Scared Yet?

Hillary Clinton's latest ad...some might say, latest scare tactic.

Mr. Bush, tear down this wall!

Societies are marked by symbols. History guides us by the lasting symbols we leave behind. For the Romans you could say the coliseum represented all that was good and evil in their culture. The Parthenon of the ancient greeks tells us of their engineering skill and devotion to thought. The great wall of China gives provides us with a symbol of exclusion and prohibitive safety.

But walls are the symbol I want to talk about in this post. A wall (of sorts) is being erected by our government or at least it is supposed to be. That wall is going to be constructed because we Americans, the richest, most powerful citizens this planet has ever produced are afraid. We fear what lies to our south and thus we are building a wall to make certain it cannot come north.

What are we so afraid of? Has our Southern neighbor, Mexico, grown powerful enough to invade? Do we believe a larger insideous foe will trample over the weakened Mexico and storm our southern border? Was it the Islamic terrorists of 9/11 coming over the border and hijacking our planes that created the worst terrorist attack in the nation's history?

We know none of these are the case. No, we are afraid of people that cross our border clinging to the underside of trucks, or traveling the swealtering desserts to rob us of the right to pick our own fruit, move our own stones for the yard, and build the places we don't have enough workers for.

We, the American people are afraid the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The very people from all over the world that Lady Liberty welcomed into New York harbor. We are afraid to give economic opportunity to those we are mightier than.

What is truly insideous about our fear of the Mexican people is that they have become the straw man for nearly every domestic policy issue we face in America today. Lou Dobbs and the rest of his xyenophobic allies have convinced middle class Americans that their jobs are in danger-despite 4% unemployment. Illegal immigrants are blamed for the high cost of health care, because they often use hospital emergency rooms without paying. While this is certainly a drain on our system, it is nothing in comparison to the price gauging that occurs when it comes to prescription drugs, or the cost of malpractice insurance, and does little to effect the 47 million Americans who simply go without healthcare. Illegal immigrants are charged with bringing everything from drugs, to violence, to syphilis to our nation. This is a false argument. Of course there is a minority of the population that brings with it these issues. But Dobbs would have you believe these are the people that took your job, closed your hospital and raped your drug-addicted daughter.

There are over 12 million illegal immigrants living in America. The vast majority of which work for low minimum wages, performing the tasks no one here, not even high school kids want to do. They do it because even our worst living situations often outshine their best. They do it for hope of a better future. Like the Italians, the Irish, the Scandinavians, and the rest did in the early part of the twentieth century. I can almost hear Dobbs now, "BUT THEY CAME HERE LEGALLY!"

Well of course they did. There were huge quotas in the US. Immigration was seen as the engine of a growing economy. Millions streamed into this country, bringing their work ethic, skills, passion, and desire for a better future. They were welcomed, certainly as second-class citizens expected to do the jobs no one else wanted to do, but they were granted legal entry and allowed to build their life. What is so different between then and now? 

When did we let the American ethic of free trade and open markets get overrun by fear mongering? We seem to have wanted it both ways here in America. We wanted the cheap produce, landscaping, contractor work, manual labor and child care. But not the responsibility to make these people American citizens, like our relatives were allowed. We have decided that the American dream is the exclusive domain of those already here. That is a great tragedy. 

It is a tragedy that we are more likely to build a fence than solve a problem.  We will build ineffective barriers that send a signal to the world that we are not a country that welcomes the new. We are a country that seeks only to take advantage. 

Comprehensive immigration reform that gives people a path to citizenship and changes the way the naturalization process works is vital to the future of this country. Walls and fences don't work. Just ask the Chinese. 

Who Framed Roger Clemens?

Congress is looking to investigate whether or not Roger Clemens lied when giving his testimony to a congressional panel investigating steroid use in baseball.

Let me give a clear, forceful, independent opinion of why I think it's a bad idea. In short, once congress has finished dealing effectively with, global warming, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, national secuirty law regarding privacy, national healthcare, energy independence, the weakening economy, sub-prime lending, the inequity of the tax code, the alternative minimum tax, Immigration and border security, earmarks, campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, and every other issue facing every other district in the US.

Then maybe we can deal with whether or not Roger Clemens got injected in the butt.

Bloomberg Won't Run

Mike Bloomberg, current mayor of New York has decided not to run for president. A move that at the very least signals his belief that Barack Obama will win the democratic nomination. One of his criteria was that there was a "hole" in the electorate that an independent could fill. Had say Clinton and Romney won their nominations on Feb 5, Bloomberg might've jumped in as the center candidate in what would be a polarized fight. 

As a New York resident, I largely approve of Bloomberg's job and I think his thinking is even more impressive. I had hoped to see him on a ticket this year if for no other reason than to force more issue debates into the campaign. Hopefully, he can do that from his position of wealth and influence across the country. 

Think Different

Yes, I know the classic Apple slogan is my headline. But I come to you
this late evening, my loyal readers, all nine of you, with a humble
request.

Policy thought thrives on debate it thrives on a chorus of voices and
dissenting opinion. I love blogging. I love trying to share opinions
and insights I find interesting and provoking. But I need your help. I
am striving to generate more thoughts and opinions for the blog. The
best way to do that is to attract more readers.

So please take minute and email a friend, post a bulletin on myspace.
Post a comment on a message board, but do what you can to get more
people to come read, watch and participate. I truly appreciate it.

Follow Up on Foreign Policy

Well we might have forgotten the war in Afghanistan as a policy issue, but Morgan Spurlock (Supersize Me) hasn't forgotten Osama Bin Laden. 

Check this out:

Foreign Policy ADD

Here's a story you might have forgotten about. I did until this morning. Afghanistan, the other war we are fighting in the Middle East. January 31st of this year, the washingtonpost.com along with several other news organizations reported the contents of a independent assessment of the military action in Afghanistan. 

The report offers a mixed but overall a bleak assessment of what needs to be done in Afghanistan. But dig a little deeper and we see that the military and political actions taken by NATO, with the US in the lead, has created a tapestry of interconnected issues that have lead to the polarization of the Afghani people and have stagnated growth since the initial boom of the Karzai administration. 

