win this state by over 20% no matter what. So, more votes for Obama narrows that gap. As long as Republicans control so much, they will continue to take this state for granted, and the Democrats will continue to ignore it.
Second, I do think Obama would send a positive message throughout the world, a world that didn't hate us as much in 2001 as it does now, and most of those in the world who hate America don't really hate the American people; they hate the American government. They hate Bush.
Third, it'd be cool. Two of my kids are from Zambia. How cool would it be to have them grow up knowing a black president?
Every once in a while, a party needs something to remind them who they are and what they stand for. For the GOP, Reagan came along and rescued them. Then they lost it. Then they got it back in 1994. Then they lost it. They lost it by following George W. Bush on everything. There needed to be more questions on Iraq, on the program of pre-emptive strike. Why was the post-strike occupation of Iraq so poorly managed? Why increase the entitlements in Medicare when the deficit is already huge? They did push back occasionally, like the nomination of Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court, but there should have been more.
I think fear of losing power led to their loss of power. They trusted Bush in 2004, and Bush didn't lead. They deserved to lose control of the House and Senate in 2006. In the past year and a half, Bush has wised up on diplomacy and troop levels. He underplays so he doesn't have to admit to many mistakes. Google-search Fareed Zakaria's recent Newsweek article on what Bush is getting right; he did a great concise job of laying it out.
Fifty years from now, I don't think Bush will be considered the worst president in history, which is what many lefties right now believe. I think James Buchanan will always hold that dubious honor, with Andrew Johnson and Warren G. Harding down around there too. Many felt that way about Truman when he left office but decades later, he's viewed as pretty good. History's been kinder to LBJ as well. I'm not saying he'll ever be in the top half. Time will tell.
But with Democratic control sure to remain over the House and Senate, this country would be better off with McCain in charge than Obama.
Watching the GOP convention, this party is ready to reform against itself, ready to throw the bums out (except their own). Gone are Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, Rick Santorum, George Allen. Soon to be gone are Larry Craig and Ted Stevens. With the religious right, Jerry Falwell's dead, Pat Robertson's irrelevant and religious guys like Rick Warren seem more tolerant. (Firm in their beliefs, but tolerant.) I participated in aiding a primary election of throwing out an Republican incumbant to bring in a new guy (Jason Chaffetz) running on fiscal discipline.
Despite how petty the campaigns have become the past few weeks, McCain's demonstrated time and again his ability to compromise and work with the other side of the aisle. This is important. Joe Lieberman got Republicans to cheer Bill Clinton at their convention by point out that hey, Bill worked with you on welfare reform and balancing the budget.
Right now the Dems are running against Sarah Palin, trying to terrify the public that John McCain will die in office and this woman will then have the nuclear codes. But running against a Vice-Preisdential candidate never works. The Dems annihilated Dan Quayle in 1988, but to what end? Besides, Palin was the perfect pick for McCain if he wants to get elected. I can't think of another person who would have energized the base more, with all due respect to Kay Bailey Hutchison. As for McCain dying in office, I keep looking at his 96-year-old mother. And if he did die in office, say at the three-year mark, that's three years of valuable experience Palin would have by then. But the whole experience question is kinda of a joke. Americans like governors as president (Bush 43, Clinton 42, Reagan 40, Carter 39, etc.) and she did more to tackle problems in her two years as governor than Obama did voting the party line in four years in the Senate.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Silly season
Lipstick on a pig.
Biden says Hillary might have been a better choice.
Rev. Wright slept with a married woman in his flock.
But this morning I turned on the TV and saw the footage from 2001. Everyone remembers what they were doing that day.
One thing that hasn't come up much this election cycle is terrorism. I think because people believe that both candidates have pretty much the same plan. They're different on taxes, energy, health care, Iraq, but I think "The War on Terror", a moniker that now means as much as Johnson's War on Poverty, Nixon's War on Cancer or Reagan's War on Drugs, will subside into a more rational form. I don't think the world is so much anti-American as they are anti-Bush, and after the election, the world will breathe a sigh of relief.
Biden says Hillary might have been a better choice.
Rev. Wright slept with a married woman in his flock.
But this morning I turned on the TV and saw the footage from 2001. Everyone remembers what they were doing that day.
One thing that hasn't come up much this election cycle is terrorism. I think because people believe that both candidates have pretty much the same plan. They're different on taxes, energy, health care, Iraq, but I think "The War on Terror", a moniker that now means as much as Johnson's War on Poverty, Nixon's War on Cancer or Reagan's War on Drugs, will subside into a more rational form. I don't think the world is so much anti-American as they are anti-Bush, and after the election, the world will breathe a sigh of relief.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
MSNBC comes to senses
The New York Times is reporting that for upcoming debates and the November presidential election, David Gregory will assume MSNBC anchoring duties, taking over for Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews. This comes after the network received much criticism for the biased reporting and on-air bickering during the convention weeks, and while it saw improvement in ratings, it was still in last place of the seven channels doing coverage.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
GOP Speeches so far
These are the ones I saw.
Fred Thompson - He did a vivid narrative of John McCain's service, and if he'd shown that type of passion when he ran for president, he might've done better.
Joe Lieberman - It was weird seeing him there. And the crowd seemed unsure how to react at times. He was Genial Joe, incapable of pulling a fire-and-brimstone Zell Miller speech, but with his smile, he conveyed quite nicely that party differences aside, Barack's just not ready to be president. He also got the crowd to cheer for Bill Clinton, when he pointed out Clinton was able to cross party lines to pass things like welfare reform and a balanced budget, and Barack has no examples of doing anything similar.
