Running Scared

It's getting fun to watch as "The One" finds out that he may need to scratch January 21, 2009 out of his anointment appointment book.

White women and independents are flocking over to the McCain Palin ticket, and Joe Biden won't be helping by telling people that her being elected would be step backwards for women.

Barack Obama is in full defensive mode, not knowing how to react to the media that's suddenly being somewhat warm to the opponent, and realizing that a novice senator with no record, and a 35 year Washington insider aren't exactly "change agents".

The problem for him is his lack of a record is starting to show. While Palin can claim some legitimate (and some questionable) reform victories in Alaska, and McCain has a record of bucking his party, Obama's campaign folks claimed are grasping at straws for anything that might look like reform.

Sunday David Axelrod got caught with his pants down by Chris Wallace of Fox News, when he claimed that Obama's support of ethics reform and nuclear non-proliferation were items that "went against his party". Wallace was kind enough to point out to him that both of those items were passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, no roll call needed. That's not reform, that's following the herd.

While Obama has decided that Alaska keeping the "bridge to nowhere" money is bad; even if it's now being used for needed infrastructure improvements instead of the bridge; he voted for that money, twice.

My guess is that in the next 3 to 4 weeks we'll start seeing McCain ads about earmarks, that Obama will have to defend himself, and fellow Democrats against. Remember that in 2006 one of the hallmarks of the party taking over congress was that earmarks would get cut down.

Instead, last year Obama asked for $330 million, including money that went to the hospital his wife works at and companies represented by Joe Biden's lobbyist family members.

Read The Full Post!

The Problem of Identity Politics

One of the biggest problems with the big tent of the Democratic party is that everyone wants what's best for their group. This year, they have battling groups, women and minorities.

This lady wasn't too happy with the fact that the party big wigs decided that Michigan and Florida will only get 1/2 of their delegations seated. She was unhappier that the rules committee tossed her (and many others) out of the room.




When you play identity politics, as the Democrats have for decades, you can't help but run into problems when the identities clash. Truthfully, this should have been banner year for the Democrats, hoisting the identity of the first black nominee with a chance onto their mantle. The problem is that eight months ago the party thought it would be a banner year when they did that with the first serious female nominee.

Now the women are pissed off at the black guy, the black guys are pissed off at the woman, and the party of unity is a fractured group of individuals, pissed that their identity isn't the one being recognized.

Here's an idea for their party to try in 2012, run on ideas, not identities, and see if it works out better.

Read The Full Post!

Battling Over A GI Bill

Barack Obama and John McCain are taking shots at each other over McCain's opposition to an increase in GI Bill benefits, and Obama's lack of military service.

The gist of the new GI Bill, as envisioned by James Webb (D-Va) is that instead of $1,100 a month for school, as the current Montgomery GI Bill pays, you'd get the average cost of tuition at a State University ($1,450/mo) plus a $1,000 living stipend to help with other expenses. Instead of the service member paying $1,200 at the beginning of their enlistment as an enrollment fee, that would go away, and those who've paid it would get a refund.

Obama can't understand why McCain would be against such a bill, and McCain say's Obama's support without question shows his lack of understanding of the military.

"I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans," McCain said. "And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did."

The source of the dust up is, in basic terms, the difference between liberalism and conservatism. Liberals believe that fairness should drive everything, and everyone should get the same thing, conservatives believe you should be able to earn more of those things.

McCain's belief isn't that you shouldn't increase GI Bill benefits, but that they should be increased based on time served. The longer you are in the military, the more benefits you get.

Very simply, Obama, and a bunch of other folks have it wrong on this program, and it's been proven in the past. The approach of "throw the bone to all the dogs" doesn't work well for military readiness, retention, or to attract the best you can to the military in the first place.

In the early 1990's, when "force reduction" due to the end of the Cold War was driving the military a lot of programs were developed to get folks to leave, including the Montgomery GI Bill.

The effects of the programs, though predicted by the military, were ignored by Congress. For example, Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI) and Special Separation Bonus programs were enacted to give a monetary incentive for mid-grade people to leave the service.

