There is one truth this year that I believe people of all parties and political opinion can agree upon – there is no one candidate in the race for President, which perfectly embodies the ideals of what the job needs. One candidate is too vague in his policies, another is too strident in hers, still another attacks the base of the party whose icon he claims to hold as his mentor, and yet another pretends his record supports his promises, even though the actual facts work against his claims. It is no surprise, that even as both major parties stress the need for high turnout in the elections, both parties are risking a significant ‘stay-home’ protest from disillusioned voters. And almost no one is really comfortable with the remaining selection of candidates.
I think I know part, at least, of what went wrong. It’s not just the Democrats or the Republicans and the judges they would appoint, or how they would handle National Security, or Taxes or Immigration, or so on. Those issues are important, in some cases vitally so, yet on both sides of the aisle we see a lot of discontent, even with the leading candidates saying all the “right” things. So, I would suggest that there is something more, something that has not been considered to any great degree. And that ‘something’ I would offer, is that the one big problem the average voter has with any and all of the crop of Presidential candidates, is that none of them has much at all in common with us.
Look at the brief resumes of the major candidates:
Barack Obama – Parents above-average income, went to private school (Punahou Academy). Worked 2 years after college (Political Science major) at a white-collar corporation job, then became community activist in Chicago. Harvard Law School, so he’s a lawyer. Practiced Civil Rights law, elected as State Senator, lost run for Congress in 2000, won U.S. Senate seat in 2004. Wrote three books as Senator, got the book deals on the basis of his public image. Personal wealth about $1.3 million.
http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369
http://nymag.com/news/politics/encyclopedia/personalwealth/
Hillary Clinton – Parents wealthy, went to Wellesley and Yale (Political Science, Law). Attorney with Rose Law Firm, staff of Nixon Impeachment committee, First Lady of Arkansas 1979-81, 1983-92, First Lady of White House 1993-2000, won U.S. Senate seat in 2000. Wrote four books as First lady, got the book deals on the basis of her public image. Personal wealth about $34.9 million.
http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9251306
http://nymag.com/news/politics/encyclopedia/personalwealth/
John McCain – Son of Admiral John Sydney McCain (CINCPAC), graduated U.S. Naval Academy (1958) and National War College (1974). Shot down 1967 over North Vietnam, famous for resisting torture and building morale among fellow POWs. Suffered six years before release to U.S. Elected U.S. Representative 1982, won U.S. Senate seat in 1986. Famous for putting his personal goals first. Wote four books as Senator, got the book deals on the basis of his public image. Personal wealth around $2.5 million.
http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9542249
http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/
Mike Huckabee – Blue-collar parents, degree in Religion from Ouchita Baptist University, Masters in Theology from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Church Pastor, then head of Baptist State Convention of Arkansas. Elected Lt. Governor of Arkansas 1993-6, Governor 1996-2007. Wrote five books as Governor, got the book deals on the basis of his public image. Personal wealth around $0.9 million.
http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=261446
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/fundraising-about-who-you-know/2008/01/02/1198949900099.html
As usual, the Democrats as a group turn out to be the rich elitists. Sure, Mitt Romney had a pile of money, but he was the only really rich Republican, while the high-profile Democrats include John Edwards ($31 million), Al Gore ($120 million), and Ted Kennedy ($300 million). What I do see in common, however, is a long period of government work. Pretty much all the major candidates have been in positions of federal employment in high-status posts for more than a decade, except for Obama, whose political activism in Chicago serves the same purpose. That is, every one of these people has been trained and taught to believe that government is the solution.
Every one.
Yes, every so often we get a George W. Bush, who generally understands that government needs to answer to the people, and in some rare cases we get a Ronald Reagan, who understands that government is the problem far more often than it is the solution. But we also know that in the main, a career politician loses sight of what most Americans believe, hope, and work for. I note that in their cases, the political experience was supplemented by a life outside politics. And if you look at the more disappointing nominees from elections in the past generation, it is usually the more “experienced” candidate who fails to ignite excitement; Kerry 2004, McCain 2000, Dole 1996, Mondale 1984, and so on. This year, even though he misjudged the timing and could not get his campaign funding going, Fred Thompson still generated a lot of buzz, and in fact many Republicans would reconsider their opposition to McCain, if Thompson were tabbed the VP nominee. The reasons are simple, but important: Thompson spoke as a clear, no-nonsense Conservative, and he also resonated as one of the regular people. If Fred had started his campaign back in 2007 when people first started pushing him to run, he’d have built up enough momentum and campaign resources to blow away the competition. This was partly due to Thompson’s own charisma and plain speaking, but also to the fact that Thompson has a life outside politics, and has earned a few paychecks that did not come from the public trough.
That would seem to say that a candidate could win the White House, regardless of party, if he or she came from a life outside politics, who could address the political needs of the nation without sounding like he or she would become part of that machine. I think that’s part of what’s going on with Obama; he is completely out-to-lunch in his plans, but he is so obviously not part of the Clinton Political Machine that his inexperience works to his advantage. That’s a problem for McCain, then. The man exudes experience, but it’s not exactly the ‘wise patient sage’ kind. John McCain exudes the ‘I know better than you, so shaddup’ kind of experience, and aside from political disagreements, a lot of Republicans rightly worry about how that appearance will affect voters in the General Election.
You might reasonably wonder why experience could be a liability for a Presidential candidate. After all, in every other election the incumbent is known to hold a commanding advantage in every aspect, unless some scandal or drastic change in his image comes to light. But this is because of the nature of the job. Congressmen, and especially Senators, want someone who knows all about their many rules and procedures; a first-term Representative has no clout in D.C. and spends more than a year just finding out how everything works. Also, the machine in Congress is well-established, and is one of the few truly bipartisan traditions honored by both Republicans and Democrats – the veterans get the choice slots and favors. The White House is much, much different, however. A President knows he will serve one or two terms, but that’s it. He knows as well, however, that from his first day he has tremendous power and influence as President, even if his margin of victory was thin or contentious. Most Presidents start to leave their mark early on – they know what they were elected to do, what they want to accomplish, and from the start they chase those goals. It has long been noted that most two-term Presidents get most of their signal accomplishments done in their first term, and often early in that term, to boot. This is because people usually want different things from a new President, and the new President has at least a limited mandate to set that course. Experience in the job is not all that big a deal for a President.
So, what about the executive experience a President is said to need? Certainly, executive experience is important, but it still has to be properly used. Jimmy Carter had executive experience as a Governor before he became President, but he was a complete failure as a Federal Chief Executive. On the flip side, John Kennedy had far less experience in government than his successor Lyndon Johnson, but Kennedy was far more successful in his work; his three years stand to Kennedy’s credit far more than Johnson’s five years do for him, even with all his Senate experience. I would go so far as to point out that Reagan, GWB, and Harry Truman all cut their executive teeth on real-world situations long before they ever did so in political office. The ideal President, therefore, would be a candidate qualified through a proper grounding in Constitutional ideals and a decent knowledge of American History, but with little to no exposure to the surreal political establishment.
Sadly, it appears that it is too late for a regular-guy candidate to show up and save the 2008 Presidential Election, but I wonder if the Blogosphere might be useful in seeking such a candidate for 2012? There are thousands of bloggers who know qualified leaders, whose proven excellence qualifies them for attention to the needs of the nation. It wouldn’t be the first time that people discovered someone better than their party’s nominee after they had locked in the wrong guy, but it could make the difference in where the political parties, and the nation, are taking the rest of us.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
A Presumed Villian and an Inquisition
I do not like Roger Clemens. The guy strikes me as arrogant and full of himself, a selfish person whose first instinct is a mix of narcissism and greed. That is one reason I feel so odd defending him from the slime and slander being heaped by the media and now the Congress of the United States.
To read the newspapers and listen to the radio and television, Roger is apparently a cheat who is lying about using steroids and HGH to keep his edge as a pitcher. If true, that would be a pretty bad thing, I agree, and I cannot absolutely say that Roger did not use steroids or HGH, despite his repeated denials. But the present situation can not be properly described as a search for the truth, nearly so much as it is an obvious railroading of Clemens, simply because he is a big target.
Let’s run the timeline, but keep it simple. Clemens is a long-time veteran of Major League Baseball, starting with his selection by the Boston Red Sox in 1983. Clemens reached the majors in 1984, and won his first Cy Young award in 1986. In 1991, Clemens became (at the time) Baseball’s highest paid player. Clemens won his 200th game in 1997, and claimed his 3,000th strikeout in 1998. On May 22, 1999, Clemens set an AL record with his 18th consecutive victory (spanning two seasons). In 2001, Clemens won 20 or more games for the 5th time. He claimed his 300th victory in 2003. After that, Clemens came to the Astros and was instrumental in helping them go to their first-ever World Series. Clemens’ 1.87 ERA in 2005 was the lowest in the league, and that year he claimed his 4,500th strikeout. In 2007, Clemens claimed his 350th win, this time back with the Yankees.
The first allegations of steroid use by Clemens were made by Jose Canseco, which were followed by incorrect citations that an affadavit by Jason Grimsley implicated Clemens, a claim later proven false by the same judge whose court originally took the affadavit. That affadavit, however, led to charges against former Yankees trainer Brian McNamee. McNamee found himself in a lot of trouble, and soon after made claims against Clemens, for reasons which he claimed involved telling the truth, but which could more reasonably be explained by hopes that producing a bigger fish would reduce his prison sentence. Certainly, the fact that McNamee has lied to authorities before on numerous occasions should caution anyone from taking him at his word.
The Mitchell Report, Congress’ attempt to feel good about itself by ignoring the big problems so it can obsess with things that in no way affect the National Defense, Economy, or Public Welfare, mentioned Clemens 82 times. All of the citations, however, were hearsay or unsupported allegations. Deciding it needed to waste even more taxpayer money and time, Congress held hearings on MLB Steroid use and “invited” Clemens to appear and to testify under oath. This is roughly equivalent to the tender mercies of the Inquisition, which also “invited” defendants to appear before tribunals and unaccountable prosecutors. The last week has been filled with the exploits of men abandoning – yet again – their duties as public servants in order to pursue some personal vendetta or crusade. With one notable exception, however, the siege against Clemens has not changed anything about the known facts: The accusers have made charges, which Clemens denies. The accusers also have a clear motive to lie, but the media has clearly lined up against Clemens, assuming his guilt.
The exception is a creepy but significant piece; McNamee claims to have kept used syringes, bottles, and even bloody gauze which he claims prove Clemens was injected with steroids or HGH. In truth, the impetus of that physical evidence almost certainly cannot be used to prove Clemens’ guilt, but it can be used to prove McNamee is lying. First off, just how does McNamee explain keeping that stuff since 2000 and 2001, as he claims? There is, as Rusty Hardin (Clemen’s lawyer) only one immediate and obvious answer – that McNamee planned to blackmail, perhaps even frame, Roger Clemens. We know from McNamee’s own testimony to police that he had no moral problems with selling and injecting steroids … until he got caught.
Here’s McNamee’s problem: The physical evidence may or may not contain Clemen’s DNA, but even if it does, that does not rule out the strong possibility that McNamee could have tampered with the evidence – he held it for years for what definitely appears to be a hostile motive and bias against Clemens; the normal ‘chain of evidence’ rules would make it inadmissable in any court. But that evidence will far more likely be inconclusive, and may even prove McNamee a bald liar, if there should be DNA other than Clemens’ on the syringes, gauze, or bottles. To me, this looks like McNamee tried too hard to prove how clever he was, and this may well trip him up.
But I am concerned about the whole thing. Clemens may or may not have taken steroids, but the problem I have is how this was handled. Clemens has done a lot of stupid things in his career, but he never failed a drug test, he has never admitted using illegal substances, and no credible witness has ever testified seeing Clemens use illegal substances. Like it or not, there is no evidence that Roger Clemens used steroids or HGH. Yet the prevailing consensus is that he should be presumed guilty, that his career is “tainted”, that he might deserve to be denied the Hall of Fame, not because of what he is known to have done, but because of what he is rumored to have done.
A rumor. No proof, no presumption of innocence until admission or irrefutable evidence, just a whisper campaign started by men known to have broken the law, men who have admitted that they lied and cheated, and perpetuated by men too petty to make sure of the facts (geez, nothing learned from the Duke Lacrosse rape case, huh guys?), men who thought it was better to get a hot story running on a scandal, even if it was a pernicious lie, than to consider the damage such a rumor could cause an innocent man. After all, think about Roger Clemens’ situation for just a moment, and ask yourself, if he’s innocent, if he never used steroids or HGH, how does he prove it? It’s supposed to be a man is presumed innocent, because if he is guilty of something, the accusation can be proven, but even the most innocent man cannot prove a negative. No history of drug use, no admissions in his past, no evidence to speak of or credible unbiased witnesses, and yet the majority believe he is guilty, just because of a rumor. Why don’t people see why that is wrong?
This brings me to Congress. I alluded to the fact that whether or not baseball players have been taking steroids has pretty much zilch to do with the job Congress is supposed to be doing. I am unaware of any Al Qaeda plot involving doping up our pro athletes. Social Security is not imperiled if professional athletes have been using performance-enhancing drugs (PED). That bridge in Minnesota last year did not collapse because a jock stuck himself with a needle. When you get right down to it, Congress has no business sticking its nose in this.
Which reminds me, Congress is always going on about separation of powers, which basically is a rant about how they resent the President doing his job, using powers they wish they could grab for themselves. The hypocrisy of this is apparent as soon as we see someone being sworn in to testify to a Congressional “investigation”. These yahoos sure do like acting like judges, especially since they don’t have to follow the nominal courtroom standards – nothing like “inviting” someone to come speak to Congress, then treating them like a criminal and doing your worst to make them look guilty just for defending themselves from rumors and innuendo, especially if they dare to bring an attorney. “Contempt of Congress” can get you sent to jail, but from what I can see, for any reasonable person familiar with the Constitution and the behavior of these overpaid louts, “Contempt of Congress” merely describes the normal opinion a man of conscience should have of that group of liars and theieves.
Is Roger Clemens guilty of using steroids, HGH, or some other PED? I frankly don’t know, but as much as I dislike the man, I will take his word as sufficient to presume innocence unless and until a court proves otherwise; I will not condone or support a craven liar like McNamee just because the ratings are good for the story. I also find it easy and obvious to conclude that every Congressman involved in this “investigation” is guilty of fraud and malfeasance, as indeed is the natural state of any Congressman.
To read the newspapers and listen to the radio and television, Roger is apparently a cheat who is lying about using steroids and HGH to keep his edge as a pitcher. If true, that would be a pretty bad thing, I agree, and I cannot absolutely say that Roger did not use steroids or HGH, despite his repeated denials. But the present situation can not be properly described as a search for the truth, nearly so much as it is an obvious railroading of Clemens, simply because he is a big target.
Let’s run the timeline, but keep it simple. Clemens is a long-time veteran of Major League Baseball, starting with his selection by the Boston Red Sox in 1983. Clemens reached the majors in 1984, and won his first Cy Young award in 1986. In 1991, Clemens became (at the time) Baseball’s highest paid player. Clemens won his 200th game in 1997, and claimed his 3,000th strikeout in 1998. On May 22, 1999, Clemens set an AL record with his 18th consecutive victory (spanning two seasons). In 2001, Clemens won 20 or more games for the 5th time. He claimed his 300th victory in 2003. After that, Clemens came to the Astros and was instrumental in helping them go to their first-ever World Series. Clemens’ 1.87 ERA in 2005 was the lowest in the league, and that year he claimed his 4,500th strikeout. In 2007, Clemens claimed his 350th win, this time back with the Yankees.
The first allegations of steroid use by Clemens were made by Jose Canseco, which were followed by incorrect citations that an affadavit by Jason Grimsley implicated Clemens, a claim later proven false by the same judge whose court originally took the affadavit. That affadavit, however, led to charges against former Yankees trainer Brian McNamee. McNamee found himself in a lot of trouble, and soon after made claims against Clemens, for reasons which he claimed involved telling the truth, but which could more reasonably be explained by hopes that producing a bigger fish would reduce his prison sentence. Certainly, the fact that McNamee has lied to authorities before on numerous occasions should caution anyone from taking him at his word.
The Mitchell Report, Congress’ attempt to feel good about itself by ignoring the big problems so it can obsess with things that in no way affect the National Defense, Economy, or Public Welfare, mentioned Clemens 82 times. All of the citations, however, were hearsay or unsupported allegations. Deciding it needed to waste even more taxpayer money and time, Congress held hearings on MLB Steroid use and “invited” Clemens to appear and to testify under oath. This is roughly equivalent to the tender mercies of the Inquisition, which also “invited” defendants to appear before tribunals and unaccountable prosecutors. The last week has been filled with the exploits of men abandoning – yet again – their duties as public servants in order to pursue some personal vendetta or crusade. With one notable exception, however, the siege against Clemens has not changed anything about the known facts: The accusers have made charges, which Clemens denies. The accusers also have a clear motive to lie, but the media has clearly lined up against Clemens, assuming his guilt.
The exception is a creepy but significant piece; McNamee claims to have kept used syringes, bottles, and even bloody gauze which he claims prove Clemens was injected with steroids or HGH. In truth, the impetus of that physical evidence almost certainly cannot be used to prove Clemens’ guilt, but it can be used to prove McNamee is lying. First off, just how does McNamee explain keeping that stuff since 2000 and 2001, as he claims? There is, as Rusty Hardin (Clemen’s lawyer) only one immediate and obvious answer – that McNamee planned to blackmail, perhaps even frame, Roger Clemens. We know from McNamee’s own testimony to police that he had no moral problems with selling and injecting steroids … until he got caught.