The Bush administration regularly portays the ongoing fight in Afghanistan as NATO versus the Taliban. This is far from a complete picture. The economy of the country is largely based on the farming and trafficking of poppy, for opium production. This trafficking is sometimes done by the Taliban, often times it is not. Governmental corruption is widespread, that corruption permeates the government's relationship with the Taliban and Pakistan, and the people of Afghanistan themselves. 

Rather than asking the candidates to talk about the fliers they've mailed bashing each other, our media must begin to actually press candidates to answer questions on the middle east, and create a genuine synergistic plan. The Bush administration was justified in launching military intervention in Afghanistan, but has failed to properly manage the end game and has failed on the diplomatic fronts to dismantle the Taliban. We have also created a complicated and overly dependent relationship with Pakistan. However, we opened a new set of issues by entering into Iraq without pertinent foresight for how the diplomatic and political fronts of the the incursion would play out. All of this of course must be viewed through the lens of our continuing need for Saudi oil. 

Sound bite-size answers to the problems of the Middle east and our link to them will simply not do. The answers that work for Afghanistan must has some link the answers of Iraq, and must be viewed in the long term as we draw down our oil dependence. 

Perhaps, just perhaps, a candidate can find a way to make this policy work. To turn America from the world's policeman to the world's power broker. We must create a second tier to the global economy not by simply paying out blind aid to questionable regimes, but by creating markets. Finding reputable goods and services Afghans and Iraqis can create at home and sell abroad. Giving them an economic engine that can fuel a resurgence of education and modernization. 

Alright folks, its 9:00am and the job the pays the bills is calling. For more about Afghanistan check out this story from Sarah Chayes, profiled and interviewed on Bill Moyers Journal. 

Tuesday-Brooks Day

In what has been a week of smears (NY Times versus McCain+ Clinton/Drudge versus Obama), David Brooks steps up to the plate to defend Senator McCain from the accusation coming principally from the NY Times that McCain has been too close to lobbyists. Brooks argues that while his record is not perfect its way too solid to get brought down by nearly baseless accusations. 

Obama-Not a muslim terrorist

You know I had to be one of the bloggers that touched this one...in case you haven't heard. Senator Barack Obama is still not a Muslim terrorist trying to infiltrate the White House. Despite what his rival might be giving the Drudge Report to post. The image depicts a visit to Kenya where Obama tried on the local garb. 

The image made the rounds on the internet and after some rapid vetting, even the New York Post admitted it was a smear job from the Clinton Camp. A great analysis can be found at the Newsweek blog. 

This kind of racially motivated tactic is so low and so vile, I can't imagine how someone could continue to support Senator's Clinton's campaign. She is a competent, intelligent woman, but if it is true, as Drudge claims, that the Clinton camp furnished him the photos in an effort to smear Obama along racial lines...it draws on the worst in politicians and the worst in people. 

Hey there Ralphie Boy!

Ralph Nader announced yesterday on Meet the Press that he will, again, run for President. I for one am glad, not because I am so in line with his politics, but because I think more voices are needed in these trying political times. His role as spoiler diminishes the contribution he could potentially make for the progressive agenda. I'm gonna take the side against the media on this one. If more candidates like Nader were given air time and equal time to express their agendas an not be see as "outside the norm" we might have a more cohesive debate. 

I acknowledge however, that Nader doesn't exactly make himself the media darling. He strides on a horse that is mighty high indeed, and from a minority position it is hard in to draw together a coalition to actually get things done. In my opinion Nader should have announced his candidacy early and pushed the progressive side of the Democratic agenda early on in the media. Now, he will inevitably be seen as little more than a spoiler. A role he rejected, while he acknowledged that he had no chance of winning. 

The Hope Deficit

My last post, concerning the ramifications of electing a president of
color in a nation where racial prejudice still clearly exists drew
some interesting comments both on the blog comment board and privately
via email. I appreciate both and hope for more commentary. I love
spirited debate.

But the comments have given me impetus to explain my prior post in
more detail. A nominee getting even thus close to the nomination has
already started stirring a pot of racial divide across the country.
While the main stream media is wrapped up on the narrative of hope
versus substance, there is another question. Does a person of color
inadvertently and indeed unintentionally divide the country?

Are the vitriolic comments and blog posts found throughout the country
a vocal sample from a tiny minority? Or are they the stifled voice of
a silenced majority? My desperate hope is that its the former.

Not mentioned

I meant to post this last Friday, but a topic NOT discussed in the
debate last week. Our dependence not just on foreign oil, but oil at
all.

Monday Morning

Good morning fellow readers of the blogosphere.

There is plenty to discuss this morning on both the policy and
politics fronts. I also wanted to post several entries over the
weekend but between a trip to New Jeresy on Saturday and a simply
excruciating day on Sunday, no entries could be made.

But Monday signals a new week and a fresh look at policy debates and
politcal foibles.

First thing on my mind this week-have we really thought about the
implications of having a president of mixed race in the white house?
I, personally believe this can be nothing but an asset going forward.
I also applaud the Obama campaign for doing everything possible to
keep tv race debate out of the political contest.

But as I survey the message boards and the blogs out there, it really
scares me to see how many Americans want to discount Obama. Message
board entries that end with "once a Muslim always a Muslim!" or that
repeatedly reference Hussein in his name, for dramatic, racist effect.
Let's step back, even if Obama were Muslim (he's not) why would they
discount him from the presidency? Are we that afraid of brown people
that we must find a demonozing label for them?

I recognize that message board entries are often a subversive way for
a small minority of closet racists to vent their venom into the
mainstream. Never the less, I worry that these voices represent enough
people to create a new ugly devision innour country. This would be
particularly ironic as Obama is seen as the candidate most ablero draw
the country together in these politically divided times.

I worry about a nation that cannot embrace a man of color like any
other candidate because of fear and racism. I worry about MY nation
that cannot fully stand behind this candidate. That's not to say we
should blindly agree with his positions because he is young, black and
well spoken. But not one citizen of this country in the 21st century
should discount Senator Obama because of race.

In 2008, you wouldn't think that statement would be necessary.

The Texas Debate Redux

Last night I asked the question...are these debates relevant?

I got a chance to skim the transcript this morning. And I wanted to give you a sense of why they are not.

First I will start with a list of question topics that were raised in the debate.

