The Raw Story | Old-line Republican warns 'something's in the works' to trigger a police state
One is Revolt of the Elites by Christopher Lasch. The other is The Irony of American Democracy by Dye and Ziglar.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The "Margin of Error" Does Not Mean What Journalists Think It Means
In the Princess Bride, the kidnapper Vizzini keeps using the word "inconceivable" to describe various events until Inigo Montoya states "That word, I do not think it means what you think it does." This is a good metaphor for the continual, repititous mis-use of the political polling "marging of error."
Polling is a branch of statistics which is mathematically sound in every way except when it comes to evaluating the relative positions of candidates vis a vis the voters. This is because to get an accurate sample for your poll, you have to know what the general population is. Gallup or Quinippiac or whomever can accurately poll the American people on anything but politics because the U.S. Census Bureau provides data on the entire U.S. population which allows them to accurately gauge the citizenry's preferences based on a small sample.
However, for political polling the population of voters is undefined until after the election and polling organizations have to make assumptions based on historical and other models of what the voting population will look like in order to draw a sample from which to poll. This is why political polling is as much art as science.
Now we get to the part where journalists continually demonstrate their poor educations. The size of the sample directly correlates with the poll's margin of error, e.g., the larger the sample size the smaller the margin of error. Generally any poll with a margin of error greater than 3.5% is worthless and there's no point really paying attention to it. Political campaigns use polls with larger margins of error (and smaller samples) because they are easier to obtain.
The "margin of error" in actuality is the percentage chance that the sample population is completely wrong on either side of the bell curve. So a margin of error of 3.5% means that the poll has a 1 in 30 chance of being COMPLETELY WRONG because the sample is off.
Reporters frequently report that if Candidate D beats Candidate R by 2% in a poll and the margin of error is 3% that "the candidates are statistically tied." That is in no way true. It means that Candidate D has 2% more support than candidate R, but that there is a 1 in 33 chance that the entire poll is wrong, meaning either candidate could be ahead by 10%, 20% or more. By constantly repeating this defective meme the mainstream media perpetuates a misunderstanding of polling by the general public as well as constantly reminds the educated among us that they are undereducated with no real understanding of what they are reporting on.
Polling is a branch of statistics which is mathematically sound in every way except when it comes to evaluating the relative positions of candidates vis a vis the voters. This is because to get an accurate sample for your poll, you have to know what the general population is. Gallup or Quinippiac or whomever can accurately poll the American people on anything but politics because the U.S. Census Bureau provides data on the entire U.S. population which allows them to accurately gauge the citizenry's preferences based on a small sample.
However, for political polling the population of voters is undefined until after the election and polling organizations have to make assumptions based on historical and other models of what the voting population will look like in order to draw a sample from which to poll. This is why political polling is as much art as science.
Now we get to the part where journalists continually demonstrate their poor educations. The size of the sample directly correlates with the poll's margin of error, e.g., the larger the sample size the smaller the margin of error. Generally any poll with a margin of error greater than 3.5% is worthless and there's no point really paying attention to it. Political campaigns use polls with larger margins of error (and smaller samples) because they are easier to obtain.
The "margin of error" in actuality is the percentage chance that the sample population is completely wrong on either side of the bell curve. So a margin of error of 3.5% means that the poll has a 1 in 30 chance of being COMPLETELY WRONG because the sample is off.
Reporters frequently report that if Candidate D beats Candidate R by 2% in a poll and the margin of error is 3% that "the candidates are statistically tied." That is in no way true. It means that Candidate D has 2% more support than candidate R, but that there is a 1 in 33 chance that the entire poll is wrong, meaning either candidate could be ahead by 10%, 20% or more. By constantly repeating this defective meme the mainstream media perpetuates a misunderstanding of polling by the general public as well as constantly reminds the educated among us that they are undereducated with no real understanding of what they are reporting on.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Jazzfest Lineup Announced
The New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival has announced a partial line up (below). If you have never been, you really should go. It's a great opportunity to see loads of great music and is a complete blast. The official line-up is here.
Announced Line Up
Neville Brothers
Stevie Wonder
Billy Joel
Jimmy Buffett
Tim McGraw
Santana
Maze feat
Frankie Beverly
Sheryl Crow
Widespread Panic
Dr. John
Al Green
Diana Krall
Keyshia Cole
Robert Plant and Alison Krauss
The Raconteurs
Irma Thomas
And Thousands More Scheduled to Appear Fest
Announced Line Up
Neville Brothers
Stevie Wonder
Billy Joel
Jimmy Buffett
Tim McGraw
Santana
Maze feat
Frankie Beverly
Sheryl Crow
Widespread Panic
Dr. John
Al Green
Diana Krall
Keyshia Cole
Robert Plant and Alison Krauss
The Raconteurs
Irma Thomas
And Thousands More Scheduled to Appear Fest
How Bush Fractured the GOP
I originaly blogged about the Democratic and Republican party crack ups here. While I said the crack up was coming, Peggy Noonan correctly points out in yesterday's Wall Street Journal that the Republcian party already is fractured and George W. Bush caused it. She is 100% correct, but doesn't detail his actions that caused this. Therefore below I have briefly outlined the actions of the Bush Administration which have torn the party asunder. You can read her op-ed below my comments or here.
First, in mid-2001 he alienated free traders by imposing anti-trade steel tariffs in a blatant attempt to buy votes in West Virginia. Then after after 9/11 he alienated civil libertarians by pushing through the Patriot Act (however, much of the Patriot Act simply gave the FBI the same legal authority that the DEA already had in terms of certain investigatory techniques) and then pushing for wireless warrant tapping and blatantly violating our civil rights. He alienate fiscal conservatives by creating the largest entitlement since LBJ - the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit - which is bankrupting the Medicare Trust Fund at an even faster rate than before. He further alienated this crucial block by increasing domestic spending at a faster rate even than LBJ. On that last point, I believe the President is only guilty of acquiescing to the actions and desires of former Republican Whip and Majority Leader Tom DeLay in his attempt to buy more House seats to preserve power for its own sake instead of to enact positive public policies.
Now to Peggy Noonan's Piece
DECLARATIONS
Breaking Up Is Hard to Do
By PEGGY NOONAN
January 25, 2008; Page W14
We begin, as one always must now, again, with Bill Clinton. The past week he has traveled South Carolina, leaving discord in his wake. Barack Obama, that "fairytale," is low, sneaky. "He put out a hit job on me." The press is cruelly carrying Mr. Obama's counter-jabs. "You live for it."
In Dillon, S.C., according to the Associated Press, on Thursday Mr. Clinton "predicted that many voters will be guided mainly by gender and race loyalties" and suggested his wife may lose Saturday's primary because black voters will side with Mr. Obama. Who is raising race as an issue? Bill Clinton knows. It's the press, and Mr. Obama. "Shame on you," Mr. Clinton said to a CNN reporter. The same day the Web site believed to be the backdoor of the Clinton war room unveiled a new name for the senator from Illinois: "Sticky Fingers Obama."
Bill Clinton, with his trembly, red-faced rage, makes John McCain look young. His divisive and destructive daily comportment—this is a former president of the United States—is a civic embarrassment. It is also an education, and there is something heartening in this.
There are many serious and thoughtful liberals and Democrats who support Mr. Obama and John Edwards, and who are seeing Mr. Clinton in a new way and saying so. Here is William Greider in The Nation, the venerable left-liberal magazine. The Clintons are "high minded" on the surface but "smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard at the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four years."
That, again, is from one of the premier liberal journals in the United States. It is exactly what conservatives have been saying for a decade. This may mark a certain coming together of the thoughtful on both sides. The Clintons, uniters at last.
Mr. Obama takes the pummeling and preaches the high road. It's all windup with him, like a great pitcher more comfortable preparing to throw than throwing. Something in him resists aggression. He tends to be indirect in his language, feinting, only suggestive. I used to think he was being careful not to tear the party apart, and endanger his own future.
But the Clintons are tearing the party apart. It will not be the same after this. It will not be the same after its most famous leader, and probable ultimate victor, treated a proud and accomplished black man who is a U.S. senator as if he were nothing, a mere impediment to their plans. And to do it in a way that signals, to his supporters, How dare you have the temerity, the ingratitude, after all we've done for you?
Watch for the GOP to attempt swoop in after the November elections and make profit of the wreckage.
* * *
As for the Republicans, their slow civil war continues. The primary race itself is winnowing down and clarifying: It is John McCain versus Mitt Romney, period. At the same time the conservative journalistic world is convulsed by recrimination and attack. They're throwing each other out of the party. Republicans have become very good at that. David Brooks damns Rush Limbaugh who knocks Bill Kristol who anathematizes whoever is to be anathematized this week. This Web site opposes that magazine.
The rage is due to many things. A world is ending, the old world of conservative meaning, and ascendancy. Loss leads to resentment. (See Clinton, Bill.) Different pundits back different candidates. Some opportunistically discover new virtues in candidates who appear at the moment to be winning. Some feel they cannot be fully frank about causes and effects.