Here’s McNamee’s problem: The physical evidence may or may not contain Clemen’s DNA, but even if it does, that does not rule out the strong possibility that McNamee could have tampered with the evidence – he held it for years for what definitely appears to be a hostile motive and bias against Clemens; the normal ‘chain of evidence’ rules would make it inadmissable in any court. But that evidence will far more likely be inconclusive, and may even prove McNamee a bald liar, if there should be DNA other than Clemens’ on the syringes, gauze, or bottles. To me, this looks like McNamee tried too hard to prove how clever he was, and this may well trip him up.
But I am concerned about the whole thing. Clemens may or may not have taken steroids, but the problem I have is how this was handled. Clemens has done a lot of stupid things in his career, but he never failed a drug test, he has never admitted using illegal substances, and no credible witness has ever testified seeing Clemens use illegal substances. Like it or not, there is no evidence that Roger Clemens used steroids or HGH. Yet the prevailing consensus is that he should be presumed guilty, that his career is “tainted”, that he might deserve to be denied the Hall of Fame, not because of what he is known to have done, but because of what he is rumored to have done.
A rumor. No proof, no presumption of innocence until admission or irrefutable evidence, just a whisper campaign started by men known to have broken the law, men who have admitted that they lied and cheated, and perpetuated by men too petty to make sure of the facts (geez, nothing learned from the Duke Lacrosse rape case, huh guys?), men who thought it was better to get a hot story running on a scandal, even if it was a pernicious lie, than to consider the damage such a rumor could cause an innocent man. After all, think about Roger Clemens’ situation for just a moment, and ask yourself, if he’s innocent, if he never used steroids or HGH, how does he prove it? It’s supposed to be a man is presumed innocent, because if he is guilty of something, the accusation can be proven, but even the most innocent man cannot prove a negative. No history of drug use, no admissions in his past, no evidence to speak of or credible unbiased witnesses, and yet the majority believe he is guilty, just because of a rumor. Why don’t people see why that is wrong?
This brings me to Congress. I alluded to the fact that whether or not baseball players have been taking steroids has pretty much zilch to do with the job Congress is supposed to be doing. I am unaware of any Al Qaeda plot involving doping up our pro athletes. Social Security is not imperiled if professional athletes have been using performance-enhancing drugs (PED). That bridge in Minnesota last year did not collapse because a jock stuck himself with a needle. When you get right down to it, Congress has no business sticking its nose in this.
Which reminds me, Congress is always going on about separation of powers, which basically is a rant about how they resent the President doing his job, using powers they wish they could grab for themselves. The hypocrisy of this is apparent as soon as we see someone being sworn in to testify to a Congressional “investigation”. These yahoos sure do like acting like judges, especially since they don’t have to follow the nominal courtroom standards – nothing like “inviting” someone to come speak to Congress, then treating them like a criminal and doing your worst to make them look guilty just for defending themselves from rumors and innuendo, especially if they dare to bring an attorney. “Contempt of Congress” can get you sent to jail, but from what I can see, for any reasonable person familiar with the Constitution and the behavior of these overpaid louts, “Contempt of Congress” merely describes the normal opinion a man of conscience should have of that group of liars and theieves.
Is Roger Clemens guilty of using steroids, HGH, or some other PED? I frankly don’t know, but as much as I dislike the man, I will take his word as sufficient to presume innocence unless and until a court proves otherwise; I will not condone or support a craven liar like McNamee just because the ratings are good for the story. I also find it easy and obvious to conclude that every Congressman involved in this “investigation” is guilty of fraud and malfeasance, as indeed is the natural state of any Congressman.
Monday, February 11, 2008
My Dog for President
In discussions surrounding the strong odds that John McCain will claim the Republican nomination for President, more than a few people have assumed that because I have not trashed his reputation and questioned his patriotism, that I am a supporter of McCain for President.
That assumption is not correct.
Texas will hold its Primary on March 4, 2008. At this time, I am not sure for whom I will be voting, much less whether I am ready to actively campaign for anyone still on the ticket. For the record, my present Top 10 ranking of candidates for my vote for President of the United States would be as follows:
1. Condoleezza Rice (most qualified, but refused to run)
2. Fred Thompson (speaks well, but refused to take the race seriously)
3. Jeb Bush (competent, articulate, conservative, but no one wants 3 Bushes in 4 Administrations)
4. My wife (qualified and eminently sensible, but she won’t run)
5. Me (no worse than any of the front-runners on any count)
6. My primary dog, Bingo (the cutest and smartest Collie since Lassie)
7. My back-up dog, Cody (Black Lab, is loyal, beautiful, and a talented comedian to boot)
8. Dick Cheney (the effect on Democrats alone would be worth the vote)
9. Ronald Reagan (if you’re going to send a message, noting that a dead conservative is better than a fake one should be clear)
10. Bruce Willis (probably the toughest real Republican still active)
Having said that, I am willing to consider voting for John McCain or Mike Huckabee, provided one of them can earn my vote. While I am not one of those screaming extremists who would pretend that a Democrat in the White House is anything but a catastrophe and a direct threat to the ideals of America, neither do I forget the offenses of McCain and Huckabee, offenses not to my sensibility but to my common sense.
John McCain will not get my vote if his main claim is that he is the most ‘electable’ candidate. That was the Democrats’ strategy in 2004, to select a buffoon because they thought he would perform well in the General Election. It also occurs to me that John McCain supported John Kerry many times in 2004, a troubling behavior in a purported Republican, let alone a self-proclaimed Conservative. You need to explain why you chose the wrong side in 2004, Senator McCain.
John McCain needs to explain why he felt a hand-picked group in a back room should make decisions on judicial appointments, rather than let the Senate do its job. John McCain needs to explain, clearly, what justices he would nominate to the Supreme Court, and on what merits. And he needs to apologize, in public to Pickering, Estrada, Owens, and the others he trashed in the name of expediency and political advantage. John McCain needs to apologize for and fully repudiate McCain-Feingold. These are the starting points, not trivial details. I and other Conservatives have a right to demand bonafides from McCain, while he had no right to demand anything just because he enjoys the delegate lead right now.
As for Mike Huckabee, he too must answer questions. I am a fundamentalist Christian, which sometimes makes it difficult to speak to people of other beliefs. Too often self-proclaimed leaders of my faith engage in unchristian behavior, even in the name of their religion, and in so doing attack peace and respect rather than build on love for their fellow man. I would ask Huckabee to explain why he brought up his religion in such a self-serving way; it diminishes his credibility and my sense of his integrity, rather than increasing it. I would ask Huckabee to explain why, I he wants to be the Republican nominee, he insulted and attacked the Republican President’s foreign policy and the War in Iraq, especially when Huckabee’s demonstrated lack of comprehension in that area is so dismal. I want Huckabee to explain hwo he would sell the Fair Tax to Congress, and what he will do when they kill the bill on arrival. I want Huckabee to explain his tax hikes as Governor; raising the sales tax in 1996, supporting an Internet sales tax in 2001, and raising taxes on nursing home patients in 2001. How does this make him a ‘conservative’? The Cato Institute does not grade Huckabee a conservative, so where are his credentials? We Conservatives are outraged by spending; it’s one of the few areas where I disagree with President Bush. But Huckabee’s record as Governor included a 65% increase in state spending. How does that make him qualified to write the Federal budget? As Governor, Huckabee supported a higher minimum wage, and demanded ‘price-gouging’ investigations of oil companies. Huckabee’s credentials are in serious doubt, and I for one expect better answers from him if he wants my vote.
I had not previously mentioned Ron Paul. It is difficult to address just how far from rational his positions are, without giving them far more attention than they deserve. In short, however, his views on National Security show he is more in line with Michael Moore than Bill Roggio, his sense of the War in Iraq shows he is more in tune with Alec Baldwin than General Petraeus, and his views on the Economy show he is far more aligned with Karl Marx than Milton Friedman. At best, Congressman Ron Paul is sadly uneducated and misguided. At worst, he is dangerously unbalanced.
I said in earlier posts, that I think people should be aware of the likely consequences of their actions. I realize that even if I vote for McCain or Huckabee this fall, they may lose if I do not also actively campaign for them, that an unenthused vote may be of little value. Then again, I have also said clearly, that a candidate bears the weight of his campaign’s success or failure, that no one owes their vote to anyone. And as far as the Primary goes, right now writing in a vote for my dog looks like my most rational course. Mr. McCain and Mr. Huckabee are welcome, of course, to make a better case than they have so far.
That assumption is not correct.
Texas will hold its Primary on March 4, 2008. At this time, I am not sure for whom I will be voting, much less whether I am ready to actively campaign for anyone still on the ticket. For the record, my present Top 10 ranking of candidates for my vote for President of the United States would be as follows:
1. Condoleezza Rice (most qualified, but refused to run)
2. Fred Thompson (speaks well, but refused to take the race seriously)
3. Jeb Bush (competent, articulate, conservative, but no one wants 3 Bushes in 4 Administrations)
4. My wife (qualified and eminently sensible, but she won’t run)
5. Me (no worse than any of the front-runners on any count)
6. My primary dog, Bingo (the cutest and smartest Collie since Lassie)
7. My back-up dog, Cody (Black Lab, is loyal, beautiful, and a talented comedian to boot)
8. Dick Cheney (the effect on Democrats alone would be worth the vote)
9. Ronald Reagan (if you’re going to send a message, noting that a dead conservative is better than a fake one should be clear)
10. Bruce Willis (probably the toughest real Republican still active)
Having said that, I am willing to consider voting for John McCain or Mike Huckabee, provided one of them can earn my vote. While I am not one of those screaming extremists who would pretend that a Democrat in the White House is anything but a catastrophe and a direct threat to the ideals of America, neither do I forget the offenses of McCain and Huckabee, offenses not to my sensibility but to my common sense.
John McCain will not get my vote if his main claim is that he is the most ‘electable’ candidate. That was the Democrats’ strategy in 2004, to select a buffoon because they thought he would perform well in the General Election. It also occurs to me that John McCain supported John Kerry many times in 2004, a troubling behavior in a purported Republican, let alone a self-proclaimed Conservative. You need to explain why you chose the wrong side in 2004, Senator McCain.
John McCain needs to explain why he felt a hand-picked group in a back room should make decisions on judicial appointments, rather than let the Senate do its job. John McCain needs to explain, clearly, what justices he would nominate to the Supreme Court, and on what merits. And he needs to apologize, in public to Pickering, Estrada, Owens, and the others he trashed in the name of expediency and political advantage. John McCain needs to apologize for and fully repudiate McCain-Feingold. These are the starting points, not trivial details. I and other Conservatives have a right to demand bonafides from McCain, while he had no right to demand anything just because he enjoys the delegate lead right now.
As for Mike Huckabee, he too must answer questions. I am a fundamentalist Christian, which sometimes makes it difficult to speak to people of other beliefs. Too often self-proclaimed leaders of my faith engage in unchristian behavior, even in the name of their religion, and in so doing attack peace and respect rather than build on love for their fellow man. I would ask Huckabee to explain why he brought up his religion in such a self-serving way; it diminishes his credibility and my sense of his integrity, rather than increasing it. I would ask Huckabee to explain why, I he wants to be the Republican nominee, he insulted and attacked the Republican President’s foreign policy and the War in Iraq, especially when Huckabee’s demonstrated lack of comprehension in that area is so dismal. I want Huckabee to explain hwo he would sell the Fair Tax to Congress, and what he will do when they kill the bill on arrival. I want Huckabee to explain his tax hikes as Governor; raising the sales tax in 1996, supporting an Internet sales tax in 2001, and raising taxes on nursing home patients in 2001. How does this make him a ‘conservative’? The Cato Institute does not grade Huckabee a conservative, so where are his credentials? We Conservatives are outraged by spending; it’s one of the few areas where I disagree with President Bush. But Huckabee’s record as Governor included a 65% increase in state spending. How does that make him qualified to write the Federal budget? As Governor, Huckabee supported a higher minimum wage, and demanded ‘price-gouging’ investigations of oil companies. Huckabee’s credentials are in serious doubt, and I for one expect better answers from him if he wants my vote.
I had not previously mentioned Ron Paul. It is difficult to address just how far from rational his positions are, without giving them far more attention than they deserve. In short, however, his views on National Security show he is more in line with Michael Moore than Bill Roggio, his sense of the War in Iraq shows he is more in tune with Alec Baldwin than General Petraeus, and his views on the Economy show he is far more aligned with Karl Marx than Milton Friedman. At best, Congressman Ron Paul is sadly uneducated and misguided. At worst, he is dangerously unbalanced.
I said in earlier posts, that I think people should be aware of the likely consequences of their actions. I realize that even if I vote for McCain or Huckabee this fall, they may lose if I do not also actively campaign for them, that an unenthused vote may be of little value. Then again, I have also said clearly, that a candidate bears the weight of his campaign’s success or failure, that no one owes their vote to anyone. And as far as the Primary goes, right now writing in a vote for my dog looks like my most rational course. Mr. McCain and Mr. Huckabee are welcome, of course, to make a better case than they have so far.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Hard Choices
With apologies to Governor Huckabee and Congressman Paul, the GOP race is effectively over, and Senator John “Maverick” McCain is all but sure to claim the Republican party's nomination for President of the United States. This news has provoked a range of responses, and created a condition for all the major players which, at the very least, means a set of hard choices for us all.
First, the hard-line Right. I consider myself as strong a Conservative as anyone I know, and frankly I have no great desire to see John McCain in the White House, but I have to say I am appalled by some of the statements made by even leading Conservatives. Ann Coulter’s claim that she will actively support the Democrats’ nominee out of spite against McCain, is a poor decision on many counts, including comprehension of the difference between even the weakest Republican President and any potential Democrat in the office, as well as simple ideals of the party. Conservatives are bitterly disappointed, and with cause, that the party they worked so hard to build has denied them an effectively Conservative representative in this election cycle. There was no Reagan in this race, not even a Bush. There were people who said the right things, but they never caught on, and the men who won the early primaries were none of them quite what Conservatives wanted. As a result, Conservatives must now choose between a man with whom they have strong differences, a party which threatens massive damage to the country should it claim control of the White House and Congress at the same time, and sitting out the election and hoping for the best. I don’t think any of the three choices will sit well with Conservatives.
Next, Senators Clinton and Obama. You might not think they would have much to worry about, but indeed they do. You see, before Super Tuesday both parties had an all-out tussle going, and while McCain had the lead, if Romney or Huckabee had a big day on Feb. 5 then things would be back to total chaos, while Clinton and Obama each hoped to pull cleanly away from their rival. Instead, the opposite happened – the GOP race is pretty much decided, while the Democrats are neck and neck, and they have some sharp disagreements on their record. At the very least, the Democrat candidates will each have to spend a lot of energy and resources trying to win the party nomination, while McCain can begin his general campaign right now. Clinton and Obama will each maintain something of a negative campaign, while McCain can build up name recognition with the undecided voter as a positive force, memories of his own negative tactics fading as he moves ahead. Figuring out how to beat your party opponent and McCain from the Republicans at the same time, will be unquestionably be problematic for both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama.
Then there are Senator McCain’s own hard choices. McCain won the commanding lead he has, through courting the independent-minded and socially liberal Republicans and middle-ground voters, which may provide some help in the general election for him. But no Republican candidate can win the White House without making sure his party is solidly behind him. And that party support depends heavily on Conservative support. In 1988, almost all Conservatives supported G.H.W. Bush, and he cleared 53% of the Popular Vote, the last Presidential candidate to do so well. In 1992, almost no Conservatives supported “Poppy” Bush, and he barely cleared 37% of the Popular Vote. In 2000, Conservatives were lukewarm to George W. Bush, and he only barely won through a popular minority and Electoral majority. But in 2004, Conservatives poured support on for Dubya, and he cleared 51% of the Popular Vote. Having or not having the support of the Conservatives can therefore be said to mean at least 6% in the Popular Vote margin, and possibly double that. It is obvious that McCain cannot win without the Conservatives behind him, but if he chases the Conservatives, he may lose those social Liberals who would not already have chosen to support Obama or Hillary.
Also, it may be too late for McCain to decide he needs the Conservatives’ support. The war between McCain and Conservatives is not the result of one issue or one incident – John McCain went out of his way, well out of his way in some cases, to make enemies of Conservatives and to attack them, in some cases completely without cause. It’s not just McCain’s vote on some issues as the way he discussed them in public, viciously denouncing Conservatives time and time again. McCain also acted in a narcissistic manner on a regular basis, not merely supporting but leading a movement to deny Senate committee votes to judicial nominees, to prohibit support for public debate just before elections, and in regularly defying his Senate Majority Leader, GOP leadership, and even tossed off regular snipes at President Bush, displaying a petulance and temper ill-suited to a would-be head of state. McCain did not merely burn some bridges, he cratered the landscape around the wreckage, salted the ground and disparaged all efforts to commend him to a more gracious behavior. Just how Senator McCain will be able to construct a unified party in time to win the General Election seems at the moment to be beyond the scope of feasibility.
