Bad McCain Ad McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time, but then criticizes Obama for voting Democrat 97% of the time.

The first time I saw the ad, I thought it odd, because if McCain is supposed to be so great because he disagrees with fellow Republicans some of the time, isn't a Democrat who disagrees with Republicans almost all of the time even better?

Labels: Barack Obama, elections, John McCain, politics

  5:51 PM permanent link 0 comments

  Obama Gives the Green Light Initially, I was appalled that Hillary Clinton had to apologize in any way for her RFK remark. Then I check out Carol Moore's blog, and she predicts that if Obama is elected, he'll be taken out by Mossad, and that Hillary's statement was a "leak" of the plan (or a threat?). Oh, and they'll probably frame Muslims or Arabs.

(That would be the ultimate I Told You So: "See? See? Obama was soft on terror, and then killed by terrorists! It just goes to show you can't negotiate with these thugs . . .")

So what does Obama do once he wraps up the nomination? He kisses up to the Israel Lobby, and says, "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything."

There are ways to interpret this:

a) Obama doesn't want war with Iran, but understands that the beginning of negotiations means a tough, firm starting position. This is the weakness of non-interventionist candidates. While I support non-interventionism, it's a tough sell to suddenly break-off ties with long-time allies like Israel. Not that Obama is a non-interventionist, but hopefully, he's a realist who neither wants to concede to Iran nor go to war. This is the most optimistic interpretation.
b) Obama doesn't want war with Iran, but is soliciting support from pro-Israel voters. This, of course, is the ethical equivalent of running as a segregationist with the intention of becoming a moderate reformer once in office. Even if the false promise would be terrible, it's still a false promise. It's lying.
c) Like Carol Moore is suggesting, Obama really does have a gun pointed at his head, and he knows it. He's doing what he can to avert a terrible fate.

Most likely, however . . .

d) Obama really would nuke Iran and essentially gave the green light for Bush to start the war.

No matter the reasons, Obama's AIPAC speech removed any remaining temptation to vote for him. As I wrote last week, Obama sounds better than McCain, but for all we know he could be much worse. I'm sticking with Bob Barr.

Labels: Barack Obama, Iran, Isreal

  6:11 AM permanent link 0 comments

  Vote For What You Want This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

In 2000, Bush was better on Gore on the most important issue, war, but as President he switched positions and became the world's biggest threat to peace. Presidential candidates break promises, and there is very little we can do about it.

I,like many others, would wish we could rewind and see how a Gore Presidency would turn out. But the fact is, the Clinton-Gore position of murdering innocent foreign peoples "for their own good" was intolerable. True, Gore would probably have been better than Bush, but the 2000 campaign didn't demonstrate it.

Barack Obama is presumably smarter and more knowledgeable than McCain - at least he comes across that way. And, as Bush did in 2000, he's taking the relatively more moderate and humane view toward foreign affairs than his rival.

But what does that prove?

Labels: Barack Obama, Bob Barr, elections, John McCain, Partial Observer, politics, third parties

  7:22 AM permanent link

  Outsiders vs. Insiders Who's an "insider" and "outsider" is all relative, but

• In 2008, Obama is a relative "outsider," having served less than four years in Congress - and really just two years before launching his Presidential bid - and can plead "not guilty" for most of the disastrous policies of Bush's first term - which Clinton voted for. Aside from Mark Gravel, there was no other real outsider in the race - the closest was Bill Richardson, but he was very much a Washington insider in the 1990's.
  
• On the GOP side, McCain is an insider, and quickly defeated outsiders Romney and Huckabee.
• In 2004, Washington insider John Kerry beat the outsider Howard Dean for the Democratic nomination, but lost to a terrible incumbent.
  

Let's look at the record:

2004: Insider vs. incumbent. Winner: Incumbent
2000: Outsider vs. incumbent VP. Winner: Outsider
1996: Insider vs. incumbent. Winner: Incumbent
1992: Outsider vs. incumbent. Winner: Outsider
1988: Outsider vs. incumbent VP. Winner: Incumbent
1984: Insider (recent VP) vs. Incumbent. Winner: Incumbent
1980: Outsider vs. incumbent. Winner: Outsider
1976: Outsider vs. incumbent. Winner: Outsider
1972: Insider vs. incumbent. Winner: Incumbent
1968: "Outsider" (former VP eight years removed from DC) vs. incumbent VP. Winner, Outsider

Before that: incumbents won every race back to 1932, except 1960 (insider beating incumbent VP) and 1952 (outsider vs. outsider).