More on that in a moment.
I saw Mr. McCain this Tuesday in New York, at a fund-raiser at which a breathless aide shared, "We just made a million dollars." What a difference a few wins makes. There were a hundred people outside chanting, "Mac is back!" and perhaps a thousand people inside, crammed into a three-chandelier ballroom at the St. Regis. When I attended a fund-raiser in October there was none of this; perhaps 200 came, and people were directed to crowd around the candidate as if to show he had support. Now you had to fight your way through a three-ring cluster. (When I attended a Giuliani fund-raiser this summer I saw something I wish I'd noted: The audience was big but wasn't listening. They were all on their BlackBerrys. That should have told me something about his support.)
Mr. McCain is in the middle of a shift. Previous strategy: I'm John McCain and you know me, we've traveled through history together. New strategy: I'm the old vet who fought on the front lines of the Reagan-era front, and I am about to take on the mantle of the essentials of conservatism—lower spending, smaller government, strong in the world. He is going to strike the great Reagan gong, not in a way that is new but in a way that is new for him.
In this he is repositioning himself back to where he started 30 years ago: as a Southwestern American conservative veteran of the armed forces. That is, inherently if not showily, anti-establishment. That is, I am the best of the past.
Mr. Romney, on the other hand, is running as I Am Today. I am new and fresh, in fact I'm tomorrow, I know all about the international flow of money and the flatness of the world, I know what China is, I can see you through the turbulence just as I saw Bain to success.
It will all come down to: Whom do Republicans believe? Mr. Romney in spite of his past and now-disavowed liberal positions? Or Mr. McCain in spite of his forays, the past 10 years, into a kind of establishment mindset that has suggested that The Establishment Knows Best?
Do conservatives take inspiration from Mr. Romney's newness? Or do they take comfort and security from Mr. McCain's rugged ability to endure, and to remind?
It is along those lines the big decision will be made.
* * *
On the pundit civil wars, Rush Limbaugh declared on the radio this week, "I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Mr. McCain or Mike Huckabee] get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to change it forever, be the end of it!"
This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.
Were there other causes? Yes, of course. But there was an immediate and essential cause.
And this needs saying, because if you don't know what broke the elephant you can't put it together again. The party cannot re-find itself if it can't trace back the moment at which it became lost. It cannot heal an illness whose origin is kept obscure.
I believe that some of the ferocity of the pundit wars is due to a certain amount of self-censorship. It's not in human nature to enjoy self-censorship. The truth will out, like steam from a kettle. It hurts to say something you supported didn't work. I would know. But I would say of these men (why, in the continuing age of Bill Clinton, does the emoting come from the men?) who are fighting one another as they resist naming the cause for the fight: Sack up, get serious, define. That's the way to help.
See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on The Editorial Page.
First, in mid-2001 he alienated free traders by imposing anti-trade steel tariffs in a blatant attempt to buy votes in West Virginia. Then after after 9/11 he alienated civil libertarians by pushing through the Patriot Act (however, much of the Patriot Act simply gave the FBI the same legal authority that the DEA already had in terms of certain investigatory techniques) and then pushing for wireless warrant tapping and blatantly violating our civil rights. He alienate fiscal conservatives by creating the largest entitlement since LBJ - the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit - which is bankrupting the Medicare Trust Fund at an even faster rate than before. He further alienated this crucial block by increasing domestic spending at a faster rate even than LBJ. On that last point, I believe the President is only guilty of acquiescing to the actions and desires of former Republican Whip and Majority Leader Tom DeLay in his attempt to buy more House seats to preserve power for its own sake instead of to enact positive public policies.
Now to Peggy Noonan's Piece
DECLARATIONS
Breaking Up Is Hard to Do
By PEGGY NOONAN
January 25, 2008; Page W14
We begin, as one always must now, again, with Bill Clinton. The past week he has traveled South Carolina, leaving discord in his wake. Barack Obama, that "fairytale," is low, sneaky. "He put out a hit job on me." The press is cruelly carrying Mr. Obama's counter-jabs. "You live for it."
In Dillon, S.C., according to the Associated Press, on Thursday Mr. Clinton "predicted that many voters will be guided mainly by gender and race loyalties" and suggested his wife may lose Saturday's primary because black voters will side with Mr. Obama. Who is raising race as an issue? Bill Clinton knows. It's the press, and Mr. Obama. "Shame on you," Mr. Clinton said to a CNN reporter. The same day the Web site believed to be the backdoor of the Clinton war room unveiled a new name for the senator from Illinois: "Sticky Fingers Obama."
Bill Clinton, with his trembly, red-faced rage, makes John McCain look young. His divisive and destructive daily comportment—this is a former president of the United States—is a civic embarrassment. It is also an education, and there is something heartening in this.
There are many serious and thoughtful liberals and Democrats who support Mr. Obama and John Edwards, and who are seeing Mr. Clinton in a new way and saying so. Here is William Greider in The Nation, the venerable left-liberal magazine. The Clintons are "high minded" on the surface but "smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard at the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four years."
That, again, is from one of the premier liberal journals in the United States. It is exactly what conservatives have been saying for a decade. This may mark a certain coming together of the thoughtful on both sides. The Clintons, uniters at last.
Mr. Obama takes the pummeling and preaches the high road. It's all windup with him, like a great pitcher more comfortable preparing to throw than throwing. Something in him resists aggression. He tends to be indirect in his language, feinting, only suggestive. I used to think he was being careful not to tear the party apart, and endanger his own future.
But the Clintons are tearing the party apart. It will not be the same after this. It will not be the same after its most famous leader, and probable ultimate victor, treated a proud and accomplished black man who is a U.S. senator as if he were nothing, a mere impediment to their plans. And to do it in a way that signals, to his supporters, How dare you have the temerity, the ingratitude, after all we've done for you?
Watch for the GOP to attempt swoop in after the November elections and make profit of the wreckage.
* * *
As for the Republicans, their slow civil war continues. The primary race itself is winnowing down and clarifying: It is John McCain versus Mitt Romney, period. At the same time the conservative journalistic world is convulsed by recrimination and attack. They're throwing each other out of the party. Republicans have become very good at that. David Brooks damns Rush Limbaugh who knocks Bill Kristol who anathematizes whoever is to be anathematized this week. This Web site opposes that magazine.
The rage is due to many things. A world is ending, the old world of conservative meaning, and ascendancy. Loss leads to resentment. (See Clinton, Bill.) Different pundits back different candidates. Some opportunistically discover new virtues in candidates who appear at the moment to be winning. Some feel they cannot be fully frank about causes and effects.
More on that in a moment.
I saw Mr. McCain this Tuesday in New York, at a fund-raiser at which a breathless aide shared, "We just made a million dollars." What a difference a few wins makes. There were a hundred people outside chanting, "Mac is back!" and perhaps a thousand people inside, crammed into a three-chandelier ballroom at the St. Regis. When I attended a fund-raiser in October there was none of this; perhaps 200 came, and people were directed to crowd around the candidate as if to show he had support. Now you had to fight your way through a three-ring cluster. (When I attended a Giuliani fund-raiser this summer I saw something I wish I'd noted: The audience was big but wasn't listening. They were all on their BlackBerrys. That should have told me something about his support.)
Mr. McCain is in the middle of a shift. Previous strategy: I'm John McCain and you know me, we've traveled through history together. New strategy: I'm the old vet who fought on the front lines of the Reagan-era front, and I am about to take on the mantle of the essentials of conservatism—lower spending, smaller government, strong in the world. He is going to strike the great Reagan gong, not in a way that is new but in a way that is new for him.
In this he is repositioning himself back to where he started 30 years ago: as a Southwestern American conservative veteran of the armed forces. That is, inherently if not showily, anti-establishment. That is, I am the best of the past.
Mr. Romney, on the other hand, is running as I Am Today. I am new and fresh, in fact I'm tomorrow, I know all about the international flow of money and the flatness of the world, I know what China is, I can see you through the turbulence just as I saw Bain to success.
It will all come down to: Whom do Republicans believe? Mr. Romney in spite of his past and now-disavowed liberal positions? Or Mr. McCain in spite of his forays, the past 10 years, into a kind of establishment mindset that has suggested that The Establishment Knows Best?
Do conservatives take inspiration from Mr. Romney's newness? Or do they take comfort and security from Mr. McCain's rugged ability to endure, and to remind?
It is along those lines the big decision will be made.
* * *
On the pundit civil wars, Rush Limbaugh declared on the radio this week, "I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Mr. McCain or Mike Huckabee] get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to change it forever, be the end of it!"
This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.
Were there other causes? Yes, of course. But there was an immediate and essential cause.
And this needs saying, because if you don't know what broke the elephant you can't put it together again. The party cannot re-find itself if it can't trace back the moment at which it became lost. It cannot heal an illness whose origin is kept obscure.