Conservative bloggers and pundits also have hard choices to make. Posting articles which tear down McCain may be factually accurate and idealistically suitable, but this could help the Democrats, which is universally a bad idea. Supporting McCain without pointing out the areas where he is well out of bounds, however, would be unethical and only encourage his arrogance and false assumptions – anyone want to bet that the Democrats are not ready to go after every one of McCain’s many weak spots? Bloggers also need to keep their emotions in check. Ann Coulter’s little hissy-fit about supporting a Democrat will do no good for the Conservative Movement, especially if some of her readers get the idea that voting Hillary or Obama would be any wiser than dousing yourself with gasoline, lighting up a stogie and tap-dancing through a minefield. Set a better example please, Ms. Coulter. Just as Dan Rather’s criminal attempt to influence the 2004 election with forged documents was unacceptable, those people who are fortunate enough to have a large following must be reminded that they are accountable for the course they counsel their people to follow. While it is true that Conservatives are not lockstep robots, it remains a penultimate sin for an icon to forget that he or she does influence millions of people. This makes the choices weighty, but we must in any case be aware of that fact.
First, the hard-line Right. I consider myself as strong a Conservative as anyone I know, and frankly I have no great desire to see John McCain in the White House, but I have to say I am appalled by some of the statements made by even leading Conservatives. Ann Coulter’s claim that she will actively support the Democrats’ nominee out of spite against McCain, is a poor decision on many counts, including comprehension of the difference between even the weakest Republican President and any potential Democrat in the office, as well as simple ideals of the party. Conservatives are bitterly disappointed, and with cause, that the party they worked so hard to build has denied them an effectively Conservative representative in this election cycle. There was no Reagan in this race, not even a Bush. There were people who said the right things, but they never caught on, and the men who won the early primaries were none of them quite what Conservatives wanted. As a result, Conservatives must now choose between a man with whom they have strong differences, a party which threatens massive damage to the country should it claim control of the White House and Congress at the same time, and sitting out the election and hoping for the best. I don’t think any of the three choices will sit well with Conservatives.
Next, Senators Clinton and Obama. You might not think they would have much to worry about, but indeed they do. You see, before Super Tuesday both parties had an all-out tussle going, and while McCain had the lead, if Romney or Huckabee had a big day on Feb. 5 then things would be back to total chaos, while Clinton and Obama each hoped to pull cleanly away from their rival. Instead, the opposite happened – the GOP race is pretty much decided, while the Democrats are neck and neck, and they have some sharp disagreements on their record. At the very least, the Democrat candidates will each have to spend a lot of energy and resources trying to win the party nomination, while McCain can begin his general campaign right now. Clinton and Obama will each maintain something of a negative campaign, while McCain can build up name recognition with the undecided voter as a positive force, memories of his own negative tactics fading as he moves ahead. Figuring out how to beat your party opponent and McCain from the Republicans at the same time, will be unquestionably be problematic for both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama.
Then there are Senator McCain’s own hard choices. McCain won the commanding lead he has, through courting the independent-minded and socially liberal Republicans and middle-ground voters, which may provide some help in the general election for him. But no Republican candidate can win the White House without making sure his party is solidly behind him. And that party support depends heavily on Conservative support. In 1988, almost all Conservatives supported G.H.W. Bush, and he cleared 53% of the Popular Vote, the last Presidential candidate to do so well. In 1992, almost no Conservatives supported “Poppy” Bush, and he barely cleared 37% of the Popular Vote. In 2000, Conservatives were lukewarm to George W. Bush, and he only barely won through a popular minority and Electoral majority. But in 2004, Conservatives poured support on for Dubya, and he cleared 51% of the Popular Vote. Having or not having the support of the Conservatives can therefore be said to mean at least 6% in the Popular Vote margin, and possibly double that. It is obvious that McCain cannot win without the Conservatives behind him, but if he chases the Conservatives, he may lose those social Liberals who would not already have chosen to support Obama or Hillary.
Also, it may be too late for McCain to decide he needs the Conservatives’ support. The war between McCain and Conservatives is not the result of one issue or one incident – John McCain went out of his way, well out of his way in some cases, to make enemies of Conservatives and to attack them, in some cases completely without cause. It’s not just McCain’s vote on some issues as the way he discussed them in public, viciously denouncing Conservatives time and time again. McCain also acted in a narcissistic manner on a regular basis, not merely supporting but leading a movement to deny Senate committee votes to judicial nominees, to prohibit support for public debate just before elections, and in regularly defying his Senate Majority Leader, GOP leadership, and even tossed off regular snipes at President Bush, displaying a petulance and temper ill-suited to a would-be head of state. McCain did not merely burn some bridges, he cratered the landscape around the wreckage, salted the ground and disparaged all efforts to commend him to a more gracious behavior. Just how Senator McCain will be able to construct a unified party in time to win the General Election seems at the moment to be beyond the scope of feasibility.
Conservative bloggers and pundits also have hard choices to make. Posting articles which tear down McCain may be factually accurate and idealistically suitable, but this could help the Democrats, which is universally a bad idea. Supporting McCain without pointing out the areas where he is well out of bounds, however, would be unethical and only encourage his arrogance and false assumptions – anyone want to bet that the Democrats are not ready to go after every one of McCain’s many weak spots? Bloggers also need to keep their emotions in check. Ann Coulter’s little hissy-fit about supporting a Democrat will do no good for the Conservative Movement, especially if some of her readers get the idea that voting Hillary or Obama would be any wiser than dousing yourself with gasoline, lighting up a stogie and tap-dancing through a minefield. Set a better example please, Ms. Coulter. Just as Dan Rather’s criminal attempt to influence the 2004 election with forged documents was unacceptable, those people who are fortunate enough to have a large following must be reminded that they are accountable for the course they counsel their people to follow. While it is true that Conservatives are not lockstep robots, it remains a penultimate sin for an icon to forget that he or she does influence millions of people. This makes the choices weighty, but we must in any case be aware of that fact.
Year of the Rat
In the traditional Asian calendar, there are twelve lunar years, in fashion similar to the Western zodiac of lunar months. Each of the years is assigned an animal, and people born in that year are said to carry the traits of that year’s animal. 2008 is the Year of the Rat. For Asians, the symbolic rat is charming and clever, has lots of friends and often a lot of money as well. The more I think about it, that fits the United States political scene just now. Certainly it is very easy to imagine any of the remaining major contenders for President as rattish in their character and behavior.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
The Un-Holidays
It’s a week away. Valentine’s Day, a day best known for overpriced guilt trips and mob killings, and about as sincere as a John McCain tribute to President Reagan. We celebrate the real holidays for a variety of solid reasons, but Valentine’s Day stands out for its hypocrisy and mercenary character. We celebrate religious holidays because of our faith, and national holidays to remember veterans and great leaders, but somewhere along the way other ‘holidays’ got mixed in, fake ones which do nothing to celebrate or improve the character of our nation. There’s St. Patrick’s Day, a day best known for promoting the assumption that the Irish are drunks who like to wear green clothing. There’s April Fool’s Day, based on the premise that deceitful behavior and insulting gestures should be universally practiced and praised. There’s Cinco de Mayo, originally a very good celebration by Mexicans who recall the May 5 1862 victory of Mexican forces over France in the Battle of Puebla, which effectively confirmed Mexico’s freedom from foreign occupation, but which has in modern times become a celebration of beer and bad music. To that point, a number of American holidays have gone the same way, such as the many people who celebrate Memorial Day and Veteran’s Day without once visiting a veteran or a cemetary of those who died for our country. There is Groundhog Day, where millions of people take time out to respect the observational skills of a fat rodent, on the assumption that his behavior should direct their meteorological expectations. There is Earth Day, where millions of environmentally sensitive people take the opportunity to shout obscene-laced screeds at people who have been successful in their careers, and leave piles of refuse at their fairs and concerts, polluting the area far more heavily than usual in a gesture somehow meant to convey moral superiority. There is Arbor Day, which is largely ignored by people not really, really desperate for a reason to have a holiday, and on which day the original purpose (planting trees) is almost never remembered, much less performed. There is Labor Day, which is honored by new and bolder Union demands and by retail shopping sprees. There is United Nations Day (Oct. 24), which celebrates the defeat of the civilized world to the bureaucrats and the mandarins. And of course, there is also Halloween, a day created by costume supply stores and dentists and people who wish to defame Wiccans.
But for some reason Valentine’s Day seems the worst to me. A day controlled by the International Chocolate, Snotty Restaurant, and Jewelry Cartel, the day seems designed to play on all the worst human traits. Women get greedy for over-priced shiny rocks, men start dwelling on the (generally futile) hope that buying a negligee for $250 will lead to sex, and anyone who spends less than a week’s pay on the day is considered some kind of skinflint. Valentine’s Day is worse than the other holidays, because even from Elementary school you are expected to play along, enduring a day of Pink and Violet pastel hell where women demand equal rights, but also complete devotion and a set of luxurious amusements. Everything about Valentine’s Day is sexist and mercenary, but all to the benefit of the female. God help the man who fails the least whim of his paramour, let alone a man who wonders when it might be his turn to receive such extravagant and hedonist delights. As we all know well, men are never on the receiving end of such arrangements, except in certain sitcoms and professional athletes and musicians. Life imitates High School. That alone is reason to hate V-Day.
But for some reason Valentine’s Day seems the worst to me. A day controlled by the International Chocolate, Snotty Restaurant, and Jewelry Cartel, the day seems designed to play on all the worst human traits. Women get greedy for over-priced shiny rocks, men start dwelling on the (generally futile) hope that buying a negligee for $250 will lead to sex, and anyone who spends less than a week’s pay on the day is considered some kind of skinflint. Valentine’s Day is worse than the other holidays, because even from Elementary school you are expected to play along, enduring a day of Pink and Violet pastel hell where women demand equal rights, but also complete devotion and a set of luxurious amusements. Everything about Valentine’s Day is sexist and mercenary, but all to the benefit of the female. God help the man who fails the least whim of his paramour, let alone a man who wonders when it might be his turn to receive such extravagant and hedonist delights. As we all know well, men are never on the receiving end of such arrangements, except in certain sitcoms and professional athletes and musicians. Life imitates High School. That alone is reason to hate V-Day.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
The Stakes
It is well-known from my posts, that I do not support the candidacy of Senator John McCain for President of the United States. Other people have equally strong reasons for their dislike of Governor Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, or Congressman Ron Paul. Still others hope against hope that their chosen leader will yet join or rejoin the contest, such as those who say they will write in former Senator Fred Thompson’s name in their primary. Opinions, and emotions, have been strong among Republicans. To a point, this is all to the good, as such debate sharpens understanding of what our party stands for, and why. We will not choose a Republican version of John Kerry, just because someone has declared that he is the ‘most electable’. But that virtue only works to a point.
I believe that after today, the contest will still be in dispute, though someone will win the most of the contests decided on February 5. But it is entirely possible that McCain will dominate the primaries so strongly as to make it near-certain that he will win the nomination, or that Romney’s surge over the weekend will spur him on to a stunning advantage, or perhaps even Huckabee will produce a surprise as he did in Iowa. Regardless, after today Republicans will have to begin to come to grips with the coalescing of the ticket. There will be sharp disagreement on certain key issues, which simply cannot be glossed over, yet we must never, never forget that Hillary or Obama in the White House will certainly be worse than anything we would see from a Republican President. Whether or not we get a candidate who excites us, the lessons of 1976 and 1992 warn us that we cannot risk a Democrat in the White House, given the candidates they put up on their ticket.
The problem is, the Republican candidate – no matter whom he is – does not have the automatic right to support from the people who disapprove of him and disagree with his policies. All of the candidates still in the race on the Republican side have made statements to the effect that they are the most Reagan-like of the candidates. They should remember 1980, when Reagan took care to address the concerns of all Republicans, and to give fair hearing even to those opinions he did not share. Wheather McCain, Romney, or Huckabee, the candidate who wins the nomination must understand that double-talk or arrogance will not win over the Republicans not already on board, that no matter who wins the nomination they have a lot of work to do to mend fences, and that healing the divide in the party must be the top priority between winning the nomination and beginning the general campaign. Taking party support for granted only insures defeat, and the hardest truth is that no matter how much America needs a Republican President, the Republican candidate cannot win the White House simply by claiming the race is over and the party owes support to him, or by ignoring valid criticism and complaint. No one will be compelled to put away discontent or doubt of a candidate they did not support, so Reason alone may hope to settle the dispute. The party nominee, whomever he is, must be bold enough to stand against the Democrats’ onslaught of attacks and slime, yet must also be humble and open to the concerns of his whole party.
I believe that after today, the contest will still be in dispute, though someone will win the most of the contests decided on February 5. But it is entirely possible that McCain will dominate the primaries so strongly as to make it near-certain that he will win the nomination, or that Romney’s surge over the weekend will spur him on to a stunning advantage, or perhaps even Huckabee will produce a surprise as he did in Iowa. Regardless, after today Republicans will have to begin to come to grips with the coalescing of the ticket. There will be sharp disagreement on certain key issues, which simply cannot be glossed over, yet we must never, never forget that Hillary or Obama in the White House will certainly be worse than anything we would see from a Republican President. Whether or not we get a candidate who excites us, the lessons of 1976 and 1992 warn us that we cannot risk a Democrat in the White House, given the candidates they put up on their ticket.
The problem is, the Republican candidate – no matter whom he is – does not have the automatic right to support from the people who disapprove of him and disagree with his policies. All of the candidates still in the race on the Republican side have made statements to the effect that they are the most Reagan-like of the candidates. They should remember 1980, when Reagan took care to address the concerns of all Republicans, and to give fair hearing even to those opinions he did not share. Wheather McCain, Romney, or Huckabee, the candidate who wins the nomination must understand that double-talk or arrogance will not win over the Republicans not already on board, that no matter who wins the nomination they have a lot of work to do to mend fences, and that healing the divide in the party must be the top priority between winning the nomination and beginning the general campaign. Taking party support for granted only insures defeat, and the hardest truth is that no matter how much America needs a Republican President, the Republican candidate cannot win the White House simply by claiming the race is over and the party owes support to him, or by ignoring valid criticism and complaint. No one will be compelled to put away discontent or doubt of a candidate they did not support, so Reason alone may hope to settle the dispute. The party nominee, whomever he is, must be bold enough to stand against the Democrats’ onslaught of attacks and slime, yet must also be humble and open to the concerns of his whole party.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Government Spending Priorities
One thing that has puzzled me about Republicans in the last few years, has been spending. Like tax reform, we hear so much about how it’s got to change, yet little seems to change. But I also understand that to know how to solve a problem, you have to get a handle on the problem. So, I took a look to see where we’ve been spending money.
It’s interesting. Here’s a summary by Administration on what areas got money in the budgets. Because inflation is a factor to consider, I represent the numbers as percentage of the total budget, and show the categories which claimed 1% or more of the budget:
FDR (1940-45)
National Defense 70.8%
Physical Resources 5.8%
Human Resources 4.9%
Transportation 3.5%
International Affairs 1.6%
Social Services 1.4%
Environment 1.2%
Agriculture 1.2%
Truman (1946-52)
National Defense 37.3%
Human Resources 16.9%
Veterans Benefits 9.6%
International Affairs 6.8%
Physical Resources 4.4%
Transportation 1.8%
Environment 1.6%
General Government 1.6%
Social Security 1.5%
Agriculture 1.2%
Eisenhower (1953-60)
National Defense 43.9%
Human Resources 17.2%
Social Security 6.1%
Veterans Benefits 4.7%
Physical Resources 4.4%
Agriculture 2.7%
International Affairs 2.4%
Transportation 2.0%
Environment 1.1%
Kennedy (1961-63)
National Defense 33.4%
Human Resources 20.4%
Social Security 9.2%
Physical Resources 5.3%
Veterans Benefits 3.6%
International Affairs 3.0%
Transportation 2.8%
Agriculture 2.3%
Environment 1.3%
Science & Technology 1.2%
Johnson (1964-68)
National Defense 29.6%
Human Resources 21.1%
Social Security 9.4%
Physical Resources 6.1%
Veterans Benefits 2.9%
Transportation 2.7%
Science & Technology 2.7%
International Affairs 2.5%
Social Services 2.1%
Agriculture 1.7%
Environment 1.3%
Health 1.3%
Housing 1.2%
Nixon (1969-74)
Human Resources 28.0%
National Defense 22.4%
Social Security 11.2%
Physical Resources 5.2%
Social Services 3.0%
Veterans Benefits 2.9%
Transportation 2.3%
Health 2.2%
Medicare 2.0%
General Government 1.4%
Agriculture 1.3%
International Affairs 1.3%
Environment 1.2%
Energy 1.2%
Science & Technology 1.2%
Ford (1975-76)
Human Resources 31.7%
National Defense 14.8%
Social Security 11.7%
Physical Resources 6.3%
Veterans Benefits 2.9%
Social Services 2.9%
Health 2.4%
Medicare 2.4%
Transportation 2.1%
General Government 1.7%
Housing 1.5%
Environment 1.3%
International Affairs 1.1%
Carter (1977-80)
Human Resources 31.8%
National Defense 13.7%
Social Security 12.2%
Physical Resources 6.5%
Social Services 3.3%
Medicare 3.1%
Veterans Benefits 2.4%
Health 2.4%
Transportation 2.1%
General Government 1.5%
Environment 1.4%
Agriculture 1.2%
Community Development 1.2%
International Affairs 1.0%
Energy 1.0%
Reagan (1981-88)
Human Resources 32.7%
National Defense 17.1%
Social Security 13.3%
Medicare 4.4%
Physical Resources 4.4%
Health 2.4%
Social Services 2.1%
Veterans Benefits 1.9%
Transportation 1.8%
Agriculture 1.5%
Environment 1.0%
International Affairs 1.0%
G.H. Bush (1989-92)
Human Resources 33.8%
National Defense 15.0%
Social Security 13.2%
Physical Resources 5.3%
Medicare 5.2%
Health 3.4%
Housing 2.4%
Social Services 2.0%
Veterans Benefits 1.6%
Transportation 1.5%
Clinton (1993-2000)
Human Resources 38.5%
Social Security 14.1%
National Defense 11.0%
Medicare 6.8%
Health 4.9%
Physical Resources 2.7%
Social Services 1.9%
Veterans Benefits 1.6%
Transportation 1.6%
George W. Bush (2001-08)
Human Resources 38.0%
Social Security 12.8%
National Defense 11.4%
Physical Resources 3.1%
Medicare 7.3%
Health 5.8%
Social Services 2.2%
Veterans Benefits 1.6%
Transportation 1.7%
Justice Administration 1.0%
The key signals I see in these numbers are the biggest numbers, and what gets moved up and down as the years pass. “Human Resources” is just your basic government operating costs; cute, isn’t it, how the Federal Budget separates “General Government” from the cost of all those people, buildings, supplies and so on that make up the real cost of all those bureaucrats? The percentage of ‘HR’ of the total budget rises from 4.9% of the budget under FDR, all the way to 38.5% under Clinton. It is worth mentioning, that the only President in this track who reduced the proportion of ‘HR’ to the total budget, is George W. Bush, although it’s still an unsightly 38.0% of his budget. Also, you should look at Social Security and Medicare, which combined for less than 1 percent of FDR’s federal budget, but which increased every term on until it reached 20.1% of the federal budget under George W. Bush. Bear in mind that the President does not have control of the SSI and Medicare Budgets; only Congress can scale them back, and no Congress in memory has been in such a mood. Granted, Bush bears responsibility for the Prescription drug benefit package, but that may be balanced by his efforts to reform Social Security. On both ends of that point, it should be noted that Congress had the final say, and Congress clearly ignored its duty. Counting in the areas where the President has no or little control then (Human Resources, Physical Resources, Social Security and Medicare), we see that where FDR could address roughly 79.7% of the budget under his control, by the time we get to George W. Bush, he can only control about 23.7% of the budget. In real terms, this means that if a President wants to add resources to a priority goal, he has no choice but to increase the budget to do it.