Cuba
Economy
Immigration-Raids
Immigration-Border Fence
Immigration-Official Language

Is Obama "all hat and no cattle"?
Did Obama plagerize Deval Patrick?
Is this the "silly season" of politics?
Is Obama ready or not?
Are you both Ready or not?
What did you do getting into Iraq how would you get us out?
What has been your most tested moment?

The line spacing break above was intentional. Of the 12 discernable topics raised by the debate panel for CNN last night 6 were fluffy or completely political in nature. Is this the way we want our debate run? CNN a once venerate name in cable news stooped to asking is your opponent "All Hat and no Cattle."

In a perversion of the usual political debate structure, these two learned, interesting, intelligent candidates were actually trying to get the debate centered back in issues. I find it troubling that our public discourse has stooped so low. The only television network that should host a debate is PBS. Jim Lehrer and the rest of the Newshour team would actually keep the conversation on topic and get these candidates drawing contrasts on issues while asking intelligent questions. Shame on CNN.

In for a penny.....

I came across a great Op-Ed in the NY Times this morning. It's author Dalton Conley argues that rather than writing Americans a check to revive the economy why not invest their money and create a new social safety net.

Check it out.

Are debates effective

I confess to you my fellow bloggers I did not watch the debate on CNN
tonight. Rather, I was at a concert at Carnegie hall. In reading the
recaps, a thought crossed my mind. Do we have real debates any more?
Have these debates given voters any piece of intellectual clarity on
either side of the aisle or are they just another way for these
candidates to soak up free air time and spout their talking points?

Just a thought. I'll be back tomorrow with more thoughts from the
debate and some topics that weren't discussed.

Partisan Again

The NY Times story today set off a firestorm. I wonder how the
Democrats will treat the flap. The best thing either candidate can do,
especially Obama is nothing. Being more partisan and more nasty will
only turn voters off to the "hope express."

The McCain Flap

Readers of the blog know that I am a fan of the NY Times. They also know that I am NOT a fan of conservative talk radio. However, the Times decision to print this story, reeks of tabloid journalism that I had previously thought was beneath the time. The four web-page story lacks much by way of hard fact or sources. After reading it the article insinuates that McCain's staff was uncomfortable with the female lobbyist being around often, but little else.

The story strikes me as a sensational way to revive problems McCain has had in the past as they rehash the Keating Scandal. While this should be discussed as it relates to McCain's record, I thought it was in poor taste to gin up a larger scandal for the sake of bringing up an ugly past. It struck as highly partisan.

In the long view I believe the Times did more to hurt themselves than the McCain campaign.

A post from the Apple Store

For all those wondering why I posted but once yesterday, and why it was an email, my computer finally kicked the bucket last night. It's 7:30am and I stand in the flagship Apple Store on 5th ave waiting for the "geniuses" to take a look at my machine.

I would be annoyed buy the setting provides inspiration for today's post. Technology. 

The private sector and especially the youngest generation of Americans are flocking to an all-online world. Yet, our government has lagged behind the information age. There are precious few examples of government blogs or the kind of internet communication that the presidential campaigns are currently employing. However, an example of what is possible is the TSA Blog the Transportation Security Administration has actually started a blog to discuss their rule changes and current programs. Travelers and citizens can sign on and comment on new policies and get information as to why the TSA operates as it does. 

This should be the future of government agencies, congress members and even the White House. The world is getting more transparent. I can't imagine the founders wouldn't want it that way. 

The trap

We are all falling into a trap. Each and every one of us is falling
into a familiar trap and we must make this time different.

While we follow the bickering between Senators Obama and Clinton and
we dissect Senator McCain's campaign positions we are forgetting
somthing. We forgetting something that is indeed all around us and
vital to our ebruday life. Something that one of these candidates will
have the power to effect deeply next year.

Senator McCain likes to call the fight against Islamic terrorism the
"transcendent issue of the 21st century." I and every scientist not
employed by an oil company would like to disagree. The transcendent
problem of the 21st century is global climate change. And we have
allowed it to go virtually unmentioned through this primary season.
Will we allow it to go unmentioned in the general election?

I recognize that in the landscape of economic hardship many Americans
are facing and the ongoing war in Iraq, its easy to get distracted.
But we must continue to press our candidates in both the presidential
and congressional elections to present plans to save the environment
and end our carbon economy.

Aloha!

Alright kids,

While tracking the cheese vote has been fun. Unhappily, I have a job to do in the morning, so I must hit the sack before the Hawaii results come in. Check back tomorrow and we'll dive into some of the topics the candidates are filling their precious air time with and what issue we think is getting short shrift.

The Cheese has Spoken

Senator Obama has racked up his 9th contest victory in a row. My post yesterday was "Wisconsin doesn't matter." It still doesn't. Obama seems to have won handily in a state he was largely expected to win. The impetus now is on the weeks heading into Ohio. After Hawaii reports tonight, Obama will have likely stretched his streak to 10.

This is where the Clinton campaign will have a very important choice. They are heading into do-or-die territory now. Ohio and Texas will decide the nomination if Clinton loses either. If she wins both then the contest will stretch to Pennsylvania. The choice comes in how negative is she willing to go? The plagarism attack is getting a little traction, but the simple fact that the supposed aggrieved party acknowledges the sharing of ideas won't give it traction for long. The Clintons have tried everything from Obama's Kindergarten papers, to his race, to his "plagarism" to attempt to knock him off his pedestal. None have succeeded and with each round of unsuccessful attacks he is gaining strength and perhaps even some biased media coverage because he has thus far refused to go down the negative road to the extent Clinton has.

But these tactics will lead to some fracturing among the Democratic party. Moreover, it will tarnish Hillary Clinton's personal political stock going forward. She and her campaign need to decide if its worth destroying her reputation and damaging the party to continue these negative campaign tactics. Senator Chuck Schumer (Camp Hillary) and Senator Dick Durbin (Camp Barack) nearly worried themselves silly on Meet the Press this weekend.

The race is far from over, but the voters are starting to trend and Senator Clinton will have a choice about how she wants to compete and the nation has a choice of whether they'll accept her tactics.

From CBS

CBS news is first out the gate with an Obama victory prediction based on exit polls. It seems as though the NY Times is also going with that prediction.

Some interesting trends to note...

Obama beat Clinton among women. Very narrowly, 51% to 49% splitting the female vote in a predominantly white state is a promising sign for Obama.