I believe that some of the ferocity of the pundit wars is due to a certain amount of self-censorship. It's not in human nature to enjoy self-censorship. The truth will out, like steam from a kettle. It hurts to say something you supported didn't work. I would know. But I would say of these men (why, in the continuing age of Bill Clinton, does the emoting come from the men?) who are fighting one another as they resist naming the cause for the fight: Sack up, get serious, define. That's the way to help.
See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on The Editorial Page.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Bill Clinton Shows He's Just Another Cracker
Bill Clinton's continual use of symbols and code words to inject race into the Democratic Presidential contest, not only to drive white voters away from Obama, but also to devalue Obama's South Carolina victory (such as comparing him to Jesse Jackson) shows that he fully understands exactly what he is doing. The fact that he would do this shows that the Clintons care more about retaining their own power and are willing to drive a racial wedge through the Democratic party to do it. The Clintons are still about the politics of personal destruction and nothing will change by putting them back into the White House.
If you don't believe me read this quote from President Bill Clinton, as reported here:
"They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender. That's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here," the former president said at one stop as he campaigned for his wife, strongly suggesting that blacks would not support a white alternative to Obama.
Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as "the black candidate," a tag that could hurt him outside the South.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
The Coming Political Realignment
The fractious competition in both the Republican and Democratic presidential selection process threatens to tear asunder the coalitions that have undergirded both for years. The nomination of John McCain will alienate most supply siders and free speech libertarians. Rudy Giuliani's nomination will alienate the values voters, and Mike Huckabee's nomination will alienate non-evangelicals and non-christianists as well as all right thinking Americans who think it's an abomination that Southern States incorporated the Confederate Battle Flag into their state flags during the push to end segregation. Mitt Romney's nomination obviously will alienate the evangelicals and anyone who prizes ideological consistency.
The likely nomination of Senator Clinton will split the black vote along generational lines. The younger generation of black leaders already is questioning the unwavering support of the black community for the Democratic party, and the Clintonian savaging of Barack Obama will cause them to take a second look at the Republican Party. House Democratic Whip James Clyburn's recent acknowledgement that Republican Senate Leader Everett Dirksen did much to advance civil rights is one reason for this second look. Additionally, the black community likely will come to realize that the Clintons are pitting Hispanics against them and will resent that.
All of this means that parts of both parties will be alienated and up for grabs post the 2008 Presidential election regardless of which party wins. It's conceivable that Republicans could regain their share of the Hispanic vote and enlarge their share of the black vote, while Democrats would gain the allegiance of more social and fiscal libertarians (provided they keep to their DLC roots and don't revert to their big spending LBJ era ways).
The likely nomination of Senator Clinton will split the black vote along generational lines. The younger generation of black leaders already is questioning the unwavering support of the black community for the Democratic party, and the Clintonian savaging of Barack Obama will cause them to take a second look at the Republican Party. House Democratic Whip James Clyburn's recent acknowledgement that Republican Senate Leader Everett Dirksen did much to advance civil rights is one reason for this second look. Additionally, the black community likely will come to realize that the Clintons are pitting Hispanics against them and will resent that.
All of this means that parts of both parties will be alienated and up for grabs post the 2008 Presidential election regardless of which party wins. It's conceivable that Republicans could regain their share of the Hispanic vote and enlarge their share of the black vote, while Democrats would gain the allegiance of more social and fiscal libertarians (provided they keep to their DLC roots and don't revert to their big spending LBJ era ways).
Monday, January 21, 2008
A Little Intellectual Honesty from President Clinton (and many Republicans) Would Be Nice
Bill Clinton's recent attempts to burnish his record as President while simultaneously attempting to destroy the first viable black candidate for President (Senator Obama) are worth noting for their disengenousness. Especially the claims about the economic success and policies of the 1990s.
Now, I realize that Bill Clinton was elected President in 1992. I also know that Newt Gingrich and the Republicans seized the Majority in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 1994 elections after Senator Clinton's disastrous health care plan and President Clinton's massive tax hikes. The first time in decades that federal spending declined year over year was fiscal year 1995. It's not a coincidence that this happened when Republicans controlled Congress.
The Clinton Presidency with the Republican Congress is the only functional government that has existed in my lifetime (except for President Clinton's self-destruction by cheating on Senator Clinton). The reason is simple: The Republican Congress wouldn't let the Democrat President increase spending as much as he wanted and was able to force through necessary legislation such as the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Primarily written by Republican Ways & Means Chairman Bill Archer and Republican Finance Committee Chairman Bill Roth) and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (welfare reform)of 1996. And the Democrat President wouldn't let Republicans cut taxes as much as they wanted.
To claim that the budget would have been balanced with a Majority Democrat Congress is a flat out lie and intellectually dishonest. This is because President Clinton himself even said in 1993 that cutting the deficit through reduced spending wasn't a priority. He only changed tactics and triangulated his way to re-election (with the help of uber consultant Dick Morris, who BTW never misses a chance to take a cheat shot at Senator Clinton). While Bill Clinton is right that many good policy ideas in the 1990s did originate with the Democratic Leadership Council's think tank, he chose not to pursue many of those ideas and instead pushed through a series of small, targeted policies which only had peripheral impacts, but were hugely symbolic.
BTW, the DLC, which President Clinton Chaired, was founded because the Republicans DID have some of the best ideas of the 1980s and he, Senator Lieberman and Al From thought that the Democratic party needed to move away from the San Francisco Democrat fringe (so-named because of the site of the 1984 Democratic National Convention) and towards the middle - i.e., where the Republicans were. So a little intellectual honesty on that front would be nice.
Back to the main point - a Majority Democrat Congress in the 90s would've gone on a massive spending rampage just like the Republicans did when Tom Delay destroyed the Republican party by spending like sailors on shore leave in an attempt to buy more House seats to retain power for its own sake instead of to advance positive policy solutions. The Democrats just would've spent the money on different things.
The economic success of the 1990s wasn't due to politicians per se, it was due to divided government keeping both parties in check. Specifically a Democratic President and Republican Congress - we've seen too many times that the reverse never produced economic success of that enjoyed in the 1990s.
Therefore, President Clinton's attacks on Barack Obama are out right disengenous. But his relationship with the truth has always been worse than his relationship with his wife.
Now, I realize that Bill Clinton was elected President in 1992. I also know that Newt Gingrich and the Republicans seized the Majority in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 1994 elections after Senator Clinton's disastrous health care plan and President Clinton's massive tax hikes. The first time in decades that federal spending declined year over year was fiscal year 1995. It's not a coincidence that this happened when Republicans controlled Congress.
The Clinton Presidency with the Republican Congress is the only functional government that has existed in my lifetime (except for President Clinton's self-destruction by cheating on Senator Clinton). The reason is simple: The Republican Congress wouldn't let the Democrat President increase spending as much as he wanted and was able to force through necessary legislation such as the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Primarily written by Republican Ways & Means Chairman Bill Archer and Republican Finance Committee Chairman Bill Roth) and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (welfare reform)of 1996. And the Democrat President wouldn't let Republicans cut taxes as much as they wanted.
To claim that the budget would have been balanced with a Majority Democrat Congress is a flat out lie and intellectually dishonest. This is because President Clinton himself even said in 1993 that cutting the deficit through reduced spending wasn't a priority. He only changed tactics and triangulated his way to re-election (with the help of uber consultant Dick Morris, who BTW never misses a chance to take a cheat shot at Senator Clinton). While Bill Clinton is right that many good policy ideas in the 1990s did originate with the Democratic Leadership Council's think tank, he chose not to pursue many of those ideas and instead pushed through a series of small, targeted policies which only had peripheral impacts, but were hugely symbolic.
BTW, the DLC, which President Clinton Chaired, was founded because the Republicans DID have some of the best ideas of the 1980s and he, Senator Lieberman and Al From thought that the Democratic party needed to move away from the San Francisco Democrat fringe (so-named because of the site of the 1984 Democratic National Convention) and towards the middle - i.e., where the Republicans were. So a little intellectual honesty on that front would be nice.
Back to the main point - a Majority Democrat Congress in the 90s would've gone on a massive spending rampage just like the Republicans did when Tom Delay destroyed the Republican party by spending like sailors on shore leave in an attempt to buy more House seats to retain power for its own sake instead of to advance positive policy solutions. The Democrats just would've spent the money on different things.
The economic success of the 1990s wasn't due to politicians per se, it was due to divided government keeping both parties in check. Specifically a Democratic President and Republican Congress - we've seen too many times that the reverse never produced economic success of that enjoyed in the 1990s.
Therefore, President Clinton's attacks on Barack Obama are out right disengenous. But his relationship with the truth has always been worse than his relationship with his wife.
Friday, January 18, 2008
The Europeans Really Are Worthless Allies
In this story, U.S. Secretary of Defense Bob Gates states the obvious about our so-called European allies. Of course, he had to make nice and apologize to keep up decent trade relations, but that was just to let the Europeans save face.When the chips are down they are essentially useless.