In modern politics, incumbents have advantages. Even so, outsiders have won every race except one (1988) in which they've competed, whereas "insider" challenges to incumbents have lost all four times.

Apparently, when an insider challenges an incumbent, the impression the public gets is "either way, more of the same." Whereas "outsiders," usually stand for "changing the way Washington works" and do very well.

Why do people want "change" so much? Perhaps because the federal government hasn't accomplished one good thing for the American people in 35 years at least.

In any case, 2008 will be interesting because no incumbent will be running. It will be Outsider vs. Insider. As we've seen, the Outsider has the advantage.

Especially because he has not one, but two Ivy League degrees.

Labels: Barack Obama, elections, John McCain, politics

  3:32 AM permanent link 0 comments

  Hating Hillary There are bigots and sexists. And then there are those who try not to be bigoted or sexist, but do dislike some people of various groups, particularly groups spokespersons who in their words and deeds reflect poorly on the group they're trying to defend and advance. Then the old racist or sexist slurs may rise to the surface, not against average members of a particular group, but against its supposed "leaders."

What if Alan Dershowitz was a serious candidate for President?

He'd be a target of more vicious attacks than Joe Lieberman ever received. Some of it would approach anti-Semitism, and some of it would cross the line. Dershowitz is Jewish, and he's in your face about it. Lieberaman is Jewish, but he's not in your face.

What if Al Sharpton was a serious candidate for President?

He'd similarly be a target of more vicious attacks than what Barack Obama has received. Some of it would approach racism, and some of it would cross the line. Sharpton is black, and he's in your face. Obama is black but he's not in your face.

Vicious and obnoxious people are more likely to be treated viciously, in politics and everywhere else in life. Al Gore was smeared for being a prissy aristocrat and prick; George Bush may also be a prissy aristocrat and prick, but he didn't seem like it on the campaign trail in 2000. That makes a lot of difference.

And so Hillary Clinton has been the target of sexist attacks, but these attacks that wouldn't be as nasty toward, say, Elizabeth Dole if she had been a contender.

Some minority and female figures rise above identity-group politics, whereas others base their whole career on it - that is, are "in your face" about it and provoke, in many people, the very backlash that causes their defeats. Hillary Clinton had nothing to offer the Democratic Party but a big name, an obnoxious personality, a vote to invade Iraq, and the fact that she's a woman. According to a certain kind of logic, this makes her gender "fair game" in a way it isn't for several other public figures.

And no, Hillary's qualities would not be praised if they came from a man. She's actually very similar in style - such as condescending tones and hectoring, finger-wagging moralism - to Al Gore. Gore won the nomination in 2000 because he was the incumbent VP, and lost the general election because Bush seemed more likable (at least back then). All kinds of personalities may be able to win a Senate seat, but few play well nationally.

I agree with Marie Cocco that sexist smears have no more place in politics than other bigoted smears. But this does not mean that attacking Clinton in crude terms is the same as a hatred for women. No more than making fat jokes about a certain person indicates that one hates fat people.

Labels: bama, Barack Obama, Culture, elections, Hillary Clinton, politics

  10:11 AM permanent link 1 comments

  How Obama Can Win My Vote This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Energy. Rail against corporate welfare and favoritism - and begin by ending corn ethanol subsidies. And then call for greater energy independence by legalizing industrial hemp, which is a far more efficient ethanol producer than corn and has many other practical uses as well, which could increase supply and drive prices down for numerous products. As Senator from Illinois, Obama supports ethanol subsidies, but if he wants to be a genuine statesman, he must put an end to this evil policy that favors big agribusiness, hurts the environment, and raises the price of food on the world's poor.

Labels: Barack Obama, Partial Observer

  6:59 AM permanent link

  Ticket to the Ticket Here are the universities that Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees of the last nine elections attended. The Democrat is on the left, the Republican on the right. If I counted correctly, these 36 slots were filled by 23 different individuals.

