Turn on...Tune In...Drop Out

Sorry for the late post. It was an active day in politics yesterday and I wanted to get to it all- John, Rudy and the 4 Amigos at the Reagan Flight Center, I mean, Library. Let's take them in chronological order.

John Edwards
As I listened to John Edwards' speech to end his Presidential run, one question kept flashing through my mind: why are politicians so often at their best in these situations? Is it because they're finally free to say what they really believe and be who they really are? Or is it because humility is a wonderful characteristic that we rarely see on the election trail? Whatever the reason, John Edwards stepped up to the mike yesterday in New Orleans and became the candidate many of us thought he could be--just as he was saying good-bye. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22916846#22916846
He reminded us that "we, as citizens and as a government, have a moral responsibility to each other." He exhorted us to take care of each other, and made it sound appealing. He told a moving story of talking to homeless people under a bridge in New Orleans and how a woman implored him to "not forget us". And surpisingly, there was no angry finger-pointing about the "two Americas". Instead, he spoke of the promise of "One America". Too late, but certainly not too little. Edwards insisted that he extracted solemn pledges from Obama and Clinton to make "eliminating poverty" a central theme of their campaigns. Obama wasted no time assuring everyone that he'll follow instructions (especially if it leads to an endorsement). http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22916631#22916631 And Clinton said, "John Edwards ended his campaign today in the same way he started it — by standing with the people who are too often left behind and nearly always left out of our national debate.” So, we'll see. Rest assured, though, that John Edwards will continue to be on the front lines of the struggle for economic justice and that he won't forget. He was a welcome addition to this Presidential race.

Rudy Giuliani
Similarly, Rudy Giuliani demonstrated his relaxed, humorous side during his withdrawal/endorsement speech at the Reagan Library. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22921439#22921439
After endorsing Mac, Rudy said he'd campaign for him "or not...depending on what John wants...or if I'm in trouble". He based his endorsement primarily on McCain's ability to lead in the "terrorists' war on us", an interesting turn of phrase that was perhaps the harbinger of his eventual failure: He always wanted to do it (or say it) a little differently. As a result, Rudy bucked conventional campaign wisdom and found himself painted into a corner in Florida. I'm not going to over-analyze Rudy's fall from grace, stunning and precipitous as it was. Let's just say that even though he'll always be America's Mayor, (brand names die hard) he, in reality, is an ex-mayor of New York and that office has never produced a Potus. Or we can just leave it to Dorothy Kaliades of Queens who said, in a NY Times article today, "He was too New York, too Italian, and he had too many wives." OK.

The Debate
If you've been reading this blog for the past few weeks, you know I try to be polite most of the time. But every now and then, I have to call a dog a cur. I mean, let's be honest, this thing at the Reagan Library was a mess.

If you're a Republican, you can't be happy about the choice you were presented with last night. While the front runners engaged in petty bickering, the two guys who can't win made the most sense. Again. And if you're President of CNN you've got to wonder why you couldn't have found an adult to moderate the debate. I was waiting for Anderson Cooper to fire a spitball at someone. Or for a teacher to finally walk to the front of the room.

Now, if you want to say that each party has had a fractious debate that brought out the worst in the two front runners, that's fair enough. I don't have to assume that last night's performances by McCain and Romney were the norm. But disturbing trends are appearing. And because of the uneven nature of the participation, I'm not going to grade each participant. I'll instead give some general impressions based on individual moments. I'm afraid that's all this debate deserves.

On the positive end, each candidate looked great. Even McCain. Take it from a professional actor, there's nothing like an LA make-up artist.

As I said, Huck and Paul seemed cogent. Mac and Romney had decent moments before the food fight began.

Some of my favorite answers were:

• McCain's straight up aggreement that states should be allowed to set their own environmental policy (specifically, mpg requirements for cars). Best line: 'We even have a Pro-American French President, which proves that if you live long enough anything is possible".
• Romney's argument for a global environmental policy--so that non-reciprocal regulation won't drive American polluting companies to other countries, to continue polluting.
• Mitt explaining the difference between the leadership benefits of being governor as opposed to a legislator --"legislators sit in committees and call that leadership". Good line.
• Huck's amplification of Mitt's point. "States [meaning Governors] know how Washington works but Washington doesn't know how states work."
• Mitt's clear explanation as to why Huck's highway program wouldn't provide a short term stimulus (between design and permit approvals, it would take too long to provide a quick cash infusion).
• Ron Paul's typically understated, but on the money, reason "why Reagan would endorse him": I don't know what he'd do today...but he did campaign for me in '78." What!! If any of the other candidates could make that claim they would've put it on a billboard. Plus, Paul recalled Reagan stating "that no great country that got off of the gold standard, remained great." Kudos, again, for being the only candidate in this entire race to talk about the perils of currency devaluation.
• Mac's straight answer on "whether he would've (as Reagan did) appointed pro-choice Sandra Day O'Connor (yes).
• Mitt discussing "four major strategies" in the world today (energy countries like Russia that seek to use that leverage for their gain, China--communism with a wild west capitalism, Al Qaeda--destruction of status quo, and the U.S. --trying to spread democracy and free markets) in a question about Vladimir Putin.

That's the good news. The rest of it is ugly.

Let's start with Mac, who I thought had a bad night. This may sound petty, but when is Mark McKinnon or Rudy or anyone going to tell Mac that radical Islamic extremism is redundant!! And if I have to hear that he was "a foot soldier in the Reagan revolution" one more time, I'm going to scream. Beyond that, though, I saw a disturbing occurrence that I hope won't be re-played in this campaign. But I have a feeling it will. McCain, when asked why he would be an effective economic leader, hypnotically lapsed into his stump speech about being the best prepared commander in chief. It was truly a "huh?" moment. And I thought he was exposed as a petty, politics-as-usual candidate about the Romney timetable issue.