This is because they spend virtually no money on their defence budgets. Of course, they are able to do this because they have enjoyed the U.S. Security Umbrella for 60 years. During which time, Western Europe has grown fat, happy and lazy. While we have bankrupted our society to defend Western Civilization, they have been happily free-riding and using the money they don't spend on defence to fund lavish social welfare states - little wonder unemployment is so high - there's really no incentive to work when the government gives you free money.
It's not just me or Secretary Gates who espouses this view. It's also shared by Distinguished Professor and U.S. foreign policy expert Graham Allison (perhaps best known for his 1969 essay "Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis "). During the terrifying and all to real Oil Shockwave simulation in Washington last November (featuring such luminaries as Carol Browner, Robert Rubin and Richard Armitage) I had the privilege of sitting next to him and asking his opinion on this very topic. His response was that Afghanistan had proven that our NATO allies were simply incapable of fighting alongside U.S. forces because they are undertrained and their governments don't buy equipment that works alongside U.S. high tech equipment - the so-called interoperability problem.
NATO originally was formed "To keep the Germans down, the Russians out, and the U.S. in." Well, the Russians are now in, the Germans are up and if it weren't for the fact that our Eastern European friends such as Poland and the Czech Republic need our protection we should be out. With the exception of our British cousins, the Europeans are useless. The Brits, Scots and Irish are the only Westerners who share our and the Eastern European values of freedom and democracy and know that they have to be fought for generation after generation to be maintained. "Old Europe" as former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld termed it is even too tired to even manage to reproduce its population - with the exception of France which almost has a replacement rate population growth (fueled by Muslim immigrants), the entire continent can't even manage to get close to the 2.1 child per family reproduction replacement rate. It's dying and therefore not even worth defending the next time they're attacked.
This is because they spend virtually no money on their defence budgets. Of course, they are able to do this because they have enjoyed the U.S. Security Umbrella for 60 years. During which time, Western Europe has grown fat, happy and lazy. While we have bankrupted our society to defend Western Civilization, they have been happily free-riding and using the money they don't spend on defence to fund lavish social welfare states - little wonder unemployment is so high - there's really no incentive to work when the government gives you free money.
It's not just me or Secretary Gates who espouses this view. It's also shared by Distinguished Professor and U.S. foreign policy expert Graham Allison (perhaps best known for his 1969 essay "Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis "). During the terrifying and all to real Oil Shockwave simulation in Washington last November (featuring such luminaries as Carol Browner, Robert Rubin and Richard Armitage) I had the privilege of sitting next to him and asking his opinion on this very topic. His response was that Afghanistan had proven that our NATO allies were simply incapable of fighting alongside U.S. forces because they are undertrained and their governments don't buy equipment that works alongside U.S. high tech equipment - the so-called interoperability problem.
NATO originally was formed "To keep the Germans down, the Russians out, and the U.S. in." Well, the Russians are now in, the Germans are up and if it weren't for the fact that our Eastern European friends such as Poland and the Czech Republic need our protection we should be out. With the exception of our British cousins, the Europeans are useless. The Brits, Scots and Irish are the only Westerners who share our and the Eastern European values of freedom and democracy and know that they have to be fought for generation after generation to be maintained. "Old Europe" as former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld termed it is even too tired to even manage to reproduce its population - with the exception of France which almost has a replacement rate population growth (fueled by Muslim immigrants), the entire continent can't even manage to get close to the 2.1 child per family reproduction replacement rate. It's dying and therefore not even worth defending the next time they're attacked.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
The Downside of Anti-lobbyist Rhetoric by Obama and Edwards
The Politico has picked up on the "potential downside of being anti-lobbyist" meme, which I posted on 10 days ago. You can read my original post here. Their story even validates my point about how banning lobbyists from a Presidential Administration radically reduces the talent pool, and quotes no less an authority than Paul Light, formerly with the Brookings Institution. However, it does not go into the potential damage such an action would do to the Capitol Hill Democratic Leadership, which would have been nice follow through. Just goes to show how lazy reporters really are.
Imitation really is a nice form of flattery. The Politico story is below:
Anti-lobby pledges easier said than done
By: Jeanne Cummings
January 14, 2008 09:07 PM EST
John Edwards and Barack Obama are taking their bans on donations from Washington lobbyists one step further: pledging to limit the role of the persuasion class in their administrations.
Needless to say, this isn’t sitting too well with lobbyists here in town, and at least one expert wonders whether it makes much sense.
“It’s easier to say you are going to ban lobbyists from your administration than actually doing it,” said Paul C. Light, an expert on federal appointments and hiring.
“We know from past research, back to the Kennedy administration, that almost two-thirds of presidential appointees come from within the Washington standard metropolitan area — almost a three- or four-mile radius around the White House,” he added.
The pledges from both candidates are aimed at bolstering their argument that they can change the way Washington operates. Neither is proposing an all-out ban on lobbyists-turned-presidential-advisers, although that might actually be easier to implement than what they are planning.
If elected, Edwards says he wouldn’t hire or appoint Washington-registered corporate lobbyists or those who represent foreign governments.
“It is unrealistic to think that you can sit at a table with drug companies, insurance companies and oil companies and they are going to negotiate their power away,” he says on the campaign trail.
Obama is keeping the door open to hiring them. But any lobbyist who joins his administration wouldn’t be permitted to work on “any project, law or regulation related to their former employer.” And, upon leaving his service, the former appointee would be prohibited from lobbying the Obama administration for the duration of his term.
On the campaign trail, the Illinois senator vows to “challenge the money and influence that’s stood” in the way of major policy changes. He also reminds audiences that he co-sponsored sweeping ethics reform legislation passed last year. “I’ve gotten something done,” he says.
Certainly, there are reasons for any administration — and particularly a new one — to be cautious. The most obvious one: Jack Abramoff.
Abramoff, who was convicted in a bribery scheme involving members of Congress, never officially worked for the White House. But in 2001, he used his ties to the new Bush administration to promote the hiring of some of his allies in the Interior Department and the General Services Administration. Then he used those connections to advance the interests of his clients. (Some of his Bush administration allies ultimately were convicted, too.)
The Abramoff scandal was the subject of hearings chaired by Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain of Arizona. The fallout tarnished Congress more than the White House. But it fed the story line of Bush critics who claim the administration has been too cozy with corporate interests and lobbyists.
While it makes sense for the Abramoff scandal to prompt a prospective president to raise his guard, cases such as his are pretty rare. Meanwhile, there are some downsides to the Obama and Edwards pledges.
Lobbyists, for all their baggage, also happen to represent some of the best-trained advocates in Washington. The community also is home to a slew of experts on policy ranging from health care to energy to foreign affairs.
The Edwards and Obama approaches could wind up excluding, or discouraging, an impressive pool of talent from assisting their White Houses.
“I just think it’s silly,” said Charlie Black, a longtime lobbyist who is now helping McCain’s campaign.
“There are a lot of CEOs who have to register as lobbyists and their executives who come to town to meet with members. It’s demonizing a group of people who are mostly honorable people and who are knowledgeable about how government works and public policy,” he added.
Indeed, the pool of registered lobbyists is expanding today under the ethics reform law pushed by Obama.
Ethics attorneys in Washington spent much of last year urging corporations to err on the side of caution by registering anyone who touches, or even confers about, a strategy for influencing Congress. That could shrink the potential employment pool under Edwards’ no-corporate-lobbyist rules.
The fine wording of Edwards’ hiring ban is also likely to lead to some predictably edgy headlines, warned Light, a professor of public service at New York University and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Among the scrutiny the former North Carolina senator would face: questions about the fairness of hiring a former labor union lobbyist while shutting out any corporate advocates, or headlines that note an appointee had once been a registered lobbyist.
“It’s a nice promise to make, but the people who have to implement the rules could go crazy,” Light said.
The decision by both candidates to ban federal lobbyists — not state lobbyists — from their donor lists already has led to the same sort of technical attacks.
At a New Hampshire debate, Hillary Rodham Clinton noted that a high-ranking figure in Obama’s campaign is a lobbyist for a pharmaceutical company. Obama shook his head and muttered that the charge just wasn’t so. But the adviser is indeed a lobbyist, albeit at the state level.
Finally, the policies overlook some new realities: Many in Washington want to be, or wind up becoming, a lobbyist. Republicans have long used lobbying shops as a refuge while their party was out of power. In the Bush years, Democrats had begun to follow the same path. Democratic lobbyists’ ranks swelled significantly last year after their party took over the Congress, making them sought-after hires for groups that had lost touch with the once-minority party.
That phenomenon would not only limit Edwards’ personnel choices, but it could make Obama’s post-service rules unpalatable to many who would lose significant income if they lost their ability to lobby the administration.