However, the so-called "age gap" is still there. Clinton won the 65 and older crowd handily.

with 14% reporting

While some readers hate the early reports, with 14% of the precincts reporting Obama maintains a lead though it appears to be shrinking. He's currently at 56% to Clinton's 43%

As it tightens the results will be less and less important.

When Hillary Attacks

As results continue to trickle in from Wisconsin, the Clinton camp
continues to circulate and recirculate the Obama plagarism story.

Is this desperate? Or are they changing the narrative on what most
expect to be a losing night?

Wisconsin Way too early

With a mere 1% reporting Obama is leading 61 to 38. McCain has already
been declared the winner of Wisconsin.

Castro Resigns....Bush Responds

We're certainly not breaking new here (that's what the widget is for), but Fidel Castro leader of Cuba for more than 50 years has resigned, most likely due to his ailing health. President Bush made a statement explaining his belief that the Cuban people should take this as a moment to hold free and fair elections.

The US has an opportunity here to fully normalize relations with Cuba and end the stalemate that has lasted since the cold war. The first step will be nationally recognized elections in Cuba. The possibility of conflict, or perhaps stable democracy in Cuba raises yet another foreign policy issue for the 2008 campaign. Does this help John McCain? Barack Obama?

And what of Kosovo? Newly independent and supported by the US and Europe. Does this create yet another conflict the State department must become involved in? How will our new government respond?

Added Widgets

Policythought.blogspot.com is all about debating policy AND politics. But we also want to become your one-stop shop for Headline news and political insights. After all, what drives policy is often the news and politics of the moment. With that in mind we've added four so-called widgets to the blog today. The first in the NY Times headlines, so you can follow what's up with today's news.

Scroll down a little and you'll find three stellar political blogs from the two of the best content providers out there. The washingtonpost.com brings you Chris Cillizza's The Fix. And Politico.com brings us the GOP and Democrat watches from Johnathan Martin and Ben Smith, respectively.

So make policythought.blogspot.com your start page, catch up on the news, the politics and policy debates of the day all from one home page.

Tuesday-Brooks Day

This week David Brooks takes aim at fading Obama-mania...and why its not such a bad thing.

Why Wisconsin doesn't matter....

I admit, I have never been to Wisconsin, never been to Milwaukee, I've never worn a cheese head and I've enjoyed a Packers game live. I have a soft spot for the cheese state and I'm glad the candidates are spending so much time and energy there. I was inspired by a fellow blog afterw.org to analyze Wisconsin's importance in the race.

It doesn't matter. Not even a little bit. And I can prove it. How? I'll give you a few possible scenarios... and the likely aftermath and I can boil it down to a single unlikely scenario that has Wisconsin mattering at all.

1. Obama wins big- Obama supporters will point to yet another state won and the Clinton camp will shrug. Winning 8 in a row, or 9 in a row really doesn't matter if you can't land a knockout punch. The delegate totals are nice...outside of that...makes little material difference.

2. Obama wins small-Take everything I just said and well..you get the point.

3. Clinton wins small-A surprising result to be sure...but a small win either way doesn't arrest Obama's momentum.

On the Republican Side-

4. McCain wins big-good, wrap this thing up already.

5. McCain wins small-good, wrap this thing up already.

6. Huckabee wins at all...well I'll be damned...the numbers still don't add up and the narrative doesn't change.


The one notable scenario I am left with is Hillary wins big...big means 60-40. This could be a media shifter and a real story heading into the next big set of primaries and debates. The likelihood? Not much.

Happy Voting my Wisconsin friends.

John Edwards...King Maker?

Policythought tries to stay out of the horse race game of the Presidential election but we did talk in a previous post about the power a John Edwards endorsement could have on the election. Well Chris Cillizza and the rest of his team over at The Fix, a blog hosted at washingtonpost.com give us some insights into how Senator Obama might be wooing Edwards.

PBS...yes its worth it

It's late and for some personal, family-related reasons today got much longer that I thought it would but I wanted to come to the aide of PBS. Today the NY Times posted this article, asking whether PBS was still necessary. I want to express my deep support for PBS. The kind of thoughtful, insightful, well produced programming PBS creates is better than anything else the networks or cable produce. If PBS were reduced to the NewsHour, Frontline, Washington Week, NOW, and NOVA it would still be worth every tax payer dollar. Everyone deserves to be informed and inspired, the network news broadcasts don't do that, most cable broadcasts don't either, and not everyone can afford cable.

So I say live on PBS, and I will gladly let my tax dollars go to continuing to inform the American people if they don't appreciate it.

Middle Ground for the Middle Class?

Those of you who are friends and family know that I am podcast fiend. One of my favorite is the PBS program NOW. NOW explores issues as they relate to democracy and how are laws are created. I've been catching up and a recent episode about middle class insecurity was broadcast on television and on the web.

The episode gave some insight into how and why voters might think past their own economic interests despite how recent government decisions have made it harder and harder for the middle class to thrive.

The more I thought about the episode the more I realized that the shift in our economic policies that came with the Reagan era, have been slowly crippling the middle class. Moreover, it is by hijacking the values of the Christian conservative base on social issues have allowed the Republican party to shift taxation and trade laws to benefit the richest of our country. But it is important not to demonize the conservatives voters and and politicians the created this situation. In fact, I believe these folks really believe that creating strong businesses creates a strong economy and therefore wealth for all.

But what we have seen is a time of income disparity not seen since the Great Depression. How great? More that 20% of the country's wealth is concentrated to 1% of earners. Is this something government can do anything about? Is it the government's role to decide wages? It is unAmerican to think so.

However, we have allowed over time minimum wage to stay static, we've allowed unions to become irrelevant, social security no longer covers retirement. The basic problem is it takes two incomes to support a family when it once took one. And the costs of energy, housing, food, and college education are headed upward. What can government do? The first step to me would be a tax credit for wage increases. Tax credits for granting workers flex time or time off. Americans are feeling overwhelmed with lifestyle changes and increased costs. Especially in a globalized economy, tax incentives for equipment purchases (such as those recently proposed in the stimulus package) don't help the American worker. We need to drive down the cost of healthcare and college education and give American workers the social and ecomonic mobility they enjoyed a generation ago.

Covering a School Shooting

Does media coverage of campus shootings make them more popular among the deranged? Is the desire to go out in a guaranteed blaze of glory push those who want the attention even further. I explored the web for some opinions on it....