2004: Yale, Boston College(law) v. Yale, Harvard(MBA)
vp: NC St., North Carolina v. Wyoming
2000: Harvard v. Yale, Harvard(MBA)
vp: Yale v. Wyoming
1996: Georgetown, Yale (law) v. Kansas
vp: Harvard vs. Occidental
1992: Georgetown, Yale (law) v. Yale
vp: Harvard vs. DePauw, Indiana (law)
1988: Swarthmore, Harvard (law) v. Yale
vp: Texas v DePauw, Indiana (law)
1984: Minnesota v. Eureka
vp: Fordham (law) v. Yale
1980: Naval Academy v. Eureka
VP: Minnesota v. Yale
1976: Naval Academy v. Michigan, Yale (law)
vp: Minnesota v. Kansas
1972: Northwestern (graduate) v. Duke (law)
vp: Yale vs. Johns Hopkins

Harvard is on a five-election streak (thanks to GW Bush's MBA); Yale has a nine-election streak. Before this, the trends are distorted a bit. For instance, Duke Law is represented in five elections, because Nixon was on the national ticket five times - twice for Veep, thrice for Prez. Other than that, however there is greater diversity in colleges (Goldwater and Truman didn't even degrees) until we go back to Harvard's FDR.

Anyway, John McCain attended the Naval Academy.
Hillary Clinton attended Wellesley and Yale Law.
Barack Obama attended Columbia and Harvard Law.

The Ivy League, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Cornell, and Columbia (there are others, but are not represented), are represented in every election, except 1964, going back to 1928. 1924 also appears empty of Ivy Leaguers, but they were represented in every election down to 1900.

Clinton seems to have the advantage of the Yale streak, but Obama has the Harvard streak plus another Ivy League school to his credit. To be safe, McCain will probably get a Yalie as a running mate. Then again, he is a white man, and, while I haven't looked it up, I'm pretty sure white men have quite a lengthy streak in Presidential elections.

Labels: Barack Obama, elections, Hilllary Clinton, John McCain, politics, presidents

  7:13 PM permanent link 1 comments

  Obama Was Right to Stay I suppose some people are upset about Barack Obama attending a church with a racially hostile preacher because, if a white Presidential candidate attended the church of a segregationist pastor, his career would be over.

I'm guessing that Obama initially chose Trinity Church in part because the networking opportunities would be good for his political career on Chicago's South Side. Should he have left the first time he heard extreme words or hyperbolic rhetoric? Or the hundredth time?

Why should it matter?

Leaving the church would have damaged friendships and created other problems for Obama - personal, and career-wise. White people leave churches in a huff all the time, but I don't think this is so in the black community. And even if one doesn't agree with anything said in the sermons, there are other aspects of church life that can retain a person's loyalty.

And besides, is racial resentment the only form of "hate" that is so un-PC that it deserves separation and public condemnation? What about when preachers announce their support of the war in the pulpit? Or some tax-and-redistribute scheme? Or some law against vice that will throw non-violent people in prison and ruin their lives? Any word from a pulpit that would empower the State is in fact a call for violence and coercion - which are grounded on hate, not love.

Imagine, in 2020, a white Democratic Presidential candidate was found to have attended an ultra-conservative evangelical church. Should he be asked to renounce his longtime pastor because the candidate differed with the pastor on the war? Why would this be different? It seems to me that to support the war is worse than anything Jeremiah Wright says or believes.

Unless your own conscience forces you to withdraw from one church after another because of differences with the pastor, then don't judge Obama. But leaving a church leads to broken friendships, disrupts a child's Sunday School education, and a whole lot of other hassles. It usually isn't worth it.

Labels: Barack Obama, elections, politics, religion

  11:43 AM permanent link 0 comments

  Great Day For America It's a great day for America because Giuliani is out of the Presidential race. Unfortunately, so is John Edwards; I don't have anything nice to say about him but I was hoping he'd stick around in case Obama or Hillary would self-destruct. He could have been a spoiler and made things interesting.

If McCain is the Republican nominee, apparently the immigration issue isn't as important as we thought. McCain's been the biggest supporter of Bush's policies in Congress.