“It’s hard to be in this town without doing some lobbying to get by,” Light concluded.
TM & © THE POLITICO & POLITICO.COM, a division of Allbritton Communications Company
Imitation really is a nice form of flattery. The Politico story is below:
Anti-lobby pledges easier said than done
By: Jeanne Cummings
January 14, 2008 09:07 PM EST
John Edwards and Barack Obama are taking their bans on donations from Washington lobbyists one step further: pledging to limit the role of the persuasion class in their administrations.
Needless to say, this isn’t sitting too well with lobbyists here in town, and at least one expert wonders whether it makes much sense.
“It’s easier to say you are going to ban lobbyists from your administration than actually doing it,” said Paul C. Light, an expert on federal appointments and hiring.
“We know from past research, back to the Kennedy administration, that almost two-thirds of presidential appointees come from within the Washington standard metropolitan area — almost a three- or four-mile radius around the White House,” he added.
The pledges from both candidates are aimed at bolstering their argument that they can change the way Washington operates. Neither is proposing an all-out ban on lobbyists-turned-presidential-advisers, although that might actually be easier to implement than what they are planning.
If elected, Edwards says he wouldn’t hire or appoint Washington-registered corporate lobbyists or those who represent foreign governments.
“It is unrealistic to think that you can sit at a table with drug companies, insurance companies and oil companies and they are going to negotiate their power away,” he says on the campaign trail.
Obama is keeping the door open to hiring them. But any lobbyist who joins his administration wouldn’t be permitted to work on “any project, law or regulation related to their former employer.” And, upon leaving his service, the former appointee would be prohibited from lobbying the Obama administration for the duration of his term.
On the campaign trail, the Illinois senator vows to “challenge the money and influence that’s stood” in the way of major policy changes. He also reminds audiences that he co-sponsored sweeping ethics reform legislation passed last year. “I’ve gotten something done,” he says.
Certainly, there are reasons for any administration — and particularly a new one — to be cautious. The most obvious one: Jack Abramoff.
Abramoff, who was convicted in a bribery scheme involving members of Congress, never officially worked for the White House. But in 2001, he used his ties to the new Bush administration to promote the hiring of some of his allies in the Interior Department and the General Services Administration. Then he used those connections to advance the interests of his clients. (Some of his Bush administration allies ultimately were convicted, too.)
The Abramoff scandal was the subject of hearings chaired by Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain of Arizona. The fallout tarnished Congress more than the White House. But it fed the story line of Bush critics who claim the administration has been too cozy with corporate interests and lobbyists.
While it makes sense for the Abramoff scandal to prompt a prospective president to raise his guard, cases such as his are pretty rare. Meanwhile, there are some downsides to the Obama and Edwards pledges.
Lobbyists, for all their baggage, also happen to represent some of the best-trained advocates in Washington. The community also is home to a slew of experts on policy ranging from health care to energy to foreign affairs.
The Edwards and Obama approaches could wind up excluding, or discouraging, an impressive pool of talent from assisting their White Houses.
“I just think it’s silly,” said Charlie Black, a longtime lobbyist who is now helping McCain’s campaign.
“There are a lot of CEOs who have to register as lobbyists and their executives who come to town to meet with members. It’s demonizing a group of people who are mostly honorable people and who are knowledgeable about how government works and public policy,” he added.
Indeed, the pool of registered lobbyists is expanding today under the ethics reform law pushed by Obama.
Ethics attorneys in Washington spent much of last year urging corporations to err on the side of caution by registering anyone who touches, or even confers about, a strategy for influencing Congress. That could shrink the potential employment pool under Edwards’ no-corporate-lobbyist rules.
The fine wording of Edwards’ hiring ban is also likely to lead to some predictably edgy headlines, warned Light, a professor of public service at New York University and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Among the scrutiny the former North Carolina senator would face: questions about the fairness of hiring a former labor union lobbyist while shutting out any corporate advocates, or headlines that note an appointee had once been a registered lobbyist.
“It’s a nice promise to make, but the people who have to implement the rules could go crazy,” Light said.
The decision by both candidates to ban federal lobbyists — not state lobbyists — from their donor lists already has led to the same sort of technical attacks.
At a New Hampshire debate, Hillary Rodham Clinton noted that a high-ranking figure in Obama’s campaign is a lobbyist for a pharmaceutical company. Obama shook his head and muttered that the charge just wasn’t so. But the adviser is indeed a lobbyist, albeit at the state level.
Finally, the policies overlook some new realities: Many in Washington want to be, or wind up becoming, a lobbyist. Republicans have long used lobbying shops as a refuge while their party was out of power. In the Bush years, Democrats had begun to follow the same path. Democratic lobbyists’ ranks swelled significantly last year after their party took over the Congress, making them sought-after hires for groups that had lost touch with the once-minority party.
That phenomenon would not only limit Edwards’ personnel choices, but it could make Obama’s post-service rules unpalatable to many who would lose significant income if they lost their ability to lobby the administration.
“It’s hard to be in this town without doing some lobbying to get by,” Light concluded.
TM & © THE POLITICO & POLITICO.COM, a division of Allbritton Communications Company
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Do the Old Civil Rights Guard Fear an Obama Presidency Will End Their Influence?
The seeming generational split among African American leaders between Obama and Clinton, raises a number of questions. The first among these is whether the older generation simply wants to "dance with the one that brung ya" by supporting those in the White Establishment who enabled their success. There is a very disrepectful term in the black community for African Americans of this ilk.
The second question is whether the older generation is so acclimated to perceived limits on their ability to achieve power beyond a certain level that they simply can't imagine one of their own ascending to the heights of power and are going with the safe bet? If so, this is cowardly.
The final question about those black leaders who support question is whether they're really concerned about preserving their own power. After all if Obama wins the Democratic Presidential Nomination, let alone the Presidency itself, wouldn't that effectively end the Civil Rights movement? All of a sudden there would be no need for the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton et al. These people would have to stop talking about how racist our society is and how we collectively keep the black man down if a black man actually wins the Presidency.
The last seems like the most likely, despite its inherent venality.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
We Now Return to Our Regularly Scheduled Conspiracy Culture Critique
Ok, so I've gotten away from it for a while, but I would like to make an observation on the 2007-2008 Television Season and its relationship with conspiracy culture.
It is worth noting that two successful television shows, Bones and NUMB3RS, have embraced conspiracy culture and the multiple episode story arc formula this year. Both of these shows are excellent in their own right, but apparently their writers/directors thought a little bit of conspiracy-related intrigue would jones up their shows.
Bones took the direct route of tying its season to a Templar-related conspiracy regarding a cult of people called Gorgothans or some such (can't remember right off hand). This story arc has surfaced in a handful of episodes this past season, and it looks to be starting off in a manner similar to the Smoking Man-related episodes of the X-Files. It's not clear if this story arc will be wrapped up in the current season (or I should say was intended to be wrapped up in the current season given the Writers' Strike) or whether it will continue for several seasons until it metastasizes into a a primary focus of the series.
NUMB3RS took a more convention approach to conspiracy media culture, firmly embedding their conspiracy in the realm of possiblility - counter espionage and mole hunting within the FBI. Agent Colby Granger was a triple agent - helping conduct an internal investigation of the FBI/Department of Justice for moles while posing as a double agent for the Chinese governement and feeding them false information. The show dealt credibly with the fallout of the Colby's exposure and subsequent rescue before being killed at the hands of the Chinese mole - his partner and team had serious reservations about him and conflicted loyalties after feeling they had been spied on by him. So far this conspiracy element is wrapped up and it looks like similar conspiracies won't surface again, at least for a while.
Interestingly, the NUMB3RS conspiracy arc started with the investigation of the murder of a Chinese consulate employee in what looked like a typical NUMB3RS episode. The conspiracy element was slow to emerge with Agent Colby Granger later appearing on a master "Janus List" of double agents in another seemingly typical NUMB3RS episode. I have to say that the NUMB3RS writers did an excellent job of introducing and weaving the conspiracy elements into the ongoing story arc. Well done.
It is worth noting that two successful television shows, Bones and NUMB3RS, have embraced conspiracy culture and the multiple episode story arc formula this year. Both of these shows are excellent in their own right, but apparently their writers/directors thought a little bit of conspiracy-related intrigue would jones up their shows.
Bones took the direct route of tying its season to a Templar-related conspiracy regarding a cult of people called Gorgothans or some such (can't remember right off hand). This story arc has surfaced in a handful of episodes this past season, and it looks to be starting off in a manner similar to the Smoking Man-related episodes of the X-Files. It's not clear if this story arc will be wrapped up in the current season (or I should say was intended to be wrapped up in the current season given the Writers' Strike) or whether it will continue for several seasons until it metastasizes into a a primary focus of the series.