The idea of the program was good, the problem came about with who took it. As my boss at the time (who was in charge of retention programs for Surface Forces, Pacific Fleet) pointed out the only people taking the program were "the best and brightest". In other words, the people the military needed to keep were the one's leaving. Bottom feeders, as a rule, didn't take the money and run.

There's a good master's thesis from Navy Post Grad School (pdf format) in that time frame that showed that economic incentive by the service alone wasn't enough to get someone to take the program. They also needed to know that they'd make enough money outside the service (pay and benefits) for it to be worthwhile.

Top performers knew they would succeed outside the military, and jumped at the programs. Lower rated performers stayed in, knowing that unless they committed a crime, the military would find a way to keep them, or give them even better compensation if they were forced out.

How does this equate to a more generous GI Bill? Simply put, those who join the military because they know that they probably wouldn't be successful in college will probably stick around, regardless of the GI Bill benefit. Those who join, as today, with an eye towards money to help with school will probably leave, as they do today.

The third group, the "on the fence" folks, are the biggest, and the group the military likes to move up from within. Many of them, given the bigger incentive immediately, won't look at the idea of a career in the military. Retaining them is always a chore, and given a bigger incentive to leave makes it a harder chore. Currently many of them are kept through tuition assistance programs, and commissioning degree programs. Why take those, and the strings attached, when you can just get out and get a huge freebee?

McCain understands that to retain them; and facilitate success for them later in life; a new program needs to balance the needs of the military with the individual. To that end, he wants to increase the benefits later in a career. A one term Soldier or Sailor might get the current GI Bill benefit. Do a second tour, get a bigger benefit, and so on.

As a taxpayer I like that idea better than the Webb plan, as it will obviously cost less. As a career military guy, I like it because I know how hard it would be to keep that guy or gal who's on the fence about what to do.

***************************************UPDATE*************************************

Here is a link to the full text of McCain's response to Obama, and the Webb version of the GI Bill.
Wow is all I can say. Barack, you been schooled.

Read The Full Post!

The Association Game

Barack Obama's campaign started showing it's game plan for the general election this weekend. One of the points they made is that the "Keating 5" scandal of the late '80's is on the table and in play.

For a few reasons I find it an odd choice of things to run out. First, if the Democrats want to get "down and dirty" with the Keating 5, they'll be reminded that 4 of the 5 were Democrats. The only one of the 5 to be officially censured by the Senate wasn't McCain, it was a Democrat (Alan Cranston).

John will probably bring out the Keating 5 special investigator, Robert Bennett, who'd recommended no charges to brought, or reprimand given to McCain. Bennett has said on many TV shows, and in his own book that McCain was charged only because the Senate Ethics Committee (chaired by Democrats) didn't want it to be a "Democrat's only" scandal.

The other thing that could cause the Keating 5 issue to backfire on Obama is the aftermath. It would be easy to see why McCain could have gotten bitter, and been a pain in the ass for Democrats after they toss him under a bus to make themselves look less bad. Instead, he spent the next 11 years working with Democrats to come up with a workable (though questionable) campaign finance reform bill.

Obama has no such story to tell. He can't tell, legislatively, where he's taken a stand on anything unpopular with his party. He can't say "Here's where I made a mistake, and this is how I worked to fix it". McCain can say that, and has the laws to prove it.

The other problem for Obama is that playing the "associate game" with McCain is probably a minefield he should stay out of. Amy Geiger-Hemmer has a nice piece up with some of the questionable characters associated with the Obama camp. I don't agree that every name on her list should be there, they are very peripheral players in the Obama world, but other should bother you when you read about them.

Read The Full Post!

Spin Cycle

The spin cycle has gotten running so fast on the elections that I think I'm stuck in my washing machine. If you don't believe it, go to the Washington Post editorial page, where there are five by-line columns devoted to the idea of the campaign, four of them on the fate of Hillary Clinton.

Depending on your angle, Hillary has to drop out to save the party, should stay in to save the party, should fly to the moon to save the party.