A Clinton-McCain election would cement George W. Bush's legacy, because it means both parties had nominated their most warmongering candidates. It makes one almost want an Obama-Romney race. At least there would be new blood, and while no one has anything nice to say about Romney, at least he's not a complete idiot in the mold of Bush and McCain. Besides, it might be nice to actually have a successful businessman in the race, instead of a failed one like Bush.

My main hope is that Ron Paul's run will lead to a larger movement for smaller government, leading to growth of organizations such as Downsize DC. But I might be biased.

Labels: Barack Obama, elections, George Bush, Hilllary Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain, Mitt Romney, politics, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani

  11:17 AM permanent link 1 comments

  Finally Found Out How many times in the 1990's did the likes of Bush I, Newt Gingrich, and Bob Dole bang their heads against the wall and say "I didn't say that! Clinton took something I said, deliberately took it out of context, and then deliberately exaggerated it! The man's a liar!"

The complaint about the "liberal media" in the 1990's was that, while they made a fuss of Clinton's sex life, they never held President Clinton accountable for what he said. But as ABC News reported tonight, Clinton's pulling the same stunts again, only this time against Barack Obama. But now Clinton's being held accountable.

Finally.

Labels: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, elections, politics

  3:38 PM permanent link 0 comments

  A Romney-Huckabee Ticket? I don't follow Presidential debates closely because I can't stand hearing people pretend they know how to solve our problems and run our lives. So I don't know the specifics of Romney's positions and how they differ from, say, McCain's or Huckabee's. And I'm not endorsing Romney by any means. I'm a Ron Paul man, and I don't think any Republican, aside from Paul, will win, should win, or deserves to win in November. This is just speculation.

That said, I think the Republican's best shot at victory is a Romney-Huckabee ticket, and I do think reconciliation between the two after bitter campaigning is possible. The advantages of this ticket include:

a) Both men have executive experience as governors, and American voters tend to favor governors for the office these days over Senators. Clinton was a White House insider, but held no office in the Administration. Obama and Edwards also lack executive experience.
b) Neither have been part of the Administration that has misgoverned so badly the past seven years, so they can distance themselves from the incompetence.
c) Neither have been part of the Congress that has misgoverned so badly the past seven years; they don't have to justify a terrible voting record like McCain (or Clinton, on the other side) have to do, and McCain's too closely tied to Administration policies.
d) Geographic and religious balance; Huckabee's presence on the ticket may influence evangelical swing voters in the Midwest and South who might otherwise have grown too frustrated with the GOP. Huckabee is bonkers and is not electable at the head of the ticket, but is a tremendous asset in the second spot.
e) One man's flip-flopper is another man's pragmatist. Romney could stress managerial competence and promise a less ideological Administration. Bending and flip-flopping on issues can be a sign that he's unwilling to attempt the impossible for ideological reasons, and has a pulse on the will of the people. It worked for Bill Clinton.
f) Yes, Romney and Huckabee both spew the party line on Iraq, but it seems to me they are less in the thrall of the neocons as are, say, McCain and Giuliani - both of whom are more likely to start more wars. Indeed, Romney-Huckabee may even propose a more "humble foreign policy" (though they won't use that language) than either Clinton or Obama would.
g) They're white males, and voters would perceive they're less inclined to impose a "liberal agenda" regarding say, affirmative action, day care for working mothers, and stuff like that.
h) On the "Red State-Blue State" values, Giuliani's positions on guns, gays, and abortion would alienate the party base, and McCain still has to live down McCain-Feingold which still angers some movement leaders. While Romney isn't ideal for values voters, he would still be perceived as much better than the Democratic ticket on these issues.

In short, Romney-Huckabee would, to most Republicans, be most in tune with their views on defense, economics, and moral values - or at least much better than the Democrats - and at the same time they would be fresh faces with none of the baggage of the Bush Administration and GOP Congress. It would be the GOP's best shot.

That said, if evil conspirators do secretly control events, I could see Romney winning the nomination but being forced to put Jeb Bush - the brother who was actually groomed to be President - on the ticket. The Bush name will work against them and the ticket will lose, but if Jeb campaigns well, he could be handed the Presidency in 2016, when Hillary's second term expires.

Labels: Barack Obama, elections, Hilllary Clinton, Jeb Bush, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, politics, Ron Paul

  7:17 PM permanent link 0 comments