Quark Soup seems to think the media has fetishized the school shooting.

This discussion board serves as a living record of people's immediate reactions to the shooting ranging from emotional outbursts to policy thoughts.

The J Junkie, launched the bull's eye critique at CNN.

What strikes me about the coverage is a google search for "northern illinois shooting" registered 349,000 hits and the event is less than 35 hours old. The sheer magnitude of the coverage, the descriptions of the events are titillating-the pump action rifle, the counts of shotgun shells and bullet casings, the accounts of those that heard it nearby. The scramble for video footage. For a few days at least this shooting will be THE big thing. In an age where there is coverage, and then coverage of coverage, and then blogs about both, news for better or worse becomes viral public discussion. An incredibly ruthless and deranged act of violence gets to ripple over the water for much longer than even in the days of Columbine. This blog is no exception as we will now show up somewhere in the search engines under Northern Illinois Shooting. The media specifically and society at large have a responsibility to cover these events more responsibly. Media coverage spurs heavy reaction from the left and right, and then all coverage disappears as we move on to the next event.

Does that burst and disapearance lead to more polarization? In the case of a school shooting immediately the left says that if there were more psychological evaluations and tighter gun laws this wouldn't happen, then the right immediately responds that if everyone were free to carry a gun and defend the themselves people would think twice before they start shooting. Then the coverage goes away the last thing people thinking about or listening to, not a voice of moderation thinking about a compromise that might make us safer without infringing too deeply upon the 2nd amendment, but only of the extreme points of view on the subject.

Contemptable Indeed

Hello all this one will be short but the house passed contempt
resolutions against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten for refusing to
comply with a subpeona to come testify before congress in the matter
of the district court judges who were fired for what are believed to
be political reasons.

The measure passed easily but not before house Repubilcans through a
hissy fit of playground proportions. Before the measure was put to a
vote led by Minority Leader John Baener, the Republicans demonstrated
an act of amazing political theatre. Staging a walkout to chants of
"work, work, work." (For those keeping score at home I am basically
summarizing and combining the reports I read at the NY Times and
Politico)

Operationally these acts will be very difficult to act upon as the
justice department is not going to prosecute members of the executive
branch exercising executive priviledge.

So what was all this? Political theatre on both sides of the aisle?
Gestures of political alliance from both democrats who vowed to have
more oversight of the hated Bush administration?

Is there any real justice to be served here?

Comments please, please, please.

North Illinois University

There are plenty of topics to discuss today. But before I get into any other them, I just wanted to extend my deepest sympathies, condolences and prayers for the students, faculty and staff of North Illinois University and their families.

Contempt Charges

The house moved to pass contempt charges against Josh Bolten and
Harrier Miers today.

Tomorrow I'll have a take on whether this is justice working or
political grandstanding.

Between Iraq and a Hard Place

Senator McCain's likely nomination for the Republican party's nomination will slide Iraq front and center of the agenda debate heading toward November. McCain can and should characterize himself as the strongest candidate to be commander-in-chief. While there has been a ton of discussion surrounding who will be the Republican running mate. There needs to be a discussion over who should be the Democrat running mate. Let me promise you something here and now, there will be no so-call "dream ticket" Obama and Clinton will not be found on the same ballot.

However, once the dust clears and one of them is the definitive nominee the name under theirs on the ticket should be Senator Joe Biden. Senator Biden has demonstrated consistent cogent understanding on the war in Iraq and the history of the conflicts of the middle east. His proposal of a federalized system of governance was right before and it is right now as an effective way of building a future in Iraq that's not "Stay for 100 years" and not "Get out in 60 Days."

This has been the year of moderation. Putting Biden on the ticket would be the perfect way to shore up a candidate's soft spot on Iraq.

Taxation and Representation

There is nothing new about hating taxes. But I think there is something that can be said about our tax code and it inequities.Warren Buffet, third richest man in the world commissioned a study on taxation at his firm.

The results are astounding. Mr. Buffet makes $46 million a year in taxable income and claims he has no tax shelters yet his tax rate was 17.7% while his receptionist's was 30%. I know its popular to claim that its liberal democrats that want to raise everyone's taxes. But in 7 years of a Republican administration the so called "Bush Tax Cuts" have done one thing kept more money in very rich people's hands and given no more to middle class earners.

I think its time to revive Steve Forbes old plan of a flat tax of 17% across the board. Let all Americans bear an equal load.

Tuesday-Brooks Day

As usual, I take a moment on Tuesday's to link to one of my favorite
columnists, David Brooks of the NY Times.

Today, Brooks goes on the mild-mannered attack of the democrats
exposing what he believes will be inevitable rifts in the party and in
the country if either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama make good on
their pledge to begin a rapid reduction in troop levels out of Iraq.

I alluded to this problems last night in my entry concerning Iraq War
policy and election rhetoric. We simply cannot as an electorate stand
for having a "Stay In" candidate in John McCain and a "get out"
candidate in Clinton or Obama.

Personally, I hope John McCain's all but certain nomination on the
Republican side will force a more vigorous debate heading to election
day. Democrats fell over one another to get to the head of the line on
troop withdrawal. It's time for them to recover some balance. If
either Obama or Clinton were asking for my advice, which they
decidedly aren't I would have them tap an expert on the subject of
Iraq equal in capacity to McCain.

As this entry is already a bit long, I'll save that name for the next
entry.

5 Good things about John McCain's likely Nomination

Alright, I'll admit it, my Iraq post just now left me a little depressed, so I decided to leave the blog tonight on a happier slightly more comical note and express the following list.

5 Good Things About John McCain's likely nomination

1. He's not crazy. Despite the forthcoming appeals to the conservative base, John McCain is a moderate at heart. He has shifted some fiscal positions to the right as political expediency required. But he's not an ideologue that can't see the other side's point of view.

2. He makes Rush Crazy. This blog hasn't been around very long, but as it continues to exist you all will get exposed to my loathing for Talk Radio. Rush, Hannity and Coulter and seething over this, and it makes me laugh.

3. He's a Gaffe Machine. I know, I know George W. Bush is the king of the gaffe-factory. But McCain's recent "The economy's not really my thing, I have Greenspan's book." "We could stay in Iraq for 100 years." And the ever popular "Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran." Are a mere sample of the McCain Library of screw-ups we'll hear this fall.