Harold Meyerson over at the WaPo has written the liberal view on what a lot of conservatives have been saying about the final outcome of the Democrat's process in "Titans On The Mat".

That view is that Clinton can't win without destroying the party. A victory by her will assure that the black vote stays home, or shows in a dwindling number come november. The youth vote that Obama has gained would walk too, and then of course, Hillary would be crushed by McCain.

The problem with that is if Hillary doesn't get the nomination, then you have the Florida and Michigan voters who will (rightfully) be able to say that Obama didn't want them counted. Make no mistakes about it, quotes from Obama and his crew that killed any possibility of a revote in those states back in March and April, and having them count will pop up in October.

This hasn't been discussed much since April when Obama killed the "do over" vote plans in both states, and now acts as if they don't exist.

The other group that will probably bail on Obama in fair numbers is the white working class. Especially those in the upper middle class who will be reminded (ad naseum) of his tax plans that will crunch that group hard. He hasn't done well with them in any state, and it's hard to believe a scenario where suddenly they find him the savior. In fact many of them might be a little "bitter" about him.

Finally, and I think this group is ignored way to often by the media and politicians, the older vote. Hillary Clinton has carried the AARP vote in every primary. Many of them will see in McCain a guy their age, or slightly older, with more experience, who can talk to them.

And while the Democrats love to rage about the youth vote, the AARP group is voting in much bigger numbers in every primary. When you break down the demographics, it's a much more important block of voters than the unreliable youth, who may well lose interest by November if a good PS3 games comes out.

It's going to be an interesting time, the next few weeks, as Hillary tries to hang on, and I think eventually realizes she can't. But she will try, and may well alienate more voters in the process, creating a bigger chasm in the Democratic Party in the process.

Read The Full Post!

Change That Tune!

Today's newest game is evidently "Change That Tune". If you claim that you dodged sniper fire one week, and everyone else their denies it happened, Change That Tune, and claim you were speaking in generalities, and your memory was fogged, since it was a dozen years ago.

If you give a speech saying you'll stand by your pastor, but not his words, and folks start jumping from you ship, Change That Tune! What, you don't get this one?

Evidently on tomorrow's installment of "The View" Barack Obama will say that if Rev. Jeremiah Wright hadn't decided to retire he'd have left the Trinity United Church of Christ. But wait, a week ago he wasn't leaving, he couldn't, he was married there, his children baptized there. It would have been like ripping a piece of the family away.

While people had been willing to ignore his legislative record as the most liberal member of the Senate, and consider him the great hope for uniting the country, they evidently won't forgive him for his association with Rev. Wright. Now that he's figuring that out, in full politician mode, he's changing his tune (for the third time) on what he'd have done about the minister.

(This song is paraphrased, I don't have the exact lyrics in front of me)
Stanza 1. (Sunday Talk Shows)
If I had heard any such sermon from Reverend Wright, I'd have confronted him about it.

Stanza 2. (The Great Speech of 2008)
Yes, I heard some things that I strongly disagreed with. But I could no more abandon the Reverend than I could a family member.

Stanza 3 (tomorrows View)
I'd have left if he hadn't decided to retire.

Months ago I said that once the sheen started wearing off folks would realize that "St. Barack" isn't the next messiah, but a politician. It looks like that's starting to sink in. The Democrats are realizing that they have Hillary "Harding" Clinton in one corner, and "The Great Unknown" in the other, and are starting to get nervous.

Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen is calling for a neutral site meeting of the party Super Delegates in June to "assess the situation" and see if they can't come to a consensus over who the nominee should be. He wants it to be public, and on the record. Good luck with that part, most of them don't want to be know as the backstabbers who killed a candidacy before the convention.

Unfortunately for the Democrats Bredesen's idea probably won't fly, and we'll have a fight through the summer until their convention, turning off more potential voters as the mud continues to fly. And John McCain will get to sit back, laugh, and let his opponent fight their own party.

Read The Full Post!