It’s also interesting to see what got changed from President to President. Truman slashed military spending, but invested heavily in veteran benefits and the State Department. Eisenhower poured more money into Defense, but he also spent money on Agriculture. Kennedy focused on Science and diplomats, while LBJ built NASA and pursued his Great Society. Nixon focused on treaty organizations and government oversight of business and the environment, very much like McCain wants to do now. Ford slashed defense spending and focused on domestic issues, largely abandoning overseas initiatives which posed any apparent risk, much as Ron Paul says he would do. Carter spent more on researching alternative energy, and less on foreign commitments. Reagan did the opposite, rebuilding Defense and expanding U.S. interests abroad, while scaling back domestic government actions. G.H. Bush followed Reagan’s lead in spending, though he spent less on Defense. Clinton cut Defense to its smallest share of the budget since before World War 2, and spent more on infrastructure programs and health research. And George W. Bush renewed investments in Defense and trade agreements.
It’s interesting. Here’s a summary by Administration on what areas got money in the budgets. Because inflation is a factor to consider, I represent the numbers as percentage of the total budget, and show the categories which claimed 1% or more of the budget:
FDR (1940-45)
National Defense 70.8%
Physical Resources 5.8%
Human Resources 4.9%
Transportation 3.5%
International Affairs 1.6%
Social Services 1.4%
Environment 1.2%
Agriculture 1.2%
Truman (1946-52)
National Defense 37.3%
Human Resources 16.9%
Veterans Benefits 9.6%
International Affairs 6.8%
Physical Resources 4.4%
Transportation 1.8%
Environment 1.6%
General Government 1.6%
Social Security 1.5%
Agriculture 1.2%
Eisenhower (1953-60)
National Defense 43.9%
Human Resources 17.2%
Social Security 6.1%
Veterans Benefits 4.7%
Physical Resources 4.4%
Agriculture 2.7%
International Affairs 2.4%
Transportation 2.0%
Environment 1.1%
Kennedy (1961-63)
National Defense 33.4%
Human Resources 20.4%
Social Security 9.2%
Physical Resources 5.3%
Veterans Benefits 3.6%
International Affairs 3.0%
Transportation 2.8%
Agriculture 2.3%
Environment 1.3%
Science & Technology 1.2%
Johnson (1964-68)
National Defense 29.6%
Human Resources 21.1%
Social Security 9.4%
Physical Resources 6.1%
Veterans Benefits 2.9%
Transportation 2.7%
Science & Technology 2.7%
International Affairs 2.5%
Social Services 2.1%
Agriculture 1.7%
Environment 1.3%
Health 1.3%
Housing 1.2%
Nixon (1969-74)
Human Resources 28.0%
National Defense 22.4%
Social Security 11.2%
Physical Resources 5.2%
Social Services 3.0%
Veterans Benefits 2.9%
Transportation 2.3%
Health 2.2%
Medicare 2.0%
General Government 1.4%
Agriculture 1.3%
International Affairs 1.3%
Environment 1.2%
Energy 1.2%
Science & Technology 1.2%
Ford (1975-76)
Human Resources 31.7%
National Defense 14.8%
Social Security 11.7%
Physical Resources 6.3%
Veterans Benefits 2.9%
Social Services 2.9%
Health 2.4%
Medicare 2.4%
Transportation 2.1%
General Government 1.7%
Housing 1.5%
Environment 1.3%
International Affairs 1.1%
Carter (1977-80)
Human Resources 31.8%
National Defense 13.7%
Social Security 12.2%
Physical Resources 6.5%
Social Services 3.3%
Medicare 3.1%
Veterans Benefits 2.4%
Health 2.4%
Transportation 2.1%
General Government 1.5%
Environment 1.4%
Agriculture 1.2%
Community Development 1.2%
International Affairs 1.0%
Energy 1.0%
Reagan (1981-88)
Human Resources 32.7%
National Defense 17.1%
Social Security 13.3%
Medicare 4.4%
Physical Resources 4.4%
Health 2.4%
Social Services 2.1%
Veterans Benefits 1.9%
Transportation 1.8%
Agriculture 1.5%
Environment 1.0%
International Affairs 1.0%
G.H. Bush (1989-92)
Human Resources 33.8%
National Defense 15.0%
Social Security 13.2%
Physical Resources 5.3%
Medicare 5.2%
Health 3.4%
Housing 2.4%
Social Services 2.0%
Veterans Benefits 1.6%
Transportation 1.5%
Clinton (1993-2000)
Human Resources 38.5%
Social Security 14.1%
National Defense 11.0%
Medicare 6.8%
Health 4.9%
Physical Resources 2.7%
Social Services 1.9%
Veterans Benefits 1.6%
Transportation 1.6%
George W. Bush (2001-08)
Human Resources 38.0%
Social Security 12.8%
National Defense 11.4%
Physical Resources 3.1%
Medicare 7.3%
Health 5.8%
Social Services 2.2%
Veterans Benefits 1.6%
Transportation 1.7%
Justice Administration 1.0%
The key signals I see in these numbers are the biggest numbers, and what gets moved up and down as the years pass. “Human Resources” is just your basic government operating costs; cute, isn’t it, how the Federal Budget separates “General Government” from the cost of all those people, buildings, supplies and so on that make up the real cost of all those bureaucrats? The percentage of ‘HR’ of the total budget rises from 4.9% of the budget under FDR, all the way to 38.5% under Clinton. It is worth mentioning, that the only President in this track who reduced the proportion of ‘HR’ to the total budget, is George W. Bush, although it’s still an unsightly 38.0% of his budget. Also, you should look at Social Security and Medicare, which combined for less than 1 percent of FDR’s federal budget, but which increased every term on until it reached 20.1% of the federal budget under George W. Bush. Bear in mind that the President does not have control of the SSI and Medicare Budgets; only Congress can scale them back, and no Congress in memory has been in such a mood. Granted, Bush bears responsibility for the Prescription drug benefit package, but that may be balanced by his efforts to reform Social Security. On both ends of that point, it should be noted that Congress had the final say, and Congress clearly ignored its duty. Counting in the areas where the President has no or little control then (Human Resources, Physical Resources, Social Security and Medicare), we see that where FDR could address roughly 79.7% of the budget under his control, by the time we get to George W. Bush, he can only control about 23.7% of the budget. In real terms, this means that if a President wants to add resources to a priority goal, he has no choice but to increase the budget to do it.
It’s also interesting to see what got changed from President to President. Truman slashed military spending, but invested heavily in veteran benefits and the State Department. Eisenhower poured more money into Defense, but he also spent money on Agriculture. Kennedy focused on Science and diplomats, while LBJ built NASA and pursued his Great Society. Nixon focused on treaty organizations and government oversight of business and the environment, very much like McCain wants to do now. Ford slashed defense spending and focused on domestic issues, largely abandoning overseas initiatives which posed any apparent risk, much as Ron Paul says he would do. Carter spent more on researching alternative energy, and less on foreign commitments. Reagan did the opposite, rebuilding Defense and expanding U.S. interests abroad, while scaling back domestic government actions. G.H. Bush followed Reagan’s lead in spending, though he spent less on Defense. Clinton cut Defense to its smallest share of the budget since before World War 2, and spent more on infrastructure programs and health research. And George W. Bush renewed investments in Defense and trade agreements.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Primaries, Polls, and Position = Potential Problems?
The polls this year are a bit strange. Real Clear Politics shows McCain leading Romney in ten out of eleven states going into Super Tuesday, where twenty-one states will hold a caucus or primary to choose the Republican nominee for President. This would appear to be a commanding lead for McCain, and many pundits have gone so far as to claim the race is already over. What’s odd about that, is that discussions with Republicans shows a strong distaste in the party for McCain as the nominee, and many people have insisted they would never vote for McCain. So, how is it that the polls say something which is so different from sentiment among real people? Is there a ‘silent majority’ for McCain? Is there an effort by the polls to get McCain nominated? Is someone lying? On the available evidence and the history of past elections, the answer to all three questions would appear to be ‘no’.
To examine this farther, let’s look at California’s primary, where 173 delegates are at stake. That’s more than twice what any of the delegates has right now, and it’s the richest prize in Super Tuesday’s fat wallet of nomination support. RCP’s average shows McCain 5.0 percentage points ahead of Romney.
But when we look a bit closer, a different picture begins to appear. The RCP average is built from the major polls taken between January 29 and February 2; of those McCain’s range of support runs from 32% (Rasmussen) to 40% (Mason-Dixon), while Romney’s range of support runs from 24% (Field) to 37% (Reuters/CSpan/Zogby), which creates a statistical overlap of 66% (McCain has a 9-point range of support, but only the top 3% is higher than poll numbers reached by Romney in the same period). This is important, because polls are not static conditions but fluid; they change all the time, and a report from a polling agency is a snapshot of one look from one perspective – this is one reason why different polls will report different results, even when using the same methodology. Also, it should be observed that while McCain has the lead in California in 4 of the 5 polls used by RCP for their current average, the poll with the highest number of respondents and therefore the lowest statistical margin of error (the Reuters/CSpan/Zogby poll, with 1185 Likely Voters; the next highest is Rasmussen with only 652 Likely Voters), shows Romney leading McCain in California 37% to 34%. That poll is also the most recent.
I am not going to jump to conclusions from the Reuters/CSpan/Zogby poll, however, for a number of reasons. First, while I am confident that the major polls are doing their best to produce an authentic reflection of voter sentiment, it is never a good idea to depend on just one poll for your conclusions. Also, the R/C/Z poll notes that 13% of the voters are undecided, which is far greater than the difference spanning the two top candidates. Also, I have found in years past that no matter what the stated margin of error is, an analyst should not regard any poll as a significant indicator, when the margin between two candidates is 3 points or less. That’s not only because the margin of error is often that large or greater, but also because fluctuations in support can – even in a short time – change the picture substantially. And in the case of the California primary, there is another detail which drastically damages the validity of any poll reported up to now; the congressional district allocation of delegates.
Here’s the thing; the primary will award 173 delegates, which makes California arguably the most important state in the primary campaign. But the candidate who gets the most votes in California does not get all of those 173 delegates, at least not just because he has the most votes in the state. In fact, it is completely possible that a candidate could “win” California through popular support, but claim fewer delegates than an opponent. This is because the delegates are awarded in California on a congressional district basis. Each district will tally up its results and award delegates on the basis, solely, from that district’s election results. That makes California not one state primary, but in real practice it is 53 separate mini-primaries, which collectively will award the delegates. Anyone familiar with California knows that there are liberal areas of the state, and there are conservative areas of the state, and there are nutjob areas of the state; it would be hopelessly naïve for anyone to expect one candidate to win in every one of the congressional districts. The results of the primary are far too complex for opinion polling to give a clear and confident answer about who will claim the most delegates there.
Why don’t the media, or even the polls, tell you this? Because they are in the media business. Polling groups exist not just to collect and analyze data for their clients (who, by the way, are not the general public – you should always be wary of any information you get from a for-profit group for free), but to build their company name and sell attention. A poll which never says anything unexpected or controversial will never gain prominence. Also, the media in general makes its living by making clear statements. They would much rather sell a good story and admit later that they were wrong (like New Hampshire’s primary this year), than admit how much of their predictions are pure guesswork and assumption. The idea is to keep you interested. This is why stories about Britney outnumber stories about Darfur, for example.
I’d like to finish with a final caveat about the polls. The best poll I have ever seen, based on its methodology, its transparency of procedure, and its explanation of results, is the Gallup poll. However, even the Gallup poll has limits to how good its data can be found. In discussing its methodology of recent primary polling, Gallup reported the following Methodology in its daily tracking polls:
“Methodology: Gallup is interviewing 1,000 U.S. adults nationwide each day during 2008. The results reported here are based on combined data from Jan. 30-Feb. 1, 2008, including interviews with 1,080 Republican and Republican-leaning voters, and 1,205 Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters.”
The significance of that note comes from close examination of the statements. The respondents are not registered voters, or people who voted in the last election. In fact, to reach enough people for their poll results, the Republican and Democrat results are, well, diluted a bit to include “Republican-leaning” and “Democrat-leaning”, which when you think about it can be said to mean independents, and people who do not normally vote because they do not identify with either party’s values enough to call themselves Republican or Democrat directly. Thus, even the Gallup poll cannot be said to cleanly reflect the sentiments and opinions of mainstream Republicans and Democrats. Given the way the primaries are set up, these ‘Republican-leaning’ voters and ‘Democrat-leaning’ voters may be able to vote in their state’s caucus or primary, but history shows that people who do not strongly identify with a party or candidate are generally unlikely to take the time and trouble to vote. This is a final and significant point to consider when applying opinion poll reports to a projection of a primary election.
To examine this farther, let’s look at California’s primary, where 173 delegates are at stake. That’s more than twice what any of the delegates has right now, and it’s the richest prize in Super Tuesday’s fat wallet of nomination support. RCP’s average shows McCain 5.0 percentage points ahead of Romney.
But when we look a bit closer, a different picture begins to appear. The RCP average is built from the major polls taken between January 29 and February 2; of those McCain’s range of support runs from 32% (Rasmussen) to 40% (Mason-Dixon), while Romney’s range of support runs from 24% (Field) to 37% (Reuters/CSpan/Zogby), which creates a statistical overlap of 66% (McCain has a 9-point range of support, but only the top 3% is higher than poll numbers reached by Romney in the same period). This is important, because polls are not static conditions but fluid; they change all the time, and a report from a polling agency is a snapshot of one look from one perspective – this is one reason why different polls will report different results, even when using the same methodology. Also, it should be observed that while McCain has the lead in California in 4 of the 5 polls used by RCP for their current average, the poll with the highest number of respondents and therefore the lowest statistical margin of error (the Reuters/CSpan/Zogby poll, with 1185 Likely Voters; the next highest is Rasmussen with only 652 Likely Voters), shows Romney leading McCain in California 37% to 34%. That poll is also the most recent.
I am not going to jump to conclusions from the Reuters/CSpan/Zogby poll, however, for a number of reasons. First, while I am confident that the major polls are doing their best to produce an authentic reflection of voter sentiment, it is never a good idea to depend on just one poll for your conclusions. Also, the R/C/Z poll notes that 13% of the voters are undecided, which is far greater than the difference spanning the two top candidates. Also, I have found in years past that no matter what the stated margin of error is, an analyst should not regard any poll as a significant indicator, when the margin between two candidates is 3 points or less. That’s not only because the margin of error is often that large or greater, but also because fluctuations in support can – even in a short time – change the picture substantially. And in the case of the California primary, there is another detail which drastically damages the validity of any poll reported up to now; the congressional district allocation of delegates.
Here’s the thing; the primary will award 173 delegates, which makes California arguably the most important state in the primary campaign. But the candidate who gets the most votes in California does not get all of those 173 delegates, at least not just because he has the most votes in the state. In fact, it is completely possible that a candidate could “win” California through popular support, but claim fewer delegates than an opponent. This is because the delegates are awarded in California on a congressional district basis. Each district will tally up its results and award delegates on the basis, solely, from that district’s election results. That makes California not one state primary, but in real practice it is 53 separate mini-primaries, which collectively will award the delegates. Anyone familiar with California knows that there are liberal areas of the state, and there are conservative areas of the state, and there are nutjob areas of the state; it would be hopelessly naïve for anyone to expect one candidate to win in every one of the congressional districts. The results of the primary are far too complex for opinion polling to give a clear and confident answer about who will claim the most delegates there.