4. Iraq Matters Again. The Democrats are already talking about it. No contender on either side of the aisle has more street-cred with in comes to Iraq than McCain. Right on Rumsfeld, right on the surge, wrong on the long term strategy, McCain will push this to the center of our debates where, incidentally, it should be.

5. Purple States Love Him. This relates back to #1. McCain's nomination refers to the longing the country has for moderation. After seeing the right get what it wanted, the nation is ready to come back to the center. McCain's likely nomination will keep the debate left center versus right center, exactly where most Americans want it to be.

A Surge of Success?

The NY Times reports today that defense secratary Robert Gates has approved a "pause" in troop withdrawal from Iraq. To summarize, after meeting with General Petraeus, Secretary Gates supports the decision to pause the draw down while commanders assess if violence can continue to be suppressed with troops reduced to pre-surge levels. A report on post-surge troop levels will be presented to the president in the early spring. The full NY Times Report can be found here.

This immediately had ramifications on the campaign trail with Senators Clinton and Obama voicing their disagreement and reiterating their individual commitments to bringing troops home beginning in the first year of their respective administrations.

For the record, at the time of the invasion of Iraq, I was unsure about the need for us to get involved there militarily. I doubted the evidence presented by the administration, but at the same time so soon after 9/11, I felt that trusting the president was in the best interest of the country, "surely, they must know something we don't."

Then it turns out they didn't know something we didn't. They thought they knew things they didn't. I don't think it's worth wasting the screen space to explain all of the pitfalls and nonsense that went on in the years of the war before General Petraeus took command. For those interested in the failures of President Bush and Donal Rumsfeld buy this. What matters is where we are now. I was certain, like many others that the surge would not, could not work, I will admit I was proven wrong.

But the point must be, so what? We are where we are now. Relatively low levels of violence because of the troop surge has led to a relative calm. (I feel it necessary to post a side-note: This link is a youtube video of the venerable Martha Raddatz on Bill Maher's show giving her point of view on the surge) However, the political reconciliation and stabilization are far from complete.

Is it appropriate for the Democrats to be calling for an immediate withdrawal or "redeployment" out of Iraq? Is Senator McCain reasonable when he says we can stay in Iraq for 100 years and the American people won't care if our troops are safe? All I can say is we broke Iraq, and now to some extent we bought it. The Iraqi government is clearly not ready to lead on their own, and certainly could not provide security to its people. While I don't think I'd be OK with our troops their indefinitely, no matter how safe they are, I think it is reasonable to think we will need to be there in a peace-keeping capacity anywhere from 5 to 10 years. As the government builds a democratic structure and as the army and police begin to see past their sectarian differences we will see the Iraqi people taking advantage of their oil wealth and begin rebuilding their country. Patience is required. It was fair to criticize a poorly working plan, and it is fair to forever hold President Bush accountable for a misguided mission. But the last thing America needs or wants is a withdrawal that only leads to more chaos and death in the Middle East. The right wingers that blindly followed President Bush into his foolish crusade cost young Americans their lives. Let's not let left wingers with their blinding desire to leave something that they see as unjust cost the Iraqi people more.

When will they endorse?

There are but two endorsements left that matter in this race.

I typically fall into the category of people that don't think endorsements matter much. Endorsements are a nice boost, they provide some legitmacy among small groups, the "bigger" the endorsement the more free media comes of it. But politically they don't change voters minds.

All of that serves as a huge caveat to the two endorsements that matter and why either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama would be happy to have them. Al Gore, former vice president and recent Nobel Prize and Oscar winner would be the first. Mostly because in Democratic circles he is seen as the candidate that "should have been" and in hindsight looking at the dismal approval ratings of the current president and congress, many in the Democratic party believe things today would only have been better with Gore as president. More than that he is seen as someone dealing with a problem, the biggest problem the world has potentially ever faced, that of Global Climate change. Al Gore's endorsement would give a tremendous ideological boost, I think most effectively for Hillary Clinton as she as seen as an agent of status quo, capable of only narrow victories. The so-called "latte liberals" already in Obama's camp probably don't need any more liberal boosting.

The more precious short term endorsement would be that of former Senator John Edwards. His liberal force in the election drove the debate when he was still in the race and his consistent 15 percent support among voters could be directed to either candidate and change the voting patterns that have deadlocked the race between the two Senators.

While Al Gore has little motivation to endorse a candidate right now, Senator Edwards may feel some need to maintain relevance in this race as things get down to the wire.

Obama Sweeps, Hillary Shakes things up

The democratic race for the nomination has been a see-saw battle. This week, Obama was the fat kid. Winning Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, the US Virgin Islands and Maine, the Senator form Illinois has momentum going for him this month. Despite what many writers, pundits and even this blog predicted, that Febraury would be a good month for Obama, the Clinton camp is trying to stop the bleeding. Patti Solis Doyle is out and Maggie Wilson is in as campaign manager.

The question is when does the see-saw tilt back? The expectations game is already in effect with Washington DC, Maryland, and Virginia two states and a district where Obama is seen to have an advantage. HRC's camp is preparing the media for losses and what will be seen as the see-saw slamming to the ground when Obama picks up eight straight winds. Clinton's best chance at redemption comes in Virginia, but this blogger doesn't see that happening.

So when does team Hillary begin to rebound? Conventional wisdom says the big states of Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania are her best chance to rack up delegates. Those primaries are in march, check out the election calendar post earlier this month. The question becomes can Obama take the momentum (in a year where there has been none) and change the message of his campaign to be more inclusive of less educated and Latino voters. If he can begin to tilt the message enough to win even one of those big delegate count states, it might be hard for the Clinton camp to make a real superdelegate ploy as the convention draws nearer.

When War is in your blood....

I just heard a fascinating report from the BBC. Reporting from Burma, the correspondent was telling the story of the underground movement to crush the Burmese people's uprising. This is the same uprising for democracy that was led by Buddist monks weeks ago.

The excellent report which can be found here, explained the persecution the Burmese people are experiencing at the hands of the military. A side note to the story is the latest Rambo film. For the uninitiated in this go 'round Rambo is helping a human rights group help victims of the Burmese miltary in some blood-letting ultra violent way. One of the themes of the movie, "Live for nothing, or Die for something!" has become an underground theme of the revolutionaries in Burma. Bootleg underground copies have made there way into the country despite a government ban.