Going Tonya Harding

I caught a piece on the morning show that I listen to that sent me over to ABC to find out what's going on with the Democrats.

Jack Tapper has a piece up on Political Punch that says DNC insiders are starting to whisper that the Clinton's are finding that throwing everything, including the kitchen sink at Barack Obama isn't getting them where they want to be, nominated. Therefore, according to Tapper's unnamed source, they are looking at the "Tonya Harding Option". In other words, whacking him in the knees so hard he can't compete.

Evidently, Hillary still wants to be the nominee, though her chances are small. To that end, her folks are supposedly looking for enough dirt to make Obama toxic come November.

Good Morning America's home page has a big piece up (also written by Tapper) on how other Democrats are worried about such a scenario. They are starting to see McCain's numbers rise, and the bad blood boil into crossover votes for him from the loser of such a fight. Gallup's polls* show that if Obama got the nomination 28% of Clinton supporters say they'd vote McCain, and 19% of Obama supporters would do the same if Hillary is nominated.

Those are the types of numbers that can't be ignored. No matter what percentage of independents or undecideds you get, losing 10-15% of the party base would be the death blow to the Democrats chances in November.

One outcome of such a fight could end up being a brokered convention, where Florida Congressman Tim Mahoney has suggested Al Gore could be put on the top of the ticket with the survivor of the Clinton Obama melee as the second.

While many see Gore as the White Knight who, on his Prius Powered Horse, would save the party the truth is Gore is damaged goods already. Add to that McCain is a global warming believer, and shares many Democrat's views on things like Guantanamo and immigration you'd have taxes end up being the big issue of difference. Name the last "tax more people" candidate that won the election. Better, ask Walter Mondale how that position works.

If the Democrats want the White House back this fall, the two candidates need to start playing a little nicer. Their toxic stew of accusations and half truths is turning off their own party base, and the independents they need to get the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania.

*corrected to say Gallup instead of Rassmussen. there are too damn many pollsters out there

Read The Full Post!

Here's My New Candidate!

I've found my new candidate for President! If you aren't happy with Hillary or Barack, or if you are too conservative for John McCain, maybe you should check out this guy.

He's kind of a dummy, but still talks with a lot of sense, and doesn't seem to be bound by political correctness. His thoughts on Hillary, and many other subjects are covered in the 7 minute clip.

Enjoy


Walter is a dummy, Jeff Dunham is the ventriloquist/comedian "behind" Walter, and has been getting laughs for years. You can sometimes see him on Comedy Central, or rent one of his DVD's for a great evening of entertainment. If you own a Prius, you might be offended by his "Spark of Instanity" show, though.

Read The Full Post!

The Number One Issue

The number one issue in this years election is discussed in this clip. It pretty well sums up politics today



Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters

Read The Full Post!

Death Watch Postponed

The death watch on Hillary Clinton's campaign has been given a reprieve, but not much of one. For every headline touting her 3 wins last night another, or the same story pointed out that Democratic delegate allocating made the victories pretty hollow. She won the popular votes, but really didn't make up any ground in the delegate race.

The Superdelegate, who've been flip flopping like, well Democrats on defense, are still going to be the key to the race. While Obama can claim droves have moved to his side of the aisle after 11 straight victories, he now has the shadow of Tony Rezko's trial hanging over his candidacy, which could flip them back to Hillary. Worse for him is the theory that the defense could issue a subpoena to have him testify for Rezko, which probably wouldn't help his standing with those superdelegates.

John McCain on the other hand won his nomination last night, and gets to spend the entire spring working over the Democrats, without having to worry about delegate counts or trials. While Clinton and Obama have to spend the next 7 weeks leading to Pennsylvania beating each other up over differences in their very similar stances, McCain gets to take pot shots at those stances.

With Rezko's trial starting, and McCain having sewed up the nomination for the GOP, the DNC has to be wondering if this year will once again be one where they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

This isn't a new thing for the Democrats. In 1988 Mike Dukakis held a huge summer lead over George H.W. Bush, then Willie Horton started turning up in ads all over the country. Like Rezko the Democratic establishment knew about Horton, and had been warned he could end up being the "deal breaker", but ignored the warnings. This time around former DNC treasurer, Joe Cini who had already been tied to the scandal 2 years ago, should have provided the warning, but it's been ignored.