NUMB3RS took a more convention approach to conspiracy media culture, firmly embedding their conspiracy in the realm of possiblility - counter espionage and mole hunting within the FBI. Agent Colby Granger was a triple agent - helping conduct an internal investigation of the FBI/Department of Justice for moles while posing as a double agent for the Chinese governement and feeding them false information. The show dealt credibly with the fallout of the Colby's exposure and subsequent rescue before being killed at the hands of the Chinese mole - his partner and team had serious reservations about him and conflicted loyalties after feeling they had been spied on by him. So far this conspiracy element is wrapped up and it looks like similar conspiracies won't surface again, at least for a while.
Interestingly, the NUMB3RS conspiracy arc started with the investigation of the murder of a Chinese consulate employee in what looked like a typical NUMB3RS episode. The conspiracy element was slow to emerge with Agent Colby Granger later appearing on a master "Janus List" of double agents in another seemingly typical NUMB3RS episode. I have to say that the NUMB3RS writers did an excellent job of introducing and weaving the conspiracy elements into the ongoing story arc. Well done.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
She's Proved She Can Fake Sincerity, I Guess She Can Fake Anything
I realize this is a bit late to the Zeitgeist, but Hillary Clinton's "emotional breakdown" were a classic tactic learned from the master himself. Her husband. Funny how she was able to still launch right into her talking points even after being on the verge of tears.
A girl running for class president in my high school did the same thing in the 80s when she realized she was going to lose. It works like this: everyone feels sorry for the girl becuase she's so so distraught and figures that since the other guy has such a strong lead, their vote to demonstrate pity/moral support, won't detract from their first preference actually winning. I call it the "Niki Effect" after the girl for whom it worked.
A girl running for class president in my high school did the same thing in the 80s when she realized she was going to lose. It works like this: everyone feels sorry for the girl becuase she's so so distraught and figures that since the other guy has such a strong lead, their vote to demonstrate pity/moral support, won't detract from their first preference actually winning. I call it the "Niki Effect" after the girl for whom it worked.
Bill Clinton Undermining Hillary's Campaign
The continuing controversey around Bill Clinton's remarks about Senator Obama and the civil rights movement, as illustrated by the reaction of House Majority Whip and Civil Rights Leader Jame Clyburn, illustrate why he should shut the hell up and get out of his wife's way.
While I'm a Libertarian, I give credit where it's due. Bill Clinton was a much better President than Republicans gave him credit for, and Hillary Clinton was rated as one of the 100 best lawyers in America by Legal Times years before she became First Lady. She is smart, accomplished and completely able to run her own campaign and win without Bill's surrogate/public appearances and attendant media coverage. (Though she would be a fool not to take his advice behind closed doors as he is likely the greatest American politician since Lincoln).
Everytime Bill Clinton says or does anything on Hillary's behalf he becomes a news item. This detracts from news coverage of her and potentially damages her campaign. The lastest "fairy tale" quote being a perfect example. I believe his explanation and wathcing the video clip in its entirety validates it, though the statement itself was inartful and not the best example of Bill Clinton's exemplary speaking ability or rhetorical style. (I also believe what Senator Barack Obama said recently about not wanting to undercut John Kerry in 2004 by voicing an opinion on the Iraq War contrary to his own party's nominee - call me naive, but I like to take people at their word especially when they're not obviously dissembling - which doesn't mean to that I believed Bill Clinton in 1998 about Monica Lewinsky)
My point being that Bill Clinton's comments, miscontrued as they were, were broadcast widely and loudly throughout the media establishment. This sucked the oxygen out of the air for anything newsworthy Hillary did or wanted to do. Afterall, the media are only going to cover the Clinton's so much and it's either one or the other.
Additionally, Bill Clinton still evokes visceral hatred from Republicans and conservatives alike, which means that everytime he speaks on his wife's behalf conservative commentators have an opening to trash her more and the Republican base gets a bit more riled up against Hillary. She might have a fighting chance of getting some Republican votes if he'd shut up since most Republican opposition to her in the 90s was based on, to quote a friend, "the fact that no one elected her to do shit, and she was never confirmed by the Senate for anything." A lot of GOP angst about Hillary started to dissipate once she was elected to the Senate in her own right.
I have no doubt this is unconscious behavior. Professional women are often warned not to bring their husbands to business dinners because the husbands will subtley undercut them unconsciously. Bill Clinton is doing the same thing.
Hillary has showcased him enough. It's time for her campaign to ship him off to Antarctica where he won't be able to garner any media coverage. He is a distraction that hurts her whenever he opens his mouth.
While I'm a Libertarian, I give credit where it's due. Bill Clinton was a much better President than Republicans gave him credit for, and Hillary Clinton was rated as one of the 100 best lawyers in America by Legal Times years before she became First Lady. She is smart, accomplished and completely able to run her own campaign and win without Bill's surrogate/public appearances and attendant media coverage. (Though she would be a fool not to take his advice behind closed doors as he is likely the greatest American politician since Lincoln).
Everytime Bill Clinton says or does anything on Hillary's behalf he becomes a news item. This detracts from news coverage of her and potentially damages her campaign. The lastest "fairy tale" quote being a perfect example. I believe his explanation and wathcing the video clip in its entirety validates it, though the statement itself was inartful and not the best example of Bill Clinton's exemplary speaking ability or rhetorical style. (I also believe what Senator Barack Obama said recently about not wanting to undercut John Kerry in 2004 by voicing an opinion on the Iraq War contrary to his own party's nominee - call me naive, but I like to take people at their word especially when they're not obviously dissembling - which doesn't mean to that I believed Bill Clinton in 1998 about Monica Lewinsky)
My point being that Bill Clinton's comments, miscontrued as they were, were broadcast widely and loudly throughout the media establishment. This sucked the oxygen out of the air for anything newsworthy Hillary did or wanted to do. Afterall, the media are only going to cover the Clinton's so much and it's either one or the other.
Additionally, Bill Clinton still evokes visceral hatred from Republicans and conservatives alike, which means that everytime he speaks on his wife's behalf conservative commentators have an opening to trash her more and the Republican base gets a bit more riled up against Hillary. She might have a fighting chance of getting some Republican votes if he'd shut up since most Republican opposition to her in the 90s was based on, to quote a friend, "the fact that no one elected her to do shit, and she was never confirmed by the Senate for anything." A lot of GOP angst about Hillary started to dissipate once she was elected to the Senate in her own right.
I have no doubt this is unconscious behavior. Professional women are often warned not to bring their husbands to business dinners because the husbands will subtley undercut them unconsciously. Bill Clinton is doing the same thing.
Hillary has showcased him enough. It's time for her campaign to ship him off to Antarctica where he won't be able to garner any media coverage. He is a distraction that hurts her whenever he opens his mouth.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Obama NH Campaign Victim of "David Duke Effect"
After his stunning upset in Iowa, the NH polls suddenly showed a giant uptick for Obama, which was not reflected in the outcome of tonight’s election. A large portion of this was undoubtedly due to the David Duke Effect. The David Duke Effect is named after a Senate candidate in Louisiana in the late 80s/early 90s named David Duke who was a Ku Klux Klan member. Polls of the race consistently showed him garnering the support of fewer than 10% of Louisianans. On Election Day he received substantially more votes than that. The general conclusion: racists didn’t want to admit they were supporting Duke and gave the “correct” answer.
Given my previous post, you likely know I believe the same thing happened in New Hampshire this year. People in NH didn’t want to admit they were not supporting Obama, but said they were anyway, because it was “the right answer” after his Iowa victory. The tragedy is that the Obama campaign believed the polls and discounted the David Duke Effect. Being ahead, especially after a hard fought victory like Iowa, his staff undoubtedly started believing their own press and unfortunately got complacent.
None of which to is to say that Hillary did anything untoward. The point is that while neither campaign knew it (and Hillary's almost imploded over it) Hillary Clinton was always ahead and winning, albeit narrowly. Therefore there really is no point in asking how she recovered. However, her near implosion and the Obama campaign's overrconfidence do betray a strong faith in America and our collective journey away from racism. That those at the heights of power believe this is both reassuring and comforting in some small way.
I wish them and their hardworking staffs the best of luck for the rest of the campaign season.
Given my previous post, you likely know I believe the same thing happened in New Hampshire this year. People in NH didn’t want to admit they were not supporting Obama, but said they were anyway, because it was “the right answer” after his Iowa victory. The tragedy is that the Obama campaign believed the polls and discounted the David Duke Effect. Being ahead, especially after a hard fought victory like Iowa, his staff undoubtedly started believing their own press and unfortunately got complacent.
None of which to is to say that Hillary did anything untoward. The point is that while neither campaign knew it (and Hillary's almost imploded over it) Hillary Clinton was always ahead and winning, albeit narrowly. Therefore there really is no point in asking how she recovered. However, her near implosion and the Obama campaign's overrconfidence do betray a strong faith in America and our collective journey away from racism. That those at the heights of power believe this is both reassuring and comforting in some small way.