I'm not sure how I feel about Rambo being an inspirational character for any group. But it bears noting that our action hero genre films have completely shied away from the actual wars we are fighting. Instead, Rambo is fighting for a cause few Americans have ever even heard of much less cared about. The people of Burma took to the streets because they deeply want democracy I'm their country and they we willing to endure maltreatment and violence and the hands of the government to express their desire. Yet the American government and the American people have done nothing to support their effort.

Despite this our American pop culture serves as a rallying cry and theme for their revolution. Despite waging a war for unjust reasons, despite keeping over seven-hundred people in prison indefinetly without charges in Guantanamo Bay. Our action hero is still an inspirational figure to others in the world. An american freedom fighter is seen as thr answer to the silent war in Burma. I'm not going to pretend to be a Rambo fan. But I'm also not going to hide that I felt a swell of pride for the muscle bound speak imeded vietnam vet with a pension for killing. At least something American is inspiring to the rest of the world.

McCain and the right

Far be it for me to spill more virtual ink on the relationship of
Senator McCain's and the conservative wing of the Republican party.
However, it strikes me as fascinating just how many litmus tests the
conservative wing of the party have before a candidate can be excepted
as the presidential nominee.

Taxes, national defense, judges, anti-abortion, border security. Every
issue is a hot button for this end of the party. A major fault of
his, in their eyes, is the issue of border security and immigration
reform. McCain sees these issues correctly as intertwined.
Conservatives in the party see only border security. There is no
second part of their platform. Despite the realities of a worker
shortage facing American Agro-business and the displayed need for more
low skill workers in our economy all they seem to want is more fencing
and more patrols.

What about the immigration policy our nation employs? What about the
American ideal of open borders and doors being open to immigrants of
all backgrounds. Our stength comes from our diversity, and as Senator
McCain has stated "they are all God's children."

Rush, Hannity, and Coulter represent the far side if their party.
People seem to forget the era when talk radio was on the fringe. We've
lived in an age where talk radio got an undue amount of voice and
political power for it's listeners.

John McCain represents the moderate wing of the Republican party. One
can only hope he can stick to those principals that got him this far.
2000 was a different time, when weary of Clinton the nation wanted
strict conservatism. Now the nation seems to be screaming for
moderation, and in a field of candidates vying to be as far to the
right as possible and as much like Ronald Reagan as possible. McCain
offered only what he has always been. Rush and the rest may just have
to sit this one out.

The YouTube Effect

If you followed the 2008 Presidential Race on YouTube, you're liable to think that Ron Paul is leading this thing and Barack Obama is the second coming of Zeus, or Heccuba, or Rocky Balboa, or Rambo. Maybe Ron Paul is more the Rambo type. In any case, I had to be one of the countless bloggers to show you the following....






While these videos make the rounds, I think its fascinating to check out the comments listed below. If nothing else this level of debate, I call it meta-debate, that is debate about debate, has raised the level of discourse throughout the country. I cannot remember a time when the country cared so much about an election cycle. The question is, where does the blogosphere fit into the debate? Do the bloggers and you-tubers matter? Is this new form of media as important or more important than traditional television? Blogs like this one are a new phenomena in politics, do they effect the debate?

Brooks and Dr. Retail Talk Democrat Horserace

Yesterday's David Brooks column in NYTimes got me laughing. Take a look at see.

Romney is out the Door

Mitt Romney the Mormon from Utah by way of Massachusetts is out of the race. The pundits are saying its because of his flip-flopping, or his mormon religion or because he was too robotic. Perhaps it was actually because his brand of policy isn't what the country is looking to buy this election cycle.

Perhaps total conservatism or vigorous liberalism is not what the nation wants, but more the moderation Obama and McCain are selling? Just a thought, sometimes its the product that matters and not how it gets sold.

Followup on Stimulus Package

I posted earlier today on the ecomonic stimulus package congress is about to make happen. Politico.com's blog the crypt has a nice summary of where the bill stands now.

Congress will continue to spin it's wheels until election time.

Romney is out

As I type Mitt Romney is ending his campaign to be president. Having not performed well enough on Super Tuesday he's decided to end things...more to come.

Do I Stimulate You?

This is typically that time on the campaign trail where actually discussing issues and laying out policy gives way to vague stump speeches and 30 second attack ads. That's ashame really because its turns out there are still issues out there and our government is attempting to take action. This forbes article sums up the state of the economic stimulus package. Meanwhile, while we political wonks were watching the results of Super Tuesday, Wall Street had its worst day in three months losing 370 points.

Does this mean that we are in a recession? Does it matter what we call the current situation? Well it certainly seems so to Congress. Congressional Democrats and President Bush agreed upon a limited short term stimulus package design to get people spending again. The benefits would range from $600 to $1200 per taxpayer depending on income, number of dependents and other factors. Senate Democrats appear to have lost their bid to extend the package to extend unemployment insurance, food stamps and other low-income provisions.

The question is does a stimulus package ever work? Is this a case of short term cash flow problems, or long term economic hardship? I'm no economist, there is certainly commentary that flows both ways on whether a bill like this can help. But I for one think there is a bigger problem here, one that the markets are striving correct. Because indeed, markets work.

Middle class Americans across the country are seeing nearly every cost of living going up exponentially while their wages have remained flat. One interesting fact I learned from the PBS program NOW-if you were to discount the top 1/10 % of earners over the course of the Bush presidency wages actually went down slightly over the course of his administration.

This while the cost of housing, healthcare, energy and college education have soared. I am not one to demonize corporations for doing well. Profit does not come from the pain of others. However, the markets are seeing a decrease in middle class spending. Spending over the last decade has been driven by credit card spending. College has been paid for by astronomical college loans, healthcare costs are crippling small businesses and Americans who would pay for it themselves.

While I applaud the efforts of Congress to ride in and pass a stimulus package to try and revive the economy. I also recognize that an election year is coming up and no member of congress wants an attack running that says while the economy stalled they stood by and did nothing. Rather than rush to put $600 in my pocket, I wish congress could have come together over the last few years to drive down the cost of healthcare, or college, or been working to build alternative energy networks and supplies. We have been looking the other way as the middle class flounders and now we are paying the price.