Why don’t the media, or even the polls, tell you this? Because they are in the media business. Polling groups exist not just to collect and analyze data for their clients (who, by the way, are not the general public – you should always be wary of any information you get from a for-profit group for free), but to build their company name and sell attention. A poll which never says anything unexpected or controversial will never gain prominence. Also, the media in general makes its living by making clear statements. They would much rather sell a good story and admit later that they were wrong (like New Hampshire’s primary this year), than admit how much of their predictions are pure guesswork and assumption. The idea is to keep you interested. This is why stories about Britney outnumber stories about Darfur, for example.
I’d like to finish with a final caveat about the polls. The best poll I have ever seen, based on its methodology, its transparency of procedure, and its explanation of results, is the Gallup poll. However, even the Gallup poll has limits to how good its data can be found. In discussing its methodology of recent primary polling, Gallup reported the following Methodology in its daily tracking polls:
“Methodology: Gallup is interviewing 1,000 U.S. adults nationwide each day during 2008. The results reported here are based on combined data from Jan. 30-Feb. 1, 2008, including interviews with 1,080 Republican and Republican-leaning voters, and 1,205 Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters.”
The significance of that note comes from close examination of the statements. The respondents are not registered voters, or people who voted in the last election. In fact, to reach enough people for their poll results, the Republican and Democrat results are, well, diluted a bit to include “Republican-leaning” and “Democrat-leaning”, which when you think about it can be said to mean independents, and people who do not normally vote because they do not identify with either party’s values enough to call themselves Republican or Democrat directly. Thus, even the Gallup poll cannot be said to cleanly reflect the sentiments and opinions of mainstream Republicans and Democrats. Given the way the primaries are set up, these ‘Republican-leaning’ voters and ‘Democrat-leaning’ voters may be able to vote in their state’s caucus or primary, but history shows that people who do not strongly identify with a party or candidate are generally unlikely to take the time and trouble to vote. This is a final and significant point to consider when applying opinion poll reports to a projection of a primary election.
Friday, February 01, 2008
What Makes A Reaganite?
The greatest President in the last century, if you are a Conservative, is Ronald Reagan. Because of this, every Republican wanna-be compares himself to the Gipper, and every Republican who wants to be President claims to be a Reagan Republican. The range of candidates making such claims is so broad, that frankly some of them have to be lying to make that claim. The trouble, of course, is that any of the posers would be quick to assure you that his opponent is the liar, while he is the real deal. So, rather than get into a prolonged ad hominem shootout, I think the better course for us would be to discuss the qualities of a true Reagan Republican.
Ronald Reagan made his mark even as he took office, when news broke that Iranian terrorists had released American hostages taken in 1979 when they overran the U.S. Embassy in Teheran. While the terrorists had meant for the gesture to be a sign of contempt against the Carter Administration, the public generally took it as a sign that Iran was far more worried about a Reagan White House than his predecessor, and that Reagan stood for a strong America. That image was his first legacy, and it still stands. Any Republican who would claim the Reagan mantle, must first be strong on the Military and resolute on National Security.
Reagan is also famous for Free Trade. Trade was an effective weapon against Communism, a force which Gorbachev could neither deny nor defeat. It was also Reagan’s trump card for unifying the West and guaranteeing the preeminence of America in her alliances and associations. Reagan was the driving force behind NAFTA, and he was a constant advocate of a world without tarifffs or trade barriers. As much as Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan created and developed the concept of Globalization as we know it. Any Republican who would claim Reagan’s blessing, must also be a thorough champion of Free Trade.
Reagan also stood for Free Speech. Reagan not only encouraged and energized the rhetorical forces of Conservatism, but he also listened and responded to Liberal arguments, either debunking false claims or building respect by accepting valid claims. Reagan properly recognized the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ for the Orwellian lie it was, and worked to dismantle it. Reagan knew and taught that free expression of ideas, concepts, debate was the best and surest means to creating open societies and truly republican democracies. Any Republican who would claim to be like Reagan, must support freedom for expressing opinion, especially in politics.
Reagan also stood for the United States Constitution. It was his constant desire for judges to obey the provisions, and the limits, of the Constitution and to limit government intrusion into the lives and freedom of American citizens to those boundaries explicitly defined in the Constitution. Any Republican who would claim to carry forward Reagan’s legacy, must support constructionist judges and justices.
Those are my first thoughts on what it means to be a Reaganite.
Ronald Reagan made his mark even as he took office, when news broke that Iranian terrorists had released American hostages taken in 1979 when they overran the U.S. Embassy in Teheran. While the terrorists had meant for the gesture to be a sign of contempt against the Carter Administration, the public generally took it as a sign that Iran was far more worried about a Reagan White House than his predecessor, and that Reagan stood for a strong America. That image was his first legacy, and it still stands. Any Republican who would claim the Reagan mantle, must first be strong on the Military and resolute on National Security.
Reagan is also famous for Free Trade. Trade was an effective weapon against Communism, a force which Gorbachev could neither deny nor defeat. It was also Reagan’s trump card for unifying the West and guaranteeing the preeminence of America in her alliances and associations. Reagan was the driving force behind NAFTA, and he was a constant advocate of a world without tarifffs or trade barriers. As much as Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan created and developed the concept of Globalization as we know it. Any Republican who would claim Reagan’s blessing, must also be a thorough champion of Free Trade.
Reagan also stood for Free Speech. Reagan not only encouraged and energized the rhetorical forces of Conservatism, but he also listened and responded to Liberal arguments, either debunking false claims or building respect by accepting valid claims. Reagan properly recognized the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ for the Orwellian lie it was, and worked to dismantle it. Reagan knew and taught that free expression of ideas, concepts, debate was the best and surest means to creating open societies and truly republican democracies. Any Republican who would claim to be like Reagan, must support freedom for expressing opinion, especially in politics.
Reagan also stood for the United States Constitution. It was his constant desire for judges to obey the provisions, and the limits, of the Constitution and to limit government intrusion into the lives and freedom of American citizens to those boundaries explicitly defined in the Constitution. Any Republican who would claim to carry forward Reagan’s legacy, must support constructionist judges and justices.
Those are my first thoughts on what it means to be a Reaganite.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Not So Fast, McCain
John McCain is acting like a winner. A bad-tempered winner with no sense of perspective, a chip on his shoulder the size of his well-fed ego, and an arrogant disregard for the precepts of the President whose “foot soldier” he claims he was so many years ago. Apparently, McCain thinks that being in government service the same time as Ronnie qualifies him to make that claim, although such a lax definition would allow Mikhail Gorbachev the same honor.
But a winner nonetheless, in the same way we saw ‘winner’ defined, back in the days when an NBA team would celebrate with gangsta imitations, in the same way that Floyd Landis figured no one would dare investigate his doped-up Tour de France win, and so on.
Anyway, McCain is going on these days about what a great ‘conservative’ he is, by which we are supposed to accept the hijacking of Senate Judicial hearings, the suppression of individual political speech just before an election, and insubordination of party leadership whenever they disagree with him as proud hallmarks of the Reagan Revolution. Apparently, McCain believes that his present position in front of the GOP race gives him the right to redefine terms, to lie about his opponents, and to declare the race over. But to that I call not so fast, Senator McCain, this race is not nearly done. In fact, it’s just warming up.
Tuesday, February 5, twenty-two states will hold their GOP caucus or primary, with 1,102 delegates riding on the outcome. For comparison, all six states which have had a GOP primary or caucus up to now have accounted for a total of only 181 delegates, and some of those are uncommitted. For all the hoo-dah in the media, the fact is that it takes 1,191 delegates to secure the nomination, and none of the candidates has even cleared a hundred in his tally yet. Seems McCain is real anxious that most of the country does not get a chance to say whether or not this chucklehead should carry the banner of the Republican party into the fall. I certainly understand why McCain would want to shut the doors now, but it’s important we don’t get fooled by his act.
To be sure, McCain did a hero’s service during the Vietnam War. In challenging his hubris, I want to make clear that I am not denying the man his due as a hero. For those unclear on that point, what made McCain a hero during Vietnam was not simply that he was prisoner of war, but that because of his high profile as the son of the Navy’s CNO, McCain was the subject of much worse torture and pressure from the North Vietnamese. Not just physical torture, though there was plenty of that, but emotional torture as well, such as suggesting that if he played along, McCain could get his buddies released from prison camps, or trying to give McCain preferential treatment so the Communists could gain a propaganda victory. For six years, John McCain defied his captors, and was a lasting source of strength to his fellow prisoners.
McCain’s lesser qualities appear, however, in his work as a Senator. As a Senator, McCain quickly established a stubborn refusal to work with anyone who was not going completely in his direction, and more than once McCain defied GOP leadership in critical situations, most notably during the George W. Bush Administration. Bittter from his 2000 primary defeats, McCain was one of only two Republican senators who voted against the Bush tax cuts, saying that he wanted spending cut first, but also that he opposed “tax cuts for the rich”.
McCain was one of the writers of the infamous McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which basically tries to stifle anyone discussing an election in the last month before it happens. McCain has never apologized for that assasult on the First Amendment.
Then there is the “gang of 14”, another example of McCain leadership where McCain decided that having the Senate actually do its job as a body and vote on judicial appointments was not good, that one-seventh of the Senate could make back-room deals on judges, not even based on their qualifications, but purely to expedite political arrangements. Again, McCain has never apologized for railroading qualified judges and defying the Constitutional role of the United States Senate. Indeed, McCain seems to think he can gloss that over and we will let it go, as if it were some minor foible. But the record needs to be seen in total, the times McCain got it right, and the times he got it wrong.
I certainly have issues to some degree with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, but in both of their cases, I at least believe they are conducting honest campaigns by the standard we see these days. It is truly disappointing to see a former naval officer of McCain’s repute prostitute his honor in the pursuit of an office he so patently should not perform.
But a winner nonetheless, in the same way we saw ‘winner’ defined, back in the days when an NBA team would celebrate with gangsta imitations, in the same way that Floyd Landis figured no one would dare investigate his doped-up Tour de France win, and so on.
Anyway, McCain is going on these days about what a great ‘conservative’ he is, by which we are supposed to accept the hijacking of Senate Judicial hearings, the suppression of individual political speech just before an election, and insubordination of party leadership whenever they disagree with him as proud hallmarks of the Reagan Revolution. Apparently, McCain believes that his present position in front of the GOP race gives him the right to redefine terms, to lie about his opponents, and to declare the race over. But to that I call not so fast, Senator McCain, this race is not nearly done. In fact, it’s just warming up.
Tuesday, February 5, twenty-two states will hold their GOP caucus or primary, with 1,102 delegates riding on the outcome. For comparison, all six states which have had a GOP primary or caucus up to now have accounted for a total of only 181 delegates, and some of those are uncommitted. For all the hoo-dah in the media, the fact is that it takes 1,191 delegates to secure the nomination, and none of the candidates has even cleared a hundred in his tally yet. Seems McCain is real anxious that most of the country does not get a chance to say whether or not this chucklehead should carry the banner of the Republican party into the fall. I certainly understand why McCain would want to shut the doors now, but it’s important we don’t get fooled by his act.
To be sure, McCain did a hero’s service during the Vietnam War. In challenging his hubris, I want to make clear that I am not denying the man his due as a hero. For those unclear on that point, what made McCain a hero during Vietnam was not simply that he was prisoner of war, but that because of his high profile as the son of the Navy’s CNO, McCain was the subject of much worse torture and pressure from the North Vietnamese. Not just physical torture, though there was plenty of that, but emotional torture as well, such as suggesting that if he played along, McCain could get his buddies released from prison camps, or trying to give McCain preferential treatment so the Communists could gain a propaganda victory. For six years, John McCain defied his captors, and was a lasting source of strength to his fellow prisoners.
McCain’s lesser qualities appear, however, in his work as a Senator. As a Senator, McCain quickly established a stubborn refusal to work with anyone who was not going completely in his direction, and more than once McCain defied GOP leadership in critical situations, most notably during the George W. Bush Administration. Bittter from his 2000 primary defeats, McCain was one of only two Republican senators who voted against the Bush tax cuts, saying that he wanted spending cut first, but also that he opposed “tax cuts for the rich”.
McCain was one of the writers of the infamous McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which basically tries to stifle anyone discussing an election in the last month before it happens. McCain has never apologized for that assasult on the First Amendment.
Then there is the “gang of 14”, another example of McCain leadership where McCain decided that having the Senate actually do its job as a body and vote on judicial appointments was not good, that one-seventh of the Senate could make back-room deals on judges, not even based on their qualifications, but purely to expedite political arrangements. Again, McCain has never apologized for railroading qualified judges and defying the Constitutional role of the United States Senate. Indeed, McCain seems to think he can gloss that over and we will let it go, as if it were some minor foible. But the record needs to be seen in total, the times McCain got it right, and the times he got it wrong.
I certainly have issues to some degree with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, but in both of their cases, I at least believe they are conducting honest campaigns by the standard we see these days. It is truly disappointing to see a former naval officer of McCain’s repute prostitute his honor in the pursuit of an office he so patently should not perform.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The President’s Blogroll
As I begin this piece, I have to admit that it sounds more than a bit presumptuous for a blogger to recommend that the President of the United States needs to read more blogs. But actually, I will go even farther and say that any of the candidates for that office needs to spend time, a lot more time, reading political blogs. And I mean the candidates and the President in person; you won’t get what you need from having a staffer write up a summary to go over in 45 seconds.
Let’s start with the status quo; President Bush says he does not read the papers, and I believe him, insofar as he does not dwell on Op-Eds and what this talking head or that wants to sell the country. But I am sure that the White House has people who do read what’s in the papers and on the television, and they do report to various entities a sense of the national mood and climate. Rove and Hughes would give Dubs a bop on the head right out of the V-8 commercials if he tried to ignore the media that completely. So the idea of getting feedback from the media is a well-established practice for politicians.
The problem is, the MSM is no decent barometer for what’s going on out there. The television and print media are, almost exclusively, watching the Bush White House in the predatory manner, always looking for a weakness to exploit, the next great lever to use to tear down the best President in a generation. I think that’s what Bush meant when he said he doesn’t worry about the newspapers, that there’s no good reason to give that pack of jackals any attention or the pleasure of thinking that they make a difference.
The thing though, is that for all my approval of the Bush Administration, they have goofed a few of the calls. In the case of the Meirs nomination, for example, while it is true that no one really knows how good or bad a SCOTUS justice Miers might have been, there is no question that President Bush was completely caught by surprise by the hostility and venom from Conservatives after he announced his pick. No, that does not mean Bush should kowtow to political thugs when he makes decisions, but knowing what would happen from a Miers nomination would have helped the White House at least prepare a better defense for Miers. The same with the Dubai ports deal; the deal was a good one if seen in its proper perspective, but again the blow-up destroyed the chance for the United States to advance an advantageous Foreign Policy initiative and thwart Chinese ambitions in both the Middle East and with regard to U.S. ports. But in both cases, the mood of Conservatives was not understood by Bush, even though bloggers had set the tone well ahead of the events. Also, if President Bush held any notion that the Democrats could be trusted on any major initiative, even to keep promises made in confidence, the major Liberal blogs would have made clear that the Democrats had undertaken a major ideological war; they would assist a Republican no more than Fidel Castro would renounce Communism. But again, in several signature bills President Bush chose to trust the Democrats to keep their word, even when the blogs warned well in advance that the Democrats would break their bargain as soon as they found it to their political advantage to do so. The blogs, if you note them, serve as a decent Early Warning system for the response of the politically active groups. Certainly, there should be someone aware of the issue discussions who could send a printout of a key blog debate with a suggestion along the lines of ‘Sir, you should take a look at this’.
That advice may sound like I am selling the blogs as a tactical resource, and in some cases I certainly do mean to say that. But what else makes the blogs worth noting, is the reader commentary. The network television news and newspaper Op-Eds speak in monotonous soliloquoy, while blogs often fire up intense debates. Anyone should be able to recognize the difference between a blog post which gets 4 or 5 comments in a day, and one which gets a hundred responses almost immediately. If nothing else, the White House would do well indeed to notice which issues really do reflect the priorities of the people.
This usefulness for blogs certainly also extends to the current candidates. Some of the most glaring mistakes by contenders are also mistakes which could easily have been avoided. In the Republican race, Rudy should have understood how front-loaded the race had become, and maybe he would have realized ahead of time that by waiting for Florida, he could be in a desperate strategic situation. Fred could have understood that he had millions of potential supporters, but who were worried about his perceived level of energy, and early level of commitment to the early race. Romney could have understood that his Mormon faith was not an issue for most Republicans, but his image appeared too controlled and artificial to catch fire. As for the Democrats, Hillary could have understood that she does not win support when playing ‘attack dog’. Obama could have understood that when you don’t know anything about foreign policy, it’s best to shut up before you make yourself look like a dangerous fool. And Edwards could have realized long ago, that this is not 2004, and if he could not do better than runner-up to a walking doorstop in 2004, he would hardly fare better now.
In conclusion, it’s obvious that for all their attempts to appear cutting-edge and savvy, where blogs are concerned the President and his would-be successors are still well behind the curve.
Let’s start with the status quo; President Bush says he does not read the papers, and I believe him, insofar as he does not dwell on Op-Eds and what this talking head or that wants to sell the country. But I am sure that the White House has people who do read what’s in the papers and on the television, and they do report to various entities a sense of the national mood and climate. Rove and Hughes would give Dubs a bop on the head right out of the V-8 commercials if he tried to ignore the media that completely. So the idea of getting feedback from the media is a well-established practice for politicians.