Read The Full Post!

Building Bridges out of Nothing

David Ignatius at the Washington Post has a great piece up today contrasting Barack Obama's claims to be a "bridge builder" and the reality of his voting record.

Obama supporters can look forward to more pieces like this, should he wrap up the nomination shortly and it may make life a little bit painful. Readers of the Post should appreciate that someone there is asking questions other than "would you like another pillow" (thanks SNL).

Ignatius performed what one of my favorite talk show host refers to as a "flagrant act of journalism" by looking at Obama's record both in Illinois and the US Senate for the signs of how he's going to build the bridges to reunite America. Unfortunately for Obama's supporters what he found was a lack of construction skills nearly 180 degrees out of sync with his message.

This is kind of a telling portion of the column, and points to the "softball issues" that Obama claims as bipartisan victories:

The Obama campaign sent me an eight-page summary of his "bipartisan accomplishments," and it includes some encouraging examples of working across the aisle on issues such as nuclear proliferation, energy, veterans affairs, budget earmarks and ethics reforms.

Let's look at that list, and see if there is anything on it that wouldn't have bipartisan support from pretty much anyone in the Senate.

Nuclear Proliferation... Not since Barry Goldwater can I think of anyone from either party who didn't think that slowing the spread of nuclear weapons was a good idea.

Energy, well the parties have differences on how to work a policy, but the vote in the Senate on the current energy bill was pretty bipartisan since 40 votes to block it couldn't be found.

Veteran's affairs, especially after the Walter Reid stories broke a few years ago EVERYONE in Congress wanted to fix the DoVA. Prior to those stories in 2005 though few people did anything about it, except argue over funding for Concurrent Receipt of disability and retirement pay (which still isn't 100% happening).

Budget earmarks, considering when Obama came into office, and why the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, it was a no brainer that both sides would work towards earmark reform. If you look at how the Democrats have made this "transparent" though you might question if the reform as done any good at all.

Ethics Reform, again, Obama was elected at the height of the Tom DeLay scandal, and Duke Cunningham's problems were in the news. Anyone voting against ethics reform wouldn't be seen as partisan, they'd be seen as stupid!

Ignatius points out, correctly, that there isn't an instance on that list where Obama worked across the aisle on a subject that would raise eyebrows with the party base. Even on one topic he did work on that's contentious, immigration reform, he didn't work at the front of the pack, like McCain and Ted Kennedy. Even in 2005 before they took over Congress, it was the Democrats working from the position of power on the topic, with 41 votes locked up to stall any bill that didn't meet Harry Reid's liking.

The truth is that Obama's campaign rhetoric isn't exactly inclusive, bipartisan, or "post-partisan" as one commenter on Ingatius' article claimed. It's basically Howard Dean and John Kerry in 2004, running hard left against "Bush Policies" though Bush won't be on the ballot.

His rhetoric on labor, trade, and taxes all smack of the politics of class warfare, not inclusion, yet he's going to be the 'great uniter'?

McCain may have had a change of heart on the Bush tax cuts of '01 and '03, but he's honest enough to note they've worked. Obama (and most democrats) can't even acknowledge that they took 20 MILLION of the lowest income workers completely off the federal income tax rolls because it doesn't fit the "only rich got breaks" mold that they've been running on since 2003.

If you get a chance, go read Ignatius' column, and if you are an Obama-maniac try and do it with an open mind. You might learn something about your candidate.

Read The Full Post!

Ralph's Back

Ralph Nader is, once again, going to run for President. I know his reasoning is that we are all dissatisfied with the GOP and Democrats, and looking at presidential and congressional approval ratings that seems true enough. The problem is that not enough people have ever been enthused enough about Ralph to make him a viable candidate.