The next congress needs to address these problems. Not pass stimulus packages.

Elephant in the Room

John McCain is the prohibitive favorite in the GOP race right? Right?

Well when you win NY and California in one night then things look pretty darn good. However, and this is a big however, more states voted against John McCain than voted for him. If the Republican party had proportional rules similar to the democrats there would be no clear cut front runner for the Republicans. The point is that McCain still has to sell himself to the GOP if he is to have firm support in the general and indeed sew up the nomination. Don't look for the straight talk express to stop driving this month, February 12th could be a decisive day for him. Romney is on the ropes and getting vanquished in Beltway primary might finally take the last bit of air out of his tires.

Unless of course Mike Huckabee insists on remaing the surprise of the season. Huckabee must win Louisiana and at least one beltway state this month to remain viable. He needs to prove he can win a state that is not in the south, but can't afford to lose any of those contests either. Look Maryland or Virginia have the strongest chance of turning for Huckabee.

Contrary to popular belief I think at this point, with the nomination McCain's to lose, Huckabee staying in the race helps Romney. You could argue Huckabee hurt him yesterday. But going forward the more fracture and doubt that can be introduced into the race the better for both Romney and Huckabee.

DEM's the breaks

What does the calendar mean for Senators Obama and Clinton going forward? I look for February to remain mostly split. Prognostication has proven useless this election cycle, but look for an emerging pattern for the Democrats in February. Look for the margins of victory in the states Obama wins to be wider than the state Clinton carries. If that happens February could be a good month for Obama in long run, delegate count will be what matters from here on and this has truly been the cycle of zero momentum.

If there is to be a turning point in February and the 5th wasn't it, then look to the so-called "Beltway Primary" February 12th. It will be the end of a long primary week, do the candidates have the energy and the message strength to win these states.

The Clinton campaign has offered up three more debates for mass consumption from now until the end of the month. It's rare for a front-runner to want more debates. The Clinton camp seems to believe they look stronger when she stands one on one with Obama. It's an interesting strategy as critics by and large called the last debate a tie.

The remaing contests

So February 5th has come and gone and while it appears the John McCain is the front-runner for the Republican nomination, the Democrats are still far from decided with a lot of work to go. So I shall attempt to provide a brief guide to what's coming up over the rest of the calendar and my take on why they could mean.

February 9th
Kansas (GOP Only)
Louisiana
Nebraska

Feb. 10
Maine (DEM Only)

Feb. 12
DC
Maryland
Virginia

Feb 19th
Hawaii (DEM Only)
Washington
Wisconsin

March 4th
Ohio
Rhode Island
Texas
Vermont

March 8th
Wyoming (DEM Only)

March 11th
Mississippi

April 22
Pennsylvania

May 6th
Indiana
North Carolina

May 13th
Nebraska (GOP)
West Virginia (DEM)

May 20th
Kentucky
Oregon
Idaho (GOP)
Hawaii (GOP Caucus)

June 3rd.
Montana (DEM
New Mexico (GOP)
South Dakota

Good idea/bad idea

So here's a question. Now that the hoopla and spin machines are
winding down. Was Super Tuesday a good idea? Did this method of
choosing a nominee help our process? This is the closest we've ever
come to a national primary.

I for one think this calendar has been a failure. Expecting Iowa and
New Hampshire to I'd predictive, prohibitive contests and the idea
that the sheer size of Super Tuesday would create a battle for
momentum in the small states has also proved bunk.

Instead the small states were lavished with incredible attention, only
to extend little influence to their Super Tuesday counterparts. While
the early contests were an exercise of personal politics. Super
Tuesday was an exercise in the national poll system. This system of
television ads only enhances the roll of classic political calculation.

Next time around, I'll be voting for a not so Super Tuesday.

Media perception

Super Tuesday was indeed a big night in American politics. In my media
watching interesting trends have emerged. The source one watches or
reads holds great sway over what one might think of the race at this
point. NBC's today show this mornning seemed to want to draw the
narrative that the Republican race was muddled and nearly a threeway
tie.

Popular assessment however from the Washington post, politico, and PBS
was Romney's loss in California and across the northeast (with the
notable exception of Mass.) made McCain the prohibitive favorite
heading down the stretch.

On the Democratic side consensus is that both candidates did well, but
Senator Clinton did better because of her victories in NY and
California.

My personal take on the Republican side is the same as it was a month
ago. The Republican party is going to come home to McCain for lack of
a better choice. They don't trust Romney's experience or character,
and they don't trust Huckabee's competence on a national scale.
Thusly, McCain becomes the survivor.

On the Democratic side, we've seen the year of no momentum and I don't
seebthat changing any time soon, even after Super Tuesday. We're going
to see a state by state battle starting this Saturday in Louisiana.
There has been much debate over who the calendar favors more heading
forward. Conventional wisdom is that the calendar favors Obama. I, for
one have stopped trusting conventional wisdom this election cycle.

Thoughts in super Tuesday

While the results keep coming in from across the country and most
heavily California, I thought it was important to post some of my
global thoughts on the state of the country. The country seems to be
truly split between moving toward moderation and political unorthodoxy
on one hand and political partisanship and orthodoxy on the other.

While Rush Limbaugh is railing on the right, Senator McCain
representing the center of his party is soldiering closer and closer
to the nomination on the Republican side.

When once Senator Clinton seemed inevitable. Senator Obama's message
of moderation has created a surge of support nation wide.

The nation is divided not red and blue but orthodox versus non-partisan.

Another from union square

Here's the scene i passed on the way home.

From union square

Tuesday: Brooks Day

As an avid PBS NewsHour viewer, I became introduced to David Brooks. A NY Times conservative columnist and general pundit. I like his column because he's conservative, but thoughful and balanced. He's non-partisan, and while I tend to disagree with him, I like his style and his approach.
And thus, I link to his column here. Amid all the hoopla over Super Tuesday, Brooks is talking about the health care debate and Hillary Clinton's style.

One vote in the books

Don't ask where I got this...

The superest Tuesday

Today's the day. The most super of super tuesdays in New York City. Not only do the city's registered Republicans and Democrats head out to vote and dole out delegates, but here in New York we celebrate the Giants positively amazing comeback victory over the heavily favored, and up till then perfect New England Patriots.

Posts will come up throughout the day. I think its time to get this blog rolling again.