The problem is, the MSM is no decent barometer for what’s going on out there. The television and print media are, almost exclusively, watching the Bush White House in the predatory manner, always looking for a weakness to exploit, the next great lever to use to tear down the best President in a generation. I think that’s what Bush meant when he said he doesn’t worry about the newspapers, that there’s no good reason to give that pack of jackals any attention or the pleasure of thinking that they make a difference.
The thing though, is that for all my approval of the Bush Administration, they have goofed a few of the calls. In the case of the Meirs nomination, for example, while it is true that no one really knows how good or bad a SCOTUS justice Miers might have been, there is no question that President Bush was completely caught by surprise by the hostility and venom from Conservatives after he announced his pick. No, that does not mean Bush should kowtow to political thugs when he makes decisions, but knowing what would happen from a Miers nomination would have helped the White House at least prepare a better defense for Miers. The same with the Dubai ports deal; the deal was a good one if seen in its proper perspective, but again the blow-up destroyed the chance for the United States to advance an advantageous Foreign Policy initiative and thwart Chinese ambitions in both the Middle East and with regard to U.S. ports. But in both cases, the mood of Conservatives was not understood by Bush, even though bloggers had set the tone well ahead of the events. Also, if President Bush held any notion that the Democrats could be trusted on any major initiative, even to keep promises made in confidence, the major Liberal blogs would have made clear that the Democrats had undertaken a major ideological war; they would assist a Republican no more than Fidel Castro would renounce Communism. But again, in several signature bills President Bush chose to trust the Democrats to keep their word, even when the blogs warned well in advance that the Democrats would break their bargain as soon as they found it to their political advantage to do so. The blogs, if you note them, serve as a decent Early Warning system for the response of the politically active groups. Certainly, there should be someone aware of the issue discussions who could send a printout of a key blog debate with a suggestion along the lines of ‘Sir, you should take a look at this’.
That advice may sound like I am selling the blogs as a tactical resource, and in some cases I certainly do mean to say that. But what else makes the blogs worth noting, is the reader commentary. The network television news and newspaper Op-Eds speak in monotonous soliloquoy, while blogs often fire up intense debates. Anyone should be able to recognize the difference between a blog post which gets 4 or 5 comments in a day, and one which gets a hundred responses almost immediately. If nothing else, the White House would do well indeed to notice which issues really do reflect the priorities of the people.
This usefulness for blogs certainly also extends to the current candidates. Some of the most glaring mistakes by contenders are also mistakes which could easily have been avoided. In the Republican race, Rudy should have understood how front-loaded the race had become, and maybe he would have realized ahead of time that by waiting for Florida, he could be in a desperate strategic situation. Fred could have understood that he had millions of potential supporters, but who were worried about his perceived level of energy, and early level of commitment to the early race. Romney could have understood that his Mormon faith was not an issue for most Republicans, but his image appeared too controlled and artificial to catch fire. As for the Democrats, Hillary could have understood that she does not win support when playing ‘attack dog’. Obama could have understood that when you don’t know anything about foreign policy, it’s best to shut up before you make yourself look like a dangerous fool. And Edwards could have realized long ago, that this is not 2004, and if he could not do better than runner-up to a walking doorstop in 2004, he would hardly fare better now.
In conclusion, it’s obvious that for all their attempts to appear cutting-edge and savvy, where blogs are concerned the President and his would-be successors are still well behind the curve.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Why Jesus Wept
I went into MDA today for my 3-month checkup, and in my case I am happy to say that my condition remains stable. Everything seems to be going well except for my weight, blood pressure, and a bit of arthritis in the shoulders and hands. In fact, Dr. Lambert said she has lowered the probability that I will need surgery in the next couple years from 50% to about 25%. So, on that count I should be happy, and I am truly grateful to the Lord for His mercy and my good situation.
But these visits to MDA tear at me. Cancer is still one of the most horrific diseases I have ever had to see attack people, and because you are never “cured” of the thing – in a best-case situation it just stops trying to kill you for a while, and you wait to see if and when it comes back for another go. And cancer almost never hurts just one person. It puts wives and husbands, parents and children, through absolute hell for years on end, as doctors fight an ongoing battle against malignant cell growth, side effects from the chemotherapy and the radiation and the drugs, and in some cases the damn thing mutates or becomes resistant to the best treatments we have available. Every time I go to MDA, I see people waiting for their first diagnosis and worried about what they will hear, I see people who have to learn a new way to live to deal with their condition, I see people who have to hear that there may a “lose” to this thing, but in many cases the closest thing to a “win” is that things are no worse.
I found out today that someone I met here in October, whose Leukemia treatment was going well, passed away last month. A couple other patients I knew have had to go into hospice care. I was in an elevator this morning trying to come to grips with this news, when another patient, whose face had been half-destroyed by a Stage III melanoma, saw my distress and tried to cheer me up. He thought I was worried about my PMP, and sympathized that he at least knew the worst of his condition, and he wished I knew how my situation would go. I thanked him for his kindness, frankly amazed that someone who had suffered so much would still pay more attention to someone else.
In the Bible, it is written that when Jesus came to the town where his friend Lazarus had died, He wept. At times this seemed strange to me, since the Scripture made clear He knew He would raise Lazarus from the dead. The suffering, however, by Lazarus and by his family, that was very real and did not un-happen even with Lazarus coming back to life. I believe that verse was there, so that we might understand that God cares about our suffering, that He shares our pain and that we are not alone in it. I cannot say I understand anything about the reason why this kind of pain should exist, but I do know that it is very important that we know we do not have to be alone in it.
But these visits to MDA tear at me. Cancer is still one of the most horrific diseases I have ever had to see attack people, and because you are never “cured” of the thing – in a best-case situation it just stops trying to kill you for a while, and you wait to see if and when it comes back for another go. And cancer almost never hurts just one person. It puts wives and husbands, parents and children, through absolute hell for years on end, as doctors fight an ongoing battle against malignant cell growth, side effects from the chemotherapy and the radiation and the drugs, and in some cases the damn thing mutates or becomes resistant to the best treatments we have available. Every time I go to MDA, I see people waiting for their first diagnosis and worried about what they will hear, I see people who have to learn a new way to live to deal with their condition, I see people who have to hear that there may a “lose” to this thing, but in many cases the closest thing to a “win” is that things are no worse.
I found out today that someone I met here in October, whose Leukemia treatment was going well, passed away last month. A couple other patients I knew have had to go into hospice care. I was in an elevator this morning trying to come to grips with this news, when another patient, whose face had been half-destroyed by a Stage III melanoma, saw my distress and tried to cheer me up. He thought I was worried about my PMP, and sympathized that he at least knew the worst of his condition, and he wished I knew how my situation would go. I thanked him for his kindness, frankly amazed that someone who had suffered so much would still pay more attention to someone else.
In the Bible, it is written that when Jesus came to the town where his friend Lazarus had died, He wept. At times this seemed strange to me, since the Scripture made clear He knew He would raise Lazarus from the dead. The suffering, however, by Lazarus and by his family, that was very real and did not un-happen even with Lazarus coming back to life. I believe that verse was there, so that we might understand that God cares about our suffering, that He shares our pain and that we are not alone in it. I cannot say I understand anything about the reason why this kind of pain should exist, but I do know that it is very important that we know we do not have to be alone in it.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Now What?
Sometimes it seems God wants to punish the United States of America. He did so in 1976, when we had to choose between the less-than-thrilling Gerald Ford and the folksy Jimmy Carter. We chose poorly. In 1988, we had to choose between Reagan’s tagalong sidekick “Poppy” Bush, and Michael “Tank Guy” Dukakis. We chose the better man, but it did not always feel like it. And here we are in 2008, with an array of candidates who either demonstrate poor qualification for the job, or poor communication of just why we should trust them with the helm of the nation. Things are less than optimal, no matter who we choose, yet the stakes and consequences of our choice are high indeed.
Look, Fred Thompson may not have been what we’d hope he’d be; the man certainly made some strategic errors, but at least he seemed to have a sense for what Conservatives were hoping for. He was a real National Security conservative in the Reagan mold, unlike Huckabee and Paul. He was a Social conservative as well, unlike Giuliani and McCain. Thompson’s ideas carried the sense that he not only understood the issues, but had listened to regular people, unlike Keyes and Romney. In short, Thompson had everything – everything but the primary win in South Carolina. And so, Fred has left the stage, and whatever promise remained of a Reaganite Administration left with him.
It’s going to offend liberals, but neither Obama nor Clinton nor Edwards is really serious about National Security, and neither would appoint justices who would defer to the common man’s right to be left alone by tax-happy governments and the creep of uber-programs. Handing over the White House to a Democrat is to lower our defenses and spit on the taxpayer. Therefore, we are left to consider what of the remaining Republican field can be accepted. Conservatives unanimously understand that we must support the GOP candidate this fall, because the alternative is completely unacceptable. Yet there is no one in the field who commands our respect and admiration in all places. Giuliani and McCain never wavered in the mission against Terrorists, but neither is trusted on their domestic plate of plans. Romney and Huckabee say they stand for Conservative values, but Romney flipped on some key issues pretty recently, and Huckabee’s record defies his pretense. Whomever would carry the Republican nomination this fall, has a lot of work to do, not only to win the nomination but to prove bonafides not presently visible.
God save the United States of America. It looks like no one else is up to it.
Look, Fred Thompson may not have been what we’d hope he’d be; the man certainly made some strategic errors, but at least he seemed to have a sense for what Conservatives were hoping for. He was a real National Security conservative in the Reagan mold, unlike Huckabee and Paul. He was a Social conservative as well, unlike Giuliani and McCain. Thompson’s ideas carried the sense that he not only understood the issues, but had listened to regular people, unlike Keyes and Romney. In short, Thompson had everything – everything but the primary win in South Carolina. And so, Fred has left the stage, and whatever promise remained of a Reaganite Administration left with him.
It’s going to offend liberals, but neither Obama nor Clinton nor Edwards is really serious about National Security, and neither would appoint justices who would defer to the common man’s right to be left alone by tax-happy governments and the creep of uber-programs. Handing over the White House to a Democrat is to lower our defenses and spit on the taxpayer. Therefore, we are left to consider what of the remaining Republican field can be accepted. Conservatives unanimously understand that we must support the GOP candidate this fall, because the alternative is completely unacceptable. Yet there is no one in the field who commands our respect and admiration in all places. Giuliani and McCain never wavered in the mission against Terrorists, but neither is trusted on their domestic plate of plans. Romney and Huckabee say they stand for Conservative values, but Romney flipped on some key issues pretty recently, and Huckabee’s record defies his pretense. Whomever would carry the Republican nomination this fall, has a lot of work to do, not only to win the nomination but to prove bonafides not presently visible.
God save the United States of America. It looks like no one else is up to it.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
The 2008 Wizbang Primary Results
The results are in at the Wizbang Primary. The results are far too small to be scientifically significant, but they are still a valid sample of the internet demographic of our niche.
First, the Democrats. Here are the results from the voting:
OPEN
Obama: 25 votes, 38%
Clinton: 21 votes, 32%
Lieberman: 10 votes, 15%
Richardson: 5 votes, 8%
Biden: 3 votes, 5%
Edwards: 1 vote, 2%
Miller: 1 vote, 2%
Sounds like a good race, but here's what happened when we count only Democrats and Leaners:
CLOSED
Obama: 4 votes, 100%
One identified Democrat had no choice, and the other 4 went with Obama. However, 4 votes is far too small to be reliable as a guage of the party intent.
CROSS-VOTING
Obama: 21 votes, 34%
Clinton: 21 votes, 34%
Lieberman: 10 votes, 16%
Richardson: 5 votes, 8%
Biden: 3 votes, 5%
Edwards: 1 vote, 2%
Miller: 1 vote, 2%
Republicans appear to be unsure of who they would rather face in the General Election, but they appear to be convinced that it will be either Obama or Clinton.
Now, the Republicans' primary. First, the Open results:
OPEN
Thompson: 53 votes, 68%
Romney: 9 votes, 12%
McCain: 7 votes, 9%
Giuliani: 5 votes, 6%
Huckabee: 2 votes, 3%
Hunter: 1 vote, 1%
Paul: 1 vote, 1%
Thompson flat-out stomps everyone else, It's not even close.
Next, the Closed results for Republicans and Leaners only. Remember that the Democrat side showed a big change from 'Open' to 'Closed', but not here on the GOP side:
CLOSED
Thompson: 52 votes, 71%
Romney: 9 votes, 12%
Giuliani: 5 votes, 7%
McCain: 4 votes, 5%
Huckabee: 2 votes, 3%
Hunter: 1 vote, 1%
Thompson's powerful result becomes even more pronounced when the voters are only Republicans. Keep this in mind as we consider the as-yet-undecided state primaries.
So who did the Democrats like? Here are the Crossover results:
CROSS-VOTING
McCain: 3 votes, 60%
Thompson: 1 vote, 20%
Paul: 1 vote, 20%
Well, with only 5 votes total it is not indicative of a real trend, but it is interesting to see McCain's popularity with the Left.
So, what does it mean? I'm not going to read too much into what the Democrats think from this poll, because we had too little participation on that side to really give a good look, but even a sample as small as 32 respondents can be significant in showing a trend. For Thompson to stomp the field as thoroughly as he did here, suggests that there is in fact a substantial base for Thompson, in spite of his results so far.
So what's going on? Fred is liked by all conservatives, and from what I can tell the McCain people (like Medved), the Romney fans (like Hewitt) and the Giuliani and Huckabee fans go to great lengths to avoid a head-to-head comparison between their guy and Fred, but it was Hucakbee who grabbed Iowa, McCain who nabbed New Hampshire and South Carolina, and Romney who took Wyoming and Nevada. A lot of that has to do with the amount of money and time each of them had to invest, but it is also due to the character of the races in each of those states. Like Giuliani, Thompson seems to be playing for the South and the Super Tuesday contests, and he simply got into South Carolina too late to make an impact in that crowded field. It will be intriguing to see what he decides to do now, how he can - hopefully - finally tap that resource of promising yet so far unfulfilled potential. Here at least, Fred is far from dead.
As for Romney, he obviously has work to do to get the support of the base. No one I know thinks Romney would be bad for the GOP, but he's no more inspiring than a glass of milk. Room temperature milk and no cookies. McCain and Huckabee, well, to me they played off niche strengths but I just don't see them carrying the ball all the way to the goal line, not even the mid-field that is the party nomination. As for Paul and Keyes, they should follow the lead of Duncan Hunter. I don't think they will, but in the end it won't change the course of the party nomination.
That leaves Rudy, to my mind the second wild card (Fred is the first Wild Card and Mitt is the Mild Card) on the GOP side. SInce he has not yet won a primary, Rudy's not getting any press these days, and his 'wait for the big ones' strategy is one which will prove to be truly brilliant or truly foolish with little chance of any landing in between. I don't agree with Rudy's social positions, but his promise to appoint conservative justices and judges makes that a lot less important, and I have to say I respect the man for not changing his positions to please anyone else. I hope we get a lot more debate in the coming weeks, so we can shake out which of the Wild One, the Wild Other One, or the Mild One would be the best choice for the party. Right now, even though he hasn't wowed the states in the races so far, it looks like online Fred's ahead. Way ahead.
First, the Democrats. Here are the results from the voting:
OPEN
Obama: 25 votes, 38%
Clinton: 21 votes, 32%
Lieberman: 10 votes, 15%
Richardson: 5 votes, 8%
Biden: 3 votes, 5%
Edwards: 1 vote, 2%
Miller: 1 vote, 2%
Sounds like a good race, but here's what happened when we count only Democrats and Leaners:
CLOSED
Obama: 4 votes, 100%
One identified Democrat had no choice, and the other 4 went with Obama. However, 4 votes is far too small to be reliable as a guage of the party intent.
CROSS-VOTING
Obama: 21 votes, 34%
Clinton: 21 votes, 34%
Lieberman: 10 votes, 16%
Richardson: 5 votes, 8%
Biden: 3 votes, 5%
Edwards: 1 vote, 2%
Miller: 1 vote, 2%
Republicans appear to be unsure of who they would rather face in the General Election, but they appear to be convinced that it will be either Obama or Clinton.
Now, the Republicans' primary. First, the Open results:
OPEN
Thompson: 53 votes, 68%
Romney: 9 votes, 12%
McCain: 7 votes, 9%
Giuliani: 5 votes, 6%
Huckabee: 2 votes, 3%
Hunter: 1 vote, 1%
Paul: 1 vote, 1%
Thompson flat-out stomps everyone else, It's not even close.
Next, the Closed results for Republicans and Leaners only. Remember that the Democrat side showed a big change from 'Open' to 'Closed', but not here on the GOP side:
CLOSED
Thompson: 52 votes, 71%
Romney: 9 votes, 12%
Giuliani: 5 votes, 7%
McCain: 4 votes, 5%
Huckabee: 2 votes, 3%
Hunter: 1 vote, 1%
Thompson's powerful result becomes even more pronounced when the voters are only Republicans. Keep this in mind as we consider the as-yet-undecided state primaries.
So who did the Democrats like? Here are the Crossover results:
CROSS-VOTING
McCain: 3 votes, 60%
Thompson: 1 vote, 20%
Paul: 1 vote, 20%
Well, with only 5 votes total it is not indicative of a real trend, but it is interesting to see McCain's popularity with the Left.
So, what does it mean? I'm not going to read too much into what the Democrats think from this poll, because we had too little participation on that side to really give a good look, but even a sample as small as 32 respondents can be significant in showing a trend. For Thompson to stomp the field as thoroughly as he did here, suggests that there is in fact a substantial base for Thompson, in spite of his results so far.