I wish them and their hardworking staffs the best of luck for the rest of the campaign season.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Clinton Administration Infighting Impacts IA Caucuses: Richardson Knifes Hillary (Field Report Four)
According to another campaign colleague, during the Iowa Caucuses, Richardson decided to ask his supporters to back Obama if he wasn’t “viable” in their precinct. In the Democratic Caucuses, a candidate must receive 15% of the vote on the first round in order to be eligible to win delegates. Supporters of candidates deemed “unviable” are cajoled, sweet talked, persuaded and threatened by their neighbors into supporting their 2nd preference. Richardson was always the only viable candidate among the 2nd tier under these rules and this actually explains why he didn’t come in with more than 2% of the vote.
Going into the Caucuses, Edwards was the 2nd choice of a majority of caucus goers. In fact, many political observers thought that he would win on that basis alone. By asking (and getting) his supporters to back Obama on the 2nd round instead of Edwards, Richardson essentially threw the election to Obama, kneecapping Hillary in the process. She would have been able to withstand an Edwards victory (after all, he has no money) but as we’ve seen an Obama victory is something else – a victory for the forces of real change and an inspiration our nation hasn’t felt since the days of RFK (apparently – I wasn’t here yet). Ironically Hillary really is not perceived as “a change agent” since she has been on the national scene at least since failing to get Congress to enact her misbegotten health care plan. Obama on the other hand, really is a new fresh face who does represent change and a new direction for the Democratic Party (i.e. away from the Clinton’s).
Now the question arises as to why Richardson, whom many perceived as angling for Hillary’s VP or Secretary of State slots, would do this. It’s quite simple really and it goes back to the Clinton Administration: Terry McAuliffe. Apparently there was some dust up between the Governor and the former Democratic Party Chairman/fundraiser extraordinaire in which it was strongly intimated that not backing Hillary would result in some type of retribution. Given McAuliffe’s position it could either be a threat to cut off Richardson’s funding for the NM Senate Primary (assuming he gets in during the short deadline after Feb. 5) or the promise of being excluded from a future Hillary Clinton Administration.
Ironically, whatever threat McAuliffe made obviously backfired and put Clinton in the position she’s now in – on the verge of losing a 2nd straight primary/caucus by double digits (assuming the David Duke Statistical Lie problem isn’t affecting the polling outcome, which based on my previous posts I believe it is though I still think Obama MAY be able to squeak through a victory). Should Hillary be unable to regain her footing before Feb.5, she will tarnish the Clinton legacy and effectively end the Clinton Machine’s hold on the Democratic Party. It would be morning in the Democratic Party.
To paraphrase Nixon, “Richardson knows a little about politics too.”
Oh, and just for the record, Hillary saying she knows how to beat Republicans is bunk. A Republican Minority, lead by Senator Phil Gramm of Texas beat her health care plan to smithereens in 1993. In both 1992 and 1996 more people voted against Bill Clinton than voted for him. He only received 43% of the vote in 1992 and 49% in 1996. The Clinton’s only know how to beat Republicans in a three-man race (Perot ’92, Buchanan ’96) in which the 3rd guy appeals to core Republican values. Put her head to head with anyone but Huckabee and she’ll have a hard time of it – Romney’s actually achieved universal health care in his state, McCain is definitely more trustworthy and likeable despite the establishment’s attitude towards him and can play the military b ackground card in a way she can’t, and Giuliani can counter the change argument easily (“I changed the country by bringing down the mob,” “I changed Wall Street culture, at least temporarily, by bringing down Ivan Boesky,” “I changed New York City, the untamable city, and made it livable for families again” – how does she counter that?).
Going into the Caucuses, Edwards was the 2nd choice of a majority of caucus goers. In fact, many political observers thought that he would win on that basis alone. By asking (and getting) his supporters to back Obama on the 2nd round instead of Edwards, Richardson essentially threw the election to Obama, kneecapping Hillary in the process. She would have been able to withstand an Edwards victory (after all, he has no money) but as we’ve seen an Obama victory is something else – a victory for the forces of real change and an inspiration our nation hasn’t felt since the days of RFK (apparently – I wasn’t here yet). Ironically Hillary really is not perceived as “a change agent” since she has been on the national scene at least since failing to get Congress to enact her misbegotten health care plan. Obama on the other hand, really is a new fresh face who does represent change and a new direction for the Democratic Party (i.e. away from the Clinton’s).
Now the question arises as to why Richardson, whom many perceived as angling for Hillary’s VP or Secretary of State slots, would do this. It’s quite simple really and it goes back to the Clinton Administration: Terry McAuliffe. Apparently there was some dust up between the Governor and the former Democratic Party Chairman/fundraiser extraordinaire in which it was strongly intimated that not backing Hillary would result in some type of retribution. Given McAuliffe’s position it could either be a threat to cut off Richardson’s funding for the NM Senate Primary (assuming he gets in during the short deadline after Feb. 5) or the promise of being excluded from a future Hillary Clinton Administration.
Ironically, whatever threat McAuliffe made obviously backfired and put Clinton in the position she’s now in – on the verge of losing a 2nd straight primary/caucus by double digits (assuming the David Duke Statistical Lie problem isn’t affecting the polling outcome, which based on my previous posts I believe it is though I still think Obama MAY be able to squeak through a victory). Should Hillary be unable to regain her footing before Feb.5, she will tarnish the Clinton legacy and effectively end the Clinton Machine’s hold on the Democratic Party. It would be morning in the Democratic Party.
To paraphrase Nixon, “Richardson knows a little about politics too.”
Oh, and just for the record, Hillary saying she knows how to beat Republicans is bunk. A Republican Minority, lead by Senator Phil Gramm of Texas beat her health care plan to smithereens in 1993. In both 1992 and 1996 more people voted against Bill Clinton than voted for him. He only received 43% of the vote in 1992 and 49% in 1996. The Clinton’s only know how to beat Republicans in a three-man race (Perot ’92, Buchanan ’96) in which the 3rd guy appeals to core Republican values. Put her head to head with anyone but Huckabee and she’ll have a hard time of it – Romney’s actually achieved universal health care in his state, McCain is definitely more trustworthy and likeable despite the establishment’s attitude towards him and can play the military b ackground card in a way she can’t, and Giuliani can counter the change argument easily (“I changed the country by bringing down the mob,” “I changed Wall Street culture, at least temporarily, by bringing down Ivan Boesky,” “I changed New York City, the untamable city, and made it livable for families again” – how does she counter that?).
Romney Tried to Suppress Giuliani IA Support (IA Field Report Three)
According to another colleague of mine who was monitoring Iowa Caucus 0precincts for his candidate in parts of Eastern Iowa, Romney County Chairs were demanding that Giuliani representatives not be allowed to speak since some of them were from out of state. This is a blatant abuse that should have been dealt with by the Iowa GOP County Chair or the state party.
As a veteran of Iowa caucuses, I can tell you that anyone can be authorized to speak on behalf of a candidate, regardless of state of voter registration. This is completely acceptable under party rules as long as the "outsider" doesn't attempt t vote. I'm a native Iowan, but not registered to vote there, and I've given multiple nominating speeches for different candidates.
In fact, last week both Governor Dave Heineman (Nebraska) and Governor Matt Blunt (Missouri) were allowed to speak on behalf of their respective candidates (can't remember who campaigned for whom). Either they shouldn't have been allowed to speak, or everyone should have been, regardless of where they were from as long as they didn't attempt to vote.
Putting on my analyst/pundit hat my observation is this: Despite Giuliani's lack of a strong presence in Iowa (And I do admire his attempt to run an entirely new strategy), Romney felt the need to keep Giuliani support down in Iowa in order to damage the viability of the person most likely to threaten Romney's ascension to the nomination. Huckabee is a joke - like Pat Robertson he'll get crushed in New Hampshire, where McCain will will. I already wrote about Thompson's dubious Iowa victory, though he has a strong chance of winning South Carolina if he plays it right. After two defeats for Romney and a mixed bag of other winners, Giuliani's strategy may prove wise, in which case he and Romney stand the best chance of being the last men standing and forcing a Feb. 5 showdown (Where, if all goes to their plan, Giuliani is likely to win California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois and a few other big delegate states). Romney obviously wanted to damage Giuliani as early as possible to undercut this possible scenario.
This is likely the last Iowa field report. I should be posting some from other states later this month. If you have anything to report, please let me know, and I'll do my best to verify it and put it up.
As a veteran of Iowa caucuses, I can tell you that anyone can be authorized to speak on behalf of a candidate, regardless of state of voter registration. This is completely acceptable under party rules as long as the "outsider" doesn't attempt t vote. I'm a native Iowan, but not registered to vote there, and I've given multiple nominating speeches for different candidates.
In fact, last week both Governor Dave Heineman (Nebraska) and Governor Matt Blunt (Missouri) were allowed to speak on behalf of their respective candidates (can't remember who campaigned for whom). Either they shouldn't have been allowed to speak, or everyone should have been, regardless of where they were from as long as they didn't attempt to vote.