Romney, who did better, nevertheless let his dismay at Mac's audacity get the better of him. Instead of hitting back hard when Mac said, "Yeah, I know you've bought and sold some companies...and some people have lost their jobs", Mitt just looked at him in disbelief. I don't blame you, Mitt, but you' can't let someone get away with that. And when Romney said he never advocated timetables, the actual quote read by Cooper contained substantial mention of timetables. He explained the whole context of the quote but he still looked bad. The bottom line for Mitt is that he may be competent, he may be able to lead, but he isn't sharp and he doesn't have an inspirational bone in his body.

Huckabee is starting to let his polished "I'm the authentic guy" act sound a little too rehearsed. And it was interesting that when he was provided openings to slam Mac, he did not. And he carefully crafted his pro-military message to jibe with Mac's hawkishness. Which leads many of us to believe that he's angling for a VP slot on the McCain ticket.

So, in the end, when America shakes it's head after a debate and says, "Tell me again why we can't vote for Ron Paul?", you know it hasn't been a good night for Republicans.

I've had a legitimate issue raised about the desire to comment on something other than my question of the day. I agree. Feel free to comment on anything you'd like, as long as it's political or attached to some current event.

But...the question of the day is simple: did the Repub's hurt themselves in the debate, or was it an anomaly that voters will forget?

Hit the word "comment" below and let's get it on.

Substance and Beauty In Florida

McCainiacs rejoice. Last night's close but decisive victory over Mitt Romney in the Republican-only Florida Primary has indeed brought your man "a little closer" to the nomination. And the demographic substance of the victory was significant. McCain united important (and contradictory) subsets of Republicans: pro Bushies, anti-Bushies; military folks and civilians; economy firsters, security firsters. The economy first group has to buoy Mac's camp after his econ bona fides were deemed a vulnerability.

To be sure, McCain got a lot of help. It's impossible to overstate the importance of Gov. Charlie Crist's endorsement. He's extremely popular in the state. And once again, Mike Huckabee provided social conservative cover for McCain. Those who called themselves "very conservative" threw considerable support to Huck and thwarted Romney's claim to that important group. Here's an insider stat that will drive the Romney camp nuts: Romney had a 10 to 1 TV ad advantage over McCain. But while Romney garnered only 130 votes per spot, McCain walked away with 1,500 per. Ouch.

The other big story also throws huge mo' Mac's way. Rudy Giuliani's third place finish has bounced him out of the race and he will endorse McCain in some choreographed political theater at the Reagan Library today. This is obviously crucial for Super Tuesday as it leaves McCain as the only "moderate" for those Northeast Repubs who are economic but not social conservatives.

Mitt and Huck both vowed to press on. And why not? A fascinating sidebar to the Repub race is the simmering antipathy toward McCain from right wing nuts like Rush Limbaugh and his Ditto Heads. Limbaugh has famously remarked that a McCain presidency would "end the Republican Party as we know it." (Prompting many of us to say," Yeah. And your point is?" ) Last night, MSNBC's conservative voice, Joe Scarborough, let his true feelings surface briefly in a discussion about McCain's message: "This is a guy who's said jobs aren't coming back and we'll be in Iraq for a hundred years...so his message is less jobs and more wars. That's great." (Thanks, Joe for giving Democrats a great soundbite if Mac's the nominee.)

So Romney knows that there is still a core Republican base that wants an alternative. Unfortunately, that core may be sitting with Huckabee. Tim Russert made an interesting point last night, indicating that McCain was praying (no pun) for Huck to say in the race through Super Tuesday, because Huck's evangelical base is definitely hurting Romney. Russert said Mac was also dangling a VP spot for Huck. Now that would be an interesting ticket.

McCain's victory speech showed why so many people just flat out like him. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22905757#22905757
He was gracious and humble. He individually praised each of his major opponents with more than lip service. Cynics can point out that McCain wants Rudy's endorsement and Huck's help, so, of course, he'll say nice things about them. Perhaps, but he said to Romney supporters that the margin of victory [36%-31%],"...surely isn't big enough for me to brag about-- and for you to despair..." Face it, folks, normal politicians don't say those kinds of things.

On the Democratic side, Florida was a beauty contest, with no delegates awarded to any of the candidates. Predictably, Hillary Clinton won 50% of the votes (even though no one campaigned there) and then hailed it as a huge victory. Perhaps she hasn't read the breakdowns that show when Obama campaigns in states where she has had huge leads based upon her name recognition (that would be everywhere) he has eliminated almost all of those leads.

Hillary also vowed to work for Florida delegate recognition at the convention. The question lingers as to whether she would embark upon that quest if she had lost. To that point, Obama's camp unearthed a statement she made in Iowa that Michigan and Florida "don't matter". When confronted with that by MSNBC, Hill laughed it off as "political jargon". While no one expects her to openly admit that her Florida "victory celebration" was a stunt to recapture momentum after Obama's PR bonanza on Monday, her exuberance so denied reality that it makes you wonder how dumb she thinks the electorate is. And this is what many folks don't like about her. One moment she can be genuine and charming, and the next finds her slipping into that political lizard skin which transforms her into a phony.

Obama secured the endorsement of a rising new star on the political scene, Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas. This could prove troublesome for Clinton down the road. Sebelius, in many ways, is the anti-Hillary. She reeks of heartland(her favorite word)authenticity --