So what's going on? Fred is liked by all conservatives, and from what I can tell the McCain people (like Medved), the Romney fans (like Hewitt) and the Giuliani and Huckabee fans go to great lengths to avoid a head-to-head comparison between their guy and Fred, but it was Hucakbee who grabbed Iowa, McCain who nabbed New Hampshire and South Carolina, and Romney who took Wyoming and Nevada. A lot of that has to do with the amount of money and time each of them had to invest, but it is also due to the character of the races in each of those states. Like Giuliani, Thompson seems to be playing for the South and the Super Tuesday contests, and he simply got into South Carolina too late to make an impact in that crowded field. It will be intriguing to see what he decides to do now, how he can - hopefully - finally tap that resource of promising yet so far unfulfilled potential. Here at least, Fred is far from dead.
As for Romney, he obviously has work to do to get the support of the base. No one I know thinks Romney would be bad for the GOP, but he's no more inspiring than a glass of milk. Room temperature milk and no cookies. McCain and Huckabee, well, to me they played off niche strengths but I just don't see them carrying the ball all the way to the goal line, not even the mid-field that is the party nomination. As for Paul and Keyes, they should follow the lead of Duncan Hunter. I don't think they will, but in the end it won't change the course of the party nomination.
That leaves Rudy, to my mind the second wild card (Fred is the first Wild Card and Mitt is the Mild Card) on the GOP side. SInce he has not yet won a primary, Rudy's not getting any press these days, and his 'wait for the big ones' strategy is one which will prove to be truly brilliant or truly foolish with little chance of any landing in between. I don't agree with Rudy's social positions, but his promise to appoint conservative justices and judges makes that a lot less important, and I have to say I respect the man for not changing his positions to please anyone else. I hope we get a lot more debate in the coming weeks, so we can shake out which of the Wild One, the Wild Other One, or the Mild One would be the best choice for the party. Right now, even though he hasn't wowed the states in the races so far, it looks like online Fred's ahead. Way ahead.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Out of Fashion – Who Still Supports President Bush?
In the Presidential election of 2004, President Bush received 62,040,606 votes, more than any candidate in any previous election in the United States.
That’s a lot of voters, folks, and a person could even reasonably call that a clear mandate from the voters. Of course, the Democrats denied that there was a mandate, even though Bush’s 47% and 51% share of the Popular Vote were better than the 43% and 49% Clinton earned in his two bids, terms the Democrats were quick to claim as mandates for Clinton’s policies. About that time, opinion polls gave President Bush a 55% support rating.
So, 55% Job Approval was worth 51% in the Popular Vote, and represented over 62 million real, committed votes. But that was then, and this is now, as the saying goes. Bush’s Job Approval has fallen to 33.6% on average, which by my rough math would be 31.2% of the Popular Vote if he was running right now. That meager number, however, still translates into 40.8 million votes. Now that looks to me like a big number, yet the people who support Bush seem to be a very quiet bunch. I’ve worked high school gyms with a few hundred people, and that can get really loud, so I admit it’s very strange to think about 40 million people you never hear. Odd, very odd.
After thinking about it, it seems to me that there is a disconnect going on, that there are a whole lot of people who generally think the President is doing a good job, but they don’t make an effort to stand up for the President in public, out of public expectation, a focus on the 2008 contenders, or perhaps the media – including the blogs – has harassed Bush supporters into thinking there are few of them left, or that their support for the best President between 1989 and 2013 is somehow wrong. Certainly, there has been a real push to silence Bush supporters. It’s no shock to hear that the Democrats are still running against Bush, but it appears a number of Republicans are, as well. Mitt Romney, who is leading in delegates just now, made a point of distancing himself from President Bush just before the Iowa caucus. Romney’s opinion on the war in Iraq followed his demand for Bush’s intervention in the housing market, and back in November Romney was blaming Bush for not being more “bipartisan” on Social Security reform and Medicare, and Romney stridently declared “We must change course, and we're going to.”
McCain, as is well known, blames President Bush for freeing Iraq when he could have been chasing Osama all over hill and dale. McCain also blamed President Bush for not falling for the Global Warming scam, and let’s not forget how McCain felt about supporting Bush’s conservative judicial appointments.
Then there’s Mike Huckabee. The Huckster was honest enough to admit he has no foreign policy experience, but then immediately trashed the President’s Iraq decision and mocking Bush’s attempts to reform Social Security. MSNBC even noted that Huckabee is far more respectful to Senator Clinton than he is to President Bush.
So, the three GOP candidates who have won primaries so far have all copied the Left in hating Bush. They plainly believe that America needs BDS. Personally, I think that is a very bad mistake, and Bush-hate will, in the end, hurt candidates rather than help them on the national scale. This is partly because I do not think that most voters want to support someone based largely on hating their opponent, or on personal attacks against people who did their best to do the job, but I also think those Bush supporters still matter. No, there's not 62 million of them these days; some lost confidence in the President, some were as inconstant as the wind, and some have allowed themselves to believe the lies of the Bush-haters. There may not even be the 40 million evidenced by the President's Job Approval numbers, but we exist, and we matter.
Certainly, President Bush has made mistakes. He took the wrong side on a number of issues, and he took advice from the wrong people on some things. As a result, Immigration Reform is still a horrid mess even though Bush has spent more on Border Security than any prior Administration, and introduced more new programs to keep out and catch illegals (US-VISIT, SBInet, CBP Fugitive Pursuit, CBP Air & Marine, IAFAS, ICE, and two new academies for intelligence and border security tactics). He made the mistake of trusting Senator Kennedy to keep his word, and so NCLB became a political football. He trusted the system at FEMA too well and so was caught by surprise when FEMA as well as the local and state officials in Louisiana failed to do their jobs during Katrina. And President Bush trusted the CIA and the State Department too much in the work-up to the invasion of Iraq. But he made no more mistakes than other President, and far fewer than most, especially in the context of national needs. Every President makes mistakes, even Reagan (remember the Beirut pull-out and Sandra Day o'Connor and the 1986 Amnesty?). The matter is best understood in the full context of the work done.
Going in Afghanistan and Iraq was the right thing to do. Both nations are far more stable and prosperous than they could ever have become without American intervention, and the region is more stable with U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, than it could ever be if the U.S. had refused to act;
The Bush tax cuts were exactly the right response to the 2001 stock crash, and the further cuts were the right move to increase federal revenues while correcting rate imbalances (another reason it was a good idea to elect an MBA, rather than just another lawyer);
Despite the controversy over Miers, Bush's judicial picks have been consistenly excellent, from his two SCOTUS nominations to his federal postings;
Bush did not succeed in getting Congress to reform Social Security, but he was the first President to make a real effort to change course from that coming disaster;
Bush brought together a Coalition greater than the one his father created in 1990, and Bush used that Coalition not only to defeat the Taliban and Saddam, but also to influence the Syrian, Iranian, and Libyan regimes to make significant changes in their military policy, and in Libya's case the abolition of their WMD programs.
There's more, since we are talking about 7 years of work, but the point is clear that President Bush has done a very good job, and has earned our thanks and respect. I cannot help but wonder, however, how many among us are willing to grant him that appreciation and the credit for his accomplishments. Few indeed, of those who speak on television, run for office, or enjoy prominence in the Blogosphere.
I stand with the President, and my vote can be had by those who respect what he has done for America. I think I speak for many others, but that remains to be seen as the primary season unfolds.
That’s a lot of voters, folks, and a person could even reasonably call that a clear mandate from the voters. Of course, the Democrats denied that there was a mandate, even though Bush’s 47% and 51% share of the Popular Vote were better than the 43% and 49% Clinton earned in his two bids, terms the Democrats were quick to claim as mandates for Clinton’s policies. About that time, opinion polls gave President Bush a 55% support rating.
So, 55% Job Approval was worth 51% in the Popular Vote, and represented over 62 million real, committed votes. But that was then, and this is now, as the saying goes. Bush’s Job Approval has fallen to 33.6% on average, which by my rough math would be 31.2% of the Popular Vote if he was running right now. That meager number, however, still translates into 40.8 million votes. Now that looks to me like a big number, yet the people who support Bush seem to be a very quiet bunch. I’ve worked high school gyms with a few hundred people, and that can get really loud, so I admit it’s very strange to think about 40 million people you never hear. Odd, very odd.
After thinking about it, it seems to me that there is a disconnect going on, that there are a whole lot of people who generally think the President is doing a good job, but they don’t make an effort to stand up for the President in public, out of public expectation, a focus on the 2008 contenders, or perhaps the media – including the blogs – has harassed Bush supporters into thinking there are few of them left, or that their support for the best President between 1989 and 2013 is somehow wrong. Certainly, there has been a real push to silence Bush supporters. It’s no shock to hear that the Democrats are still running against Bush, but it appears a number of Republicans are, as well. Mitt Romney, who is leading in delegates just now, made a point of distancing himself from President Bush just before the Iowa caucus. Romney’s opinion on the war in Iraq followed his demand for Bush’s intervention in the housing market, and back in November Romney was blaming Bush for not being more “bipartisan” on Social Security reform and Medicare, and Romney stridently declared “We must change course, and we're going to.”
McCain, as is well known, blames President Bush for freeing Iraq when he could have been chasing Osama all over hill and dale. McCain also blamed President Bush for not falling for the Global Warming scam, and let’s not forget how McCain felt about supporting Bush’s conservative judicial appointments.
Then there’s Mike Huckabee. The Huckster was honest enough to admit he has no foreign policy experience, but then immediately trashed the President’s Iraq decision and mocking Bush’s attempts to reform Social Security. MSNBC even noted that Huckabee is far more respectful to Senator Clinton than he is to President Bush.
So, the three GOP candidates who have won primaries so far have all copied the Left in hating Bush. They plainly believe that America needs BDS. Personally, I think that is a very bad mistake, and Bush-hate will, in the end, hurt candidates rather than help them on the national scale. This is partly because I do not think that most voters want to support someone based largely on hating their opponent, or on personal attacks against people who did their best to do the job, but I also think those Bush supporters still matter. No, there's not 62 million of them these days; some lost confidence in the President, some were as inconstant as the wind, and some have allowed themselves to believe the lies of the Bush-haters. There may not even be the 40 million evidenced by the President's Job Approval numbers, but we exist, and we matter.
Certainly, President Bush has made mistakes. He took the wrong side on a number of issues, and he took advice from the wrong people on some things. As a result, Immigration Reform is still a horrid mess even though Bush has spent more on Border Security than any prior Administration, and introduced more new programs to keep out and catch illegals (US-VISIT, SBInet, CBP Fugitive Pursuit, CBP Air & Marine, IAFAS, ICE, and two new academies for intelligence and border security tactics). He made the mistake of trusting Senator Kennedy to keep his word, and so NCLB became a political football. He trusted the system at FEMA too well and so was caught by surprise when FEMA as well as the local and state officials in Louisiana failed to do their jobs during Katrina. And President Bush trusted the CIA and the State Department too much in the work-up to the invasion of Iraq. But he made no more mistakes than other President, and far fewer than most, especially in the context of national needs. Every President makes mistakes, even Reagan (remember the Beirut pull-out and Sandra Day o'Connor and the 1986 Amnesty?). The matter is best understood in the full context of the work done.
Going in Afghanistan and Iraq was the right thing to do. Both nations are far more stable and prosperous than they could ever have become without American intervention, and the region is more stable with U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, than it could ever be if the U.S. had refused to act;
The Bush tax cuts were exactly the right response to the 2001 stock crash, and the further cuts were the right move to increase federal revenues while correcting rate imbalances (another reason it was a good idea to elect an MBA, rather than just another lawyer);
Despite the controversy over Miers, Bush's judicial picks have been consistenly excellent, from his two SCOTUS nominations to his federal postings;
Bush did not succeed in getting Congress to reform Social Security, but he was the first President to make a real effort to change course from that coming disaster;
Bush brought together a Coalition greater than the one his father created in 1990, and Bush used that Coalition not only to defeat the Taliban and Saddam, but also to influence the Syrian, Iranian, and Libyan regimes to make significant changes in their military policy, and in Libya's case the abolition of their WMD programs.
There's more, since we are talking about 7 years of work, but the point is clear that President Bush has done a very good job, and has earned our thanks and respect. I cannot help but wonder, however, how many among us are willing to grant him that appreciation and the credit for his accomplishments. Few indeed, of those who speak on television, run for office, or enjoy prominence in the Blogosphere.
I stand with the President, and my vote can be had by those who respect what he has done for America. I think I speak for many others, but that remains to be seen as the primary season unfolds.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Deep in the Heart of Taxes
OK, so it’s a bad title, I’m a bit busy with the new semester, got another dog and I’ve been doing things unwise for a 47-year-old white-collar worker, like moving a piano and reinforcing my fence. Anyway, today’s article is about taxes, and more to the point, why you should be wary of how the Presidential candidates tell you they are going to make things better.
First, a capsule of how each of the major candidates says they will handle taxes if they become President:
Hillary Clinton:
Hillary promises to “lower taxes for middle class families”. She would do this by offering tax benefits to alternative energy research, by providing direct official government support for unions, and “return to the income tax rates for upper-income Americans that we had in the 1990s”. In short, tax increases on target demographics but no actual individual tax cuts are specifically promised for anyone, and tax revenue would be allocated specifically to increasing unions, establishing government control of personal savings, regulate the housing market with new laws and controls, creating a housing version of 'rent control', and reducing military budgets – Hillary whines regularly about the cost of the war in Iraq as if cutting the military would directly improve the lives of regular people. In short, more government and higher taxes.
The Club for Growth observes that “Hillary Clinton both voted against the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts”, and she also opposed their extension. The Club for Growth notes in particular the “class-warfare rhetoric and a bristling hostility towards the capitalist spirit”.
Barack Obama:
Obama promises “Tax Fairness for the middle class”. Obama would create a new tax credit of up to “$500 per person, or $1,000 per working family”. He would have government subsidize mortgages, by expanding the mortgage interest credit to non-itemized returns. He would increase the Earned Income tax credit and “eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors making less than $50,000”. Ironically, in addition to these complications, Obama also promises to simplify the process, noting that the “tax code has become too complicated”. Obama’s solution would be for the IRS to prepare tax forms for individuals to simply sign and return. The implication of this level of government scrutiny and control is breath-taking in its arrogance. Like Hillary, Obama would increase government spending on chosen goals, and like Hillary his solutions all mean greater government regulation and control. Socialism is evident in his description of how an Obama administration would control Human Resources at U.S. companies; “Obama has introduced legislation to help strengthen career ladders by first identifying regions and industries where career pathways are not fully developed and then establish public-private partnerships to lift up low-wage workers. Obama supports using the successful organized labor model of providing workers with additional skills and opportunities, and looks forward to working with organized labor to build more opportunities for low-income workers to reach economic security.”. God save us from comrade Obama!
The Club for Growth says that Obama’s tax positions are similar to Hillary’s, although he would be quicker to raise Social Security tax rates and expand the incomes subject to them.
John Edwards:
Edwards would increase tax credits for the poor and for children, and he would immediately and drastically increase capital gains tax rates. Like Obama and Clinton, Edwards’ idea of tax reform holds noo promise of a tax cut, even for the poor, but is based on punishing people who make money.
The Club for Growth says Edwards is “promising to eliminate the Bush tax cuts before they expire. Edwards has also promised to raise the capital gains tax rate to a whopping 28%-even higher than the 20% rate that applied before the 2003 tax cuts.”
John McCain:
McCain promises, like Hillary and Obama, to “cut taxes on the Middle Class”. McCain would repeal the AMT, require 60% of Congress to support any bill to raise taxes, and stop earmarks, but he also supports Social Security in much the same way it operates now.
The Club for Growth does not like McCain, warning of “the Senator’s vocal and class-warfare-laced opposition to the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts; his occasional but eager support for increased government regulation; his support for raising Social Security taxes; and his persistent attacks on political free speech in the form of the McCain-Feingold Act.
“The Bush tax cuts were a driving force behind the economic prosperity of the last couple of years and a cornerstone of a pro-growth philosophy,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “Not only did Senator McCain oppose these cuts, he aligned himself with the likes of Ted Kennedy in his rhetorical attacks in 2001 and 2003. Four years later, American taxpayers still have not heard the Senator disavow his misguided statements and votes.”
Rudy Giuliani:
Rudy promises “We’ll not only keep the current tax cuts in place or their equivalent, we’ll enact additional tax relief and give the Death Tax the death penalty. High tax rates hurt business and destroy jobs.” Rudy would lower the marginal tax rate, make the Bush tax cuts permanent, tie the AMT to inflation, and lower corporate taxe rates. He would also lower capital gains taxes. Like Hillary and Obama, Giuliani would create an R&D tax credit, and like Obama he says he would work to simplify the tax form.
The Club for Growth says Giuliani “successfully cut taxes; kept spending below the growth of inflation and population; instituted sweeping welfare reform; privatized and deregulated many aspects of the city's bulky bureaucracy; and fought aggressively for school choice."
Mitt Romney:
Romney’s campaign site does not have a link to any specific promises on taxes. His press releases, however, do shed some light on his views. One press release in January 2008 states that Romney would make the Bush tax cuts permanent, that he would “roll back tax rates across the board”, that he would change the tax rate “on interest, capital gains and dividends to absolutely 0%”, and that he would reduce corporate tax rates. Romney says he would oppose increases in Social Security tax rates, but does not explain how he would keep his promise to “strengthen Social Security”.