Putting on my analyst/pundit hat my observation is this: Despite Giuliani's lack of a strong presence in Iowa (And I do admire his attempt to run an entirely new strategy), Romney felt the need to keep Giuliani support down in Iowa in order to damage the viability of the person most likely to threaten Romney's ascension to the nomination. Huckabee is a joke - like Pat Robertson he'll get crushed in New Hampshire, where McCain will will. I already wrote about Thompson's dubious Iowa victory, though he has a strong chance of winning South Carolina if he plays it right. After two defeats for Romney and a mixed bag of other winners, Giuliani's strategy may prove wise, in which case he and Romney stand the best chance of being the last men standing and forcing a Feb. 5 showdown (Where, if all goes to their plan, Giuliani is likely to win California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois and a few other big delegate states). Romney obviously wanted to damage Giuliani as early as possible to undercut this possible scenario.
This is likely the last Iowa field report. I should be posting some from other states later this month. If you have anything to report, please let me know, and I'll do my best to verify it and put it up.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Thompson IA "Momentum" fueled by Ron Paul Database Crash (Field Report Two)
One of my well connected political contacts learned yesterday at a Midwestern airport that Ron Paul's 10% Iowa showing was due to a database crash that severely hampered their Get Out The Vote (GOTV) efforts. I feel badly for the unknown staffer/volunteer who accidentally caused this and debated posting this item due to the potential pain it might cause the anonymous person in question. The anonymous Paul staffer/volunteer went into seclusion after this debacle. I wish him the best of luck in the future and empathize with his embarassment / personal pain.
In any event, Fred Thompson lived in Iowa for the 18 days prior to the Iowa Caucuses, while Ron Paul did not make nearly as many appearances. The fact that Thompson only beat Paul by 3000 votes illustrates that his momentum is mostly an illusion. Had the Paul GOTV operation been operating properly, it is quite likely he would have been able to garner at least another 3500-5000 votes either by turning out additional voters or taking some away from Thompson (Paul actually has more appeal to the conservatives that voted for Thompson than Thompson does due to his "purity" on their issues).
Thus, the late "Thompson surge" is more a product of accidental, technological failing by a competitive rival with unparralleled grass-roots support among non-evangelicals than any indication of real support for Thompson. This is true despite anything Rich Galen has to say on the matter.
In any event, Fred Thompson lived in Iowa for the 18 days prior to the Iowa Caucuses, while Ron Paul did not make nearly as many appearances. The fact that Thompson only beat Paul by 3000 votes illustrates that his momentum is mostly an illusion. Had the Paul GOTV operation been operating properly, it is quite likely he would have been able to garner at least another 3500-5000 votes either by turning out additional voters or taking some away from Thompson (Paul actually has more appeal to the conservatives that voted for Thompson than Thompson does due to his "purity" on their issues).
Thus, the late "Thompson surge" is more a product of accidental, technological failing by a competitive rival with unparralleled grass-roots support among non-evangelicals than any indication of real support for Thompson. This is true despite anything Rich Galen has to say on the matter.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Edwards Alienates Hundreds of Potential Volunteers, Endangers Country and Party
About a week before the Iowa Caucuses John Edwards stated that if he became President, he would not hire anyone who had been a federal lobbyist. Now, I understand that he doesn't think trial lawyers are a special interest or that his actions as a trial laywer are actually what has caused the health care crisis (health insurance companies raise rates due to jackpot jury awards, thus making healthcare unaffordable and causing companies (especially small firms)to drop their health care coverage for employees.
However, there are literally thousands of people who have been lobbyists and frankly, most of the top lobbyists are the pre-eminent experts in their fields. Why would you want to forgo the expertise of someone simply because of a job they may have held? This is especially concerning considering that some of our nation's top foreign policy people have worked as lobbyists for one firm or another, and sacrificing their knowledge due to some populist BS concern that they're tainted could put our nation in real jeopardy.
Additionally, if he is serious about this, his administration would basically have to depopulate the ranks of senior political/policy experts on Capitol Hill. The effect of this would be to essentially disarm unilaterally against the Republicans on the Hill by taking away all the top Dems with institutional memory and knowledge of how to get things done, while leaving their Republican counterparts in place and able to outmaneuver his own party. In the wake of this past disastrous year for Congressional Democrats, why would you want to make them even weaker?
Finally, lobbyists and former lobbyists are the people who are willing to fly in from out of state on their own dime and help you get out the vote, ID supporters, etc. Telling them they'll have no place in his administration pretty much guarantees they'll drop their plans to help out. After all, why help an ingrate? No one, even "evil lobbyists," volunteers on campaigns simply for future jobs, but a telling them that you're not grateful and won't even consider them for a job in the future pretty much guarantees the loss of a lot of money (from their personal accounts) and help from people who otherwise share his values.
However, there are literally thousands of people who have been lobbyists and frankly, most of the top lobbyists are the pre-eminent experts in their fields. Why would you want to forgo the expertise of someone simply because of a job they may have held? This is especially concerning considering that some of our nation's top foreign policy people have worked as lobbyists for one firm or another, and sacrificing their knowledge due to some populist BS concern that they're tainted could put our nation in real jeopardy.
Additionally, if he is serious about this, his administration would basically have to depopulate the ranks of senior political/policy experts on Capitol Hill. The effect of this would be to essentially disarm unilaterally against the Republicans on the Hill by taking away all the top Dems with institutional memory and knowledge of how to get things done, while leaving their Republican counterparts in place and able to outmaneuver his own party. In the wake of this past disastrous year for Congressional Democrats, why would you want to make them even weaker?
Finally, lobbyists and former lobbyists are the people who are willing to fly in from out of state on their own dime and help you get out the vote, ID supporters, etc. Telling them they'll have no place in his administration pretty much guarantees they'll drop their plans to help out. After all, why help an ingrate? No one, even "evil lobbyists," volunteers on campaigns simply for future jobs, but a telling them that you're not grateful and won't even consider them for a job in the future pretty much guarantees the loss of a lot of money (from their personal accounts) and help from people who otherwise share his values.
New Hampshire Racism Imperils Obama Momentum (Field Report One)
I've been doing some volunteer campaign work recently for one of campaigns. Doesn't matter which one or where (but it's not Obama - I'm a Libterarian and am VERY pleased with Ron Paul's 10% result in Iowa).
One of my colleagues on another campaign told me that they have a South Asian volunteer who has been harassed, threatened and called the N word more times than anyone can count. While I am EXTREMELY pleased with what Obama's Iowa victory says about our nation slowly transcending race as an issue, the treatment of this volunteer by New Hampshire residents is discourgaging in the utmost. Not being representative of the country in terms of diversity is ok if you're openminded (witness Iowa last night), BUT BEING LILLY WHITE AND RACIST is just one more example of why New Hampshire should lose its first in the nation primary status. I don't support Obama due to policy disagreements, but the way New Hampshire is treating this volunteer indicates that he has a hard row to hoe there.
Putting on my analyst/pundit hat, this does not bode well for the Obama campaign and New Hampshire racism could halt his momementum and pitch the race towards Hillary or Edwards. I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are good Americans who hate racism and don't want to win this way. It's just unfortunate that this racist little state will get to kneecap Obama before he can really take full advantage of what President George H. W. Bush referred to as "The Big Mo." I mean, it's not like this is happening in the South where such things are to be expected.
I wish our country would finally embrace MLK's dream of judging us by the content of our character and not the color of our skin. New Hampshire residents obviously don't share this dream.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised - after all New Hampshire is populated by former Boston residents, and it's no secret that Boston is one of the most racist cities in the country.
One of my colleagues on another campaign told me that they have a South Asian volunteer who has been harassed, threatened and called the N word more times than anyone can count. While I am EXTREMELY pleased with what Obama's Iowa victory says about our nation slowly transcending race as an issue, the treatment of this volunteer by New Hampshire residents is discourgaging in the utmost. Not being representative of the country in terms of diversity is ok if you're openminded (witness Iowa last night), BUT BEING LILLY WHITE AND RACIST is just one more example of why New Hampshire should lose its first in the nation primary status. I don't support Obama due to policy disagreements, but the way New Hampshire is treating this volunteer indicates that he has a hard row to hoe there.
Putting on my analyst/pundit hat, this does not bode well for the Obama campaign and New Hampshire racism could halt his momementum and pitch the race towards Hillary or Edwards. I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are good Americans who hate racism and don't want to win this way. It's just unfortunate that this racist little state will get to kneecap Obama before he can really take full advantage of what President George H. W. Bush referred to as "The Big Mo." I mean, it's not like this is happening in the South where such things are to be expected.
I wish our country would finally embrace MLK's dream of judging us by the content of our character and not the color of our skin. New Hampshire residents obviously don't share this dream.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised - after all New Hampshire is populated by former Boston residents, and it's no secret that Boston is one of the most racist cities in the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