Democrats still hate him claiming that he cost Al Gore the 2000 election. Republican's basically ignore him, like that crazy uncle at the dinner party, and the Greens for some reason seem to believe he can win and change the world.

The truth is, Nader will bring up some valid points over the next 9 months, but basically be ignored by the media, and go away again until 2012. Considering the drop off in votes he received in 2004 (.38%) compared to 2000 (2.7%), it's doubtful that he's going to be a spoiler this time around, hell, he may not get any votes at the rate he dropped.

So, good luck Ralph, hope you find a way to get your message, out, and we'll see you again in 2012.

Read The Full Post!

Pressing For The Underdog

George Will today presses for a GOP underdog as a person who'd actually be one of the best candidates for the party come 2008.

Tommy Thompson, long time governor of Wisconsin, and former Health and Human Services Secretary seems to have caught Will's eye. It's not a bad eye to catch if you are an underfunded, underknown candidate in a big field of people.

I was a registered Wisconsin voter for quite a few of the years Tommy was in office in the state, and liked a lot of what he did, but not everything. He is a politician, and they always do stupid things.

If you liked the idea of welfare reform at the federal level, thank Tommy, when he proved that "welfare to work" wasn't going to turn every family getting assistance into street people it suddenly became viable at the national level.

If you are a champion of school choice, and need a good example, look at the program he ramrodded through in Wisconsin. Yes, it's had some issues, like all big programs, but has been a success by and large. The biggest group arguing for more choice in the state are inner city poor, who've watched it work for a (legislatively) limited group. The groups fighting it are the teachers unions at the schools those kids go to; they like their captive audience.

Unlike Romney and Guilianni he doesn't have to change stripes on many core conservative beliefs to be electable, he's got a long history of being pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-growth.

He's had a few gaffes of late, making the statement that "making money is a Jewish tradition" to a Jewish group, but the press seems more upset about it than the people he made the joke to. But then again, the press often reminds us of what should offend us, even when it doesn't.

He also did a few things as Governor I didn't like. When Wisconsin allowed Indian gaming he didn't give any legislative oversight to the process. While that seemed to work fine while he was in office, the current governor has shown that it was probably a bad move.

When the state decided to index the gas tax for inflation annually, without a legislative vote and he went along with it, it was a mistake. That's been correct in the last year, but not without a fight.

He also spent a lot of time stringing the state GOP along last year when they were looking for a challenger to Herb Kohl for his Senate seat, waiting until close to the last minute to decide against running. He'd have served folks better had he dropped his name off the list early, and not gone through the speculation process.

His method for trying to win the White House is a little odd. He doesn't have a ton of money, so instead of spending it, and his time in a bunch of states, he's concentrating on winning in Iowa, and using that to move forward in the primaries.

Overall though, if you are looking for an actual conservative candidate, who doesn't have the downside of guys like Brownback and Tancredo, and more leadership experience than say Duncan Hunter (who I'd also have no problem with), Thompson is someone you should probably give a closer look.

Technorati Tags: Tommy Thompson, Elections, GOP, 2008, Iowa, George Will

Read The Full Post!

Where's the Beef?

So, Barak Obama is running for President. Yahoo, really, Yahoo. One of the cornerstones of his candidacy is his thought of universal health care for America. He's mentioned it in a number of speeches, including yesterday's making his run officials. He tells us how important it is, but He's never given any specifics on how he's going to make it happen.

In fact, when you look at the issues section of his website, and click on the health care link, you find that there is no mention of this lofty goal. There is a lot of fluff, some of it recycled from George Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns (Medical Information Technology, Report Cards for hospitals and doctors). But no where is there a mention of universal health care, how it would work or where the money would come from.

I mentioned a couple of posts ago about some hurdles that have to be overcome to bring about universal health care, and Obama has, so far, addressed none of the issues with such a goal.

So, Senator Obama, I'll ask you that age old question "Where's the Beef?" when it comes to your desire for universal health care? How are you going to do this?

Technorati Tags: Obama, Health Care, 2008, Elections

Read The Full Post!