The Club for Growth says "Romney’s record on taxes, spending, and entitlement reform is flawed, it is, on balance, encouraging, especially given the liberal Massachusetts Legislature. His record on trade, school choice, regulations and tort reform all indicate a strong respect for the power of market solutions. At the same time, Governor Romney's history is marked by statements at odds with his gubernatorial record and his campaign rhetoric."
Fred Thompson:
Thompson’s campaign site is really light on details. Thompson says that the “tax code is broken and a burden on U.S. taxpayers and businesses, large and small. Today’s tax code is particularly hostile to savings and investment, and it shows”. Like Obama and Giuliani, Thompson says he wants to radically simplify the tax code, and Thompson says straight out he wants to eliminate the IRS “as we know it”.
As an aside, Fred’s site does not have a “search” feature, making it hard to seek out his opinions in detail. Fred’s got a lot of general principles, but it’s hard to get specifics.
The Club for Growth says Thompson has a “very good record on taxes, regulation, and trade”.
Mike Huckabee:
Huckabee wants to eliminate the IRS, and indeed has proposed the most radical correction of any candidate, in his support for the Fair Tax. His plan is simple; replace the income tax with a simple consumption tax.
The Club for Growth says Huckabee has a “liberal economic record as governor”, and that “Huckabee is proud of his tax hikes, his spending increases, and his regulatory expansions as governor, and he has not indicated that he would govern any differently as president”
Between the candidates’ own words and the opinions from the Club for Growth, I don’t really see much I can add, except to remind the reader that anything involving taxes would have to get past Congress, which would probably not be difficult for Clinton, Obama, or Edwards, but would be a substantial difficulty for any Republican president not named Reagan.
First, a capsule of how each of the major candidates says they will handle taxes if they become President:
Hillary Clinton:
Hillary promises to “lower taxes for middle class families”. She would do this by offering tax benefits to alternative energy research, by providing direct official government support for unions, and “return to the income tax rates for upper-income Americans that we had in the 1990s”. In short, tax increases on target demographics but no actual individual tax cuts are specifically promised for anyone, and tax revenue would be allocated specifically to increasing unions, establishing government control of personal savings, regulate the housing market with new laws and controls, creating a housing version of 'rent control', and reducing military budgets – Hillary whines regularly about the cost of the war in Iraq as if cutting the military would directly improve the lives of regular people. In short, more government and higher taxes.
The Club for Growth observes that “Hillary Clinton both voted against the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts”, and she also opposed their extension. The Club for Growth notes in particular the “class-warfare rhetoric and a bristling hostility towards the capitalist spirit”.
Barack Obama:
Obama promises “Tax Fairness for the middle class”. Obama would create a new tax credit of up to “$500 per person, or $1,000 per working family”. He would have government subsidize mortgages, by expanding the mortgage interest credit to non-itemized returns. He would increase the Earned Income tax credit and “eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors making less than $50,000”. Ironically, in addition to these complications, Obama also promises to simplify the process, noting that the “tax code has become too complicated”. Obama’s solution would be for the IRS to prepare tax forms for individuals to simply sign and return. The implication of this level of government scrutiny and control is breath-taking in its arrogance. Like Hillary, Obama would increase government spending on chosen goals, and like Hillary his solutions all mean greater government regulation and control. Socialism is evident in his description of how an Obama administration would control Human Resources at U.S. companies; “Obama has introduced legislation to help strengthen career ladders by first identifying regions and industries where career pathways are not fully developed and then establish public-private partnerships to lift up low-wage workers. Obama supports using the successful organized labor model of providing workers with additional skills and opportunities, and looks forward to working with organized labor to build more opportunities for low-income workers to reach economic security.”. God save us from comrade Obama!
The Club for Growth says that Obama’s tax positions are similar to Hillary’s, although he would be quicker to raise Social Security tax rates and expand the incomes subject to them.
John Edwards:
Edwards would increase tax credits for the poor and for children, and he would immediately and drastically increase capital gains tax rates. Like Obama and Clinton, Edwards’ idea of tax reform holds noo promise of a tax cut, even for the poor, but is based on punishing people who make money.
The Club for Growth says Edwards is “promising to eliminate the Bush tax cuts before they expire. Edwards has also promised to raise the capital gains tax rate to a whopping 28%-even higher than the 20% rate that applied before the 2003 tax cuts.”
John McCain:
McCain promises, like Hillary and Obama, to “cut taxes on the Middle Class”. McCain would repeal the AMT, require 60% of Congress to support any bill to raise taxes, and stop earmarks, but he also supports Social Security in much the same way it operates now.
The Club for Growth does not like McCain, warning of “the Senator’s vocal and class-warfare-laced opposition to the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts; his occasional but eager support for increased government regulation; his support for raising Social Security taxes; and his persistent attacks on political free speech in the form of the McCain-Feingold Act.
“The Bush tax cuts were a driving force behind the economic prosperity of the last couple of years and a cornerstone of a pro-growth philosophy,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “Not only did Senator McCain oppose these cuts, he aligned himself with the likes of Ted Kennedy in his rhetorical attacks in 2001 and 2003. Four years later, American taxpayers still have not heard the Senator disavow his misguided statements and votes.”
Rudy Giuliani:
Rudy promises “We’ll not only keep the current tax cuts in place or their equivalent, we’ll enact additional tax relief and give the Death Tax the death penalty. High tax rates hurt business and destroy jobs.” Rudy would lower the marginal tax rate, make the Bush tax cuts permanent, tie the AMT to inflation, and lower corporate taxe rates. He would also lower capital gains taxes. Like Hillary and Obama, Giuliani would create an R&D tax credit, and like Obama he says he would work to simplify the tax form.
The Club for Growth says Giuliani “successfully cut taxes; kept spending below the growth of inflation and population; instituted sweeping welfare reform; privatized and deregulated many aspects of the city's bulky bureaucracy; and fought aggressively for school choice."
Mitt Romney:
Romney’s campaign site does not have a link to any specific promises on taxes. His press releases, however, do shed some light on his views. One press release in January 2008 states that Romney would make the Bush tax cuts permanent, that he would “roll back tax rates across the board”, that he would change the tax rate “on interest, capital gains and dividends to absolutely 0%”, and that he would reduce corporate tax rates. Romney says he would oppose increases in Social Security tax rates, but does not explain how he would keep his promise to “strengthen Social Security”.
The Club for Growth says "Romney’s record on taxes, spending, and entitlement reform is flawed, it is, on balance, encouraging, especially given the liberal Massachusetts Legislature. His record on trade, school choice, regulations and tort reform all indicate a strong respect for the power of market solutions. At the same time, Governor Romney's history is marked by statements at odds with his gubernatorial record and his campaign rhetoric."
Fred Thompson:
Thompson’s campaign site is really light on details. Thompson says that the “tax code is broken and a burden on U.S. taxpayers and businesses, large and small. Today’s tax code is particularly hostile to savings and investment, and it shows”. Like Obama and Giuliani, Thompson says he wants to radically simplify the tax code, and Thompson says straight out he wants to eliminate the IRS “as we know it”.
As an aside, Fred’s site does not have a “search” feature, making it hard to seek out his opinions in detail. Fred’s got a lot of general principles, but it’s hard to get specifics.
The Club for Growth says Thompson has a “very good record on taxes, regulation, and trade”.
Mike Huckabee:
Huckabee wants to eliminate the IRS, and indeed has proposed the most radical correction of any candidate, in his support for the Fair Tax. His plan is simple; replace the income tax with a simple consumption tax.
The Club for Growth says Huckabee has a “liberal economic record as governor”, and that “Huckabee is proud of his tax hikes, his spending increases, and his regulatory expansions as governor, and he has not indicated that he would govern any differently as president”
Between the candidates’ own words and the opinions from the Club for Growth, I don’t really see much I can add, except to remind the reader that anything involving taxes would have to get past Congress, which would probably not be difficult for Clinton, Obama, or Edwards, but would be a substantial difficulty for any Republican president not named Reagan.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Thought for the Day Jan 11 2008
When you listen only to the enemies of a man, you know only how his enemies think. You do not know the man himself.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Hugh Hewitt: Arrogant Shill
Most days I love to read and hear what Hugh Hewitt has to say. His columns and radio show have a lot of perspective and news on all the day’s political events. But Hewitt can get a bit full of himself at times, and when he does the results are not good for Conservatives. As an example, today I am writing about Hewitt’s inexcusable conduct regarding the Presidential race.
Those who follow Hewitt know he’s a big support of Governor Mitt Romney. No complaint there from me, I have looked up Romney’s record as Governor of Massachusetts and his work as CEO of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics in 2002, as well as his position statements, and he’d make a good President, I think. The problem comes when someone other than Romney is considered. Again, I have no problem with anyone explaining why they think their guy is better, but Hewitt does not stop there. Instead, Hewitt has been waging a campaign of sliming every candidate not named ‘Romney‘, and casting their credentials falsely and, frankly, showing a crude and hostile attitude that sure sounds to me like he is afraid of anyone matching the candidates up on their actual work and positions. If you check his blog, for example, you will see a number of entries designed to whack John McCain. For instance, about halfway down the page there is an entry which Hugh read on-air Wednesday afternoon, to the effect that an endorsement by Domino’s pizza mogul Tom Monoghan represents “an effort to save the GOP from capture by the anti-conservative John McCain and the neopopulist Mike Huckabee”. By that logic, the top runners should really push to grab that all-important ‘Jared’ nod from Subway, to be sure they have that demographic covered. I won’t guess at the value of the Jack-in-the-Box and McDonald’s endorsements, even though they would appear to represent a huge part of the country, because we are already too aware of well-known clowns in close contact with politicians. But Hewitt is using the pizza schtick to sell attacks on McCain and Huckabee. Hey, I agree that neither McCain nor Huckabee would get my first choice of vote, but Hewitt has been treating them rather nastily. The reader will also note that Hewitt deals with the campaigns from Mayor Giuliani and Senator Thompson by simply ignoring them.
What annoyed me was not that Hewitt has a horse in the race, but that he wants to snipe at the other jockeys. He made an on-air statement Wednesday afternoon to the effect, that if you did not vote for Romney, you were wasting your vote, that only Romney was an acceptable GOP nominee, and that only Romney could win in the General Election for the Republicans. Because I consider Mr. Hewitt to be a well-educated man who is fully informed on the candidates’ positions and records, I’d have to call that a rather rude and arrogant lie, a deliberate malignment of men who deserve much better from a purported man of integrity who claims to honestly report the race as it is, but who instead is painting over the picture to show what he wants rather than the true condition. We get enough of that from the Left and properly call it out when we see it, and so I must cry ‘foul!’ here.
Maybe it’s because I wanted Condi to run, that I can see the existing candidates a bit more impartially than Hewitt does. There are good and weak qualities to every one of the Republican candidates, and while I have my own preferences, I don’t pretend that I could therefore lie about other Republicans in order to make my guy look better. Maybe it’s that I recall Reagan’s 11th Commandment a bit better than Mr. Hewitt seems able to manage (and no, taking a lying commentator to task is not the same as maligning the Republican leaders and candidates), or maybe it’s that I can see that whoever the GOP selects for its nominee, it will necessarily be better than the opposing selection from the Democrats, and as such the GOP nominee must be supported by Conservatives because, like it or not, the alternative would be far worse. We have a critical strategic situation in the Middle East, which no Democrat can be trusted to direct. The immigration question must not be decided on the question of how many new voters your party can add by letting illegals vote. Taxation cannot be left in the hands of people who think of tax revenue as belonging to the government, or who do not understand that more government is by nature damaging to the power of the economy. The nomination of federal judges and SCOTUS justices cannot be left in the hands of people who think the Constitution can be manipulated to suit the mood of the present culture. The power and influence of the United States cannot be left to the whims of people who claim we must suborn our sovereignty to the preferences of other nations. Any Republican is, by definition, more desirable for the welfare of the United States and more committed to the ideals of her Constitution than any Democrat, as things stand today.
As much as I normally respect and applaud Hugh Hewitt on his thoughts and opinions, in this case he is doing Governor Romney no favors, as he is showing himself a shill in behavior and arrogant in character, and feeding the greatest weakness in the Republican side of the election, the sense that if the preferable candidate does not gain the nomination, that the Republican nominee should be abandoned. Hewitt is doing the DNC’s work for them when he forgets that any Republican is better than any Democrat in this election, and that while it is right and good to support your man, you must not do so by tearing down the good qualities of other contenders.
Hewitt owes apologies to all of the Republican candidates for President. To Giuliani and Thompson for his silence on their qualifications on the issues he pretends only Romney has addressed, to McCain and Huckabee for refusing to balance their credentials in the light of actual positions and for overstating their errors and missteps, portraying each as an enemy of the Republicans rather than simply less desirable from his point-of-view. To Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Alan Keyes, for treating them as not worthy of mention simply because they do not lead in the race. And to Mitt Romney, for being a distinctly uncivil partisan while presenting himself as a supporter. Friends like Hewitt are doing Romney no favors.
Those who follow Hewitt know he’s a big support of Governor Mitt Romney. No complaint there from me, I have looked up Romney’s record as Governor of Massachusetts and his work as CEO of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics in 2002, as well as his position statements, and he’d make a good President, I think. The problem comes when someone other than Romney is considered. Again, I have no problem with anyone explaining why they think their guy is better, but Hewitt does not stop there. Instead, Hewitt has been waging a campaign of sliming every candidate not named ‘Romney‘, and casting their credentials falsely and, frankly, showing a crude and hostile attitude that sure sounds to me like he is afraid of anyone matching the candidates up on their actual work and positions. If you check his blog, for example, you will see a number of entries designed to whack John McCain. For instance, about halfway down the page there is an entry which Hugh read on-air Wednesday afternoon, to the effect that an endorsement by Domino’s pizza mogul Tom Monoghan represents “an effort to save the GOP from capture by the anti-conservative John McCain and the neopopulist Mike Huckabee”. By that logic, the top runners should really push to grab that all-important ‘Jared’ nod from Subway, to be sure they have that demographic covered. I won’t guess at the value of the Jack-in-the-Box and McDonald’s endorsements, even though they would appear to represent a huge part of the country, because we are already too aware of well-known clowns in close contact with politicians. But Hewitt is using the pizza schtick to sell attacks on McCain and Huckabee. Hey, I agree that neither McCain nor Huckabee would get my first choice of vote, but Hewitt has been treating them rather nastily. The reader will also note that Hewitt deals with the campaigns from Mayor Giuliani and Senator Thompson by simply ignoring them.
What annoyed me was not that Hewitt has a horse in the race, but that he wants to snipe at the other jockeys. He made an on-air statement Wednesday afternoon to the effect, that if you did not vote for Romney, you were wasting your vote, that only Romney was an acceptable GOP nominee, and that only Romney could win in the General Election for the Republicans. Because I consider Mr. Hewitt to be a well-educated man who is fully informed on the candidates’ positions and records, I’d have to call that a rather rude and arrogant lie, a deliberate malignment of men who deserve much better from a purported man of integrity who claims to honestly report the race as it is, but who instead is painting over the picture to show what he wants rather than the true condition. We get enough of that from the Left and properly call it out when we see it, and so I must cry ‘foul!’ here.
Maybe it’s because I wanted Condi to run, that I can see the existing candidates a bit more impartially than Hewitt does. There are good and weak qualities to every one of the Republican candidates, and while I have my own preferences, I don’t pretend that I could therefore lie about other Republicans in order to make my guy look better. Maybe it’s that I recall Reagan’s 11th Commandment a bit better than Mr. Hewitt seems able to manage (and no, taking a lying commentator to task is not the same as maligning the Republican leaders and candidates), or maybe it’s that I can see that whoever the GOP selects for its nominee, it will necessarily be better than the opposing selection from the Democrats, and as such the GOP nominee must be supported by Conservatives because, like it or not, the alternative would be far worse. We have a critical strategic situation in the Middle East, which no Democrat can be trusted to direct. The immigration question must not be decided on the question of how many new voters your party can add by letting illegals vote. Taxation cannot be left in the hands of people who think of tax revenue as belonging to the government, or who do not understand that more government is by nature damaging to the power of the economy. The nomination of federal judges and SCOTUS justices cannot be left in the hands of people who think the Constitution can be manipulated to suit the mood of the present culture. The power and influence of the United States cannot be left to the whims of people who claim we must suborn our sovereignty to the preferences of other nations. Any Republican is, by definition, more desirable for the welfare of the United States and more committed to the ideals of her Constitution than any Democrat, as things stand today.
As much as I normally respect and applaud Hugh Hewitt on his thoughts and opinions, in this case he is doing Governor Romney no favors, as he is showing himself a shill in behavior and arrogant in character, and feeding the greatest weakness in the Republican side of the election, the sense that if the preferable candidate does not gain the nomination, that the Republican nominee should be abandoned. Hewitt is doing the DNC’s work for them when he forgets that any Republican is better than any Democrat in this election, and that while it is right and good to support your man, you must not do so by tearing down the good qualities of other contenders.
Hewitt owes apologies to all of the Republican candidates for President. To Giuliani and Thompson for his silence on their qualifications on the issues he pretends only Romney has addressed, to McCain and Huckabee for refusing to balance their credentials in the light of actual positions and for overstating their errors and missteps, portraying each as an enemy of the Republicans rather than simply less desirable from his point-of-view. To Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Alan Keyes, for treating them as not worthy of mention simply because they do not lead in the race. And to Mitt Romney, for being a distinctly uncivil partisan while presenting himself as a supporter. Friends like Hewitt are doing Romney no favors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