Mitt Romney - His speech played to the hall, and in a way, it also illustrated why he lost the nomination. His rhetoric was over the top and in ways, fear-mongering. I think he's better in a job than campaigning for one. He really turned the Olympics around. Maybe he can move to Michigan and run for governor there, or fill a cabinet post.
Mike Huckabee - Huck has an easy time speaking to a crowd and he hit some good populist points. It's difficult to gage his sincerity. He reminds me of the old saying, "Once you can fake sincerity, you've got it made." I think even if McCain loses, neither Mitt nor Huck will not be the nominee in 2012. Huck's going to be a Fox News talking-head.
Rudy Giuliani - His strong points were on McCain the man. I thought he got a little lost in the weeds with the Islamic terrorism thing. He also got out some good points about Sarah Palin; pointing out her 80% approval rating makes her "most popular governor in America."
Sarah Palin - Speech of the week so far. For example, for the Democrats, I thought Bill & Hillary's speeches dwarfed Joe Biden's. Not the case here. The hall was rooting for her. After seeing how the press brutalized her and her family the past five days, it was nice to see her respond, and she did it with a smile, with grace and dignity, and she also served well the usual role of a VP nominee: attack dog. She wasn't mean about it; she just got in her jabs, illustrating how she has more experience than "our opponent", let alone John McCain. The line that leapt out to my wife was "For you parents of children with special needs, you will have a friend and an advocate in the White House."
Even if they lose, she can go back to being governor, and she'd be the front-runner for the GOP nomination in 2012.
Fred Thompson - He did a vivid narrative of John McCain's service, and if he'd shown that type of passion when he ran for president, he might've done better.
Joe Lieberman - It was weird seeing him there. And the crowd seemed unsure how to react at times. He was Genial Joe, incapable of pulling a fire-and-brimstone Zell Miller speech, but with his smile, he conveyed quite nicely that party differences aside, Barack's just not ready to be president. He also got the crowd to cheer for Bill Clinton, when he pointed out Clinton was able to cross party lines to pass things like welfare reform and a balanced budget, and Barack has no examples of doing anything similar.
Mitt Romney - His speech played to the hall, and in a way, it also illustrated why he lost the nomination. His rhetoric was over the top and in ways, fear-mongering. I think he's better in a job than campaigning for one. He really turned the Olympics around. Maybe he can move to Michigan and run for governor there, or fill a cabinet post.
Mike Huckabee - Huck has an easy time speaking to a crowd and he hit some good populist points. It's difficult to gage his sincerity. He reminds me of the old saying, "Once you can fake sincerity, you've got it made." I think even if McCain loses, neither Mitt nor Huck will not be the nominee in 2012. Huck's going to be a Fox News talking-head.
Rudy Giuliani - His strong points were on McCain the man. I thought he got a little lost in the weeds with the Islamic terrorism thing. He also got out some good points about Sarah Palin; pointing out her 80% approval rating makes her "most popular governor in America."
Sarah Palin - Speech of the week so far. For example, for the Democrats, I thought Bill & Hillary's speeches dwarfed Joe Biden's. Not the case here. The hall was rooting for her. After seeing how the press brutalized her and her family the past five days, it was nice to see her respond, and she did it with a smile, with grace and dignity, and she also served well the usual role of a VP nominee: attack dog. She wasn't mean about it; she just got in her jabs, illustrating how she has more experience than "our opponent", let alone John McCain. The line that leapt out to my wife was "For you parents of children with special needs, you will have a friend and an advocate in the White House."
Even if they lose, she can go back to being governor, and she'd be the front-runner for the GOP nomination in 2012.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Electoral Map
I've been looking at the latest polls and where certain states are leaning. It's close in a few areas, and it will be for months. But in going through some scenarios, this could easily turn into a 269-269 tie with electoral votes.
If McCain keeps the South, and Obama keeps the West Coast, Northeast, and Great Lakes states, and if McCain get Ohio and Colorado, but Obama gets Nevada and Iowa, it will end at 269-269.
If that happened it goes to the popular vote.
Or logically, you'd think that might be the case, but no, it would go to the House of Representatives. Realistically for the first time since John Quincy Adams vs. Andrew Jackson, the House of Representatives could be responsible for picking the next president. Each state would caucus its members, and each state would get one vote. States who have an even numbers of Republicans and Democrats would tie and not get a vote.
Currently the amount of states where Democrats exceed Republicans outnumber the states where Republicans exceed Democrats. So if it comes to a tie, Obama wins.
So I'll predict now. If McCain doesn't get Colorado and Nevada, he'll lose the election.
If McCain keeps the South, and Obama keeps the West Coast, Northeast, and Great Lakes states, and if McCain get Ohio and Colorado, but Obama gets Nevada and Iowa, it will end at 269-269.
If that happened it goes to the popular vote.
Or logically, you'd think that might be the case, but no, it would go to the House of Representatives. Realistically for the first time since John Quincy Adams vs. Andrew Jackson, the House of Representatives could be responsible for picking the next president. Each state would caucus its members, and each state would get one vote. States who have an even numbers of Republicans and Democrats would tie and not get a vote.
Currently the amount of states where Democrats exceed Republicans outnumber the states where Republicans exceed Democrats. So if it comes to a tie, Obama wins.
So I'll predict now. If McCain doesn't get Colorado and Nevada, he'll lose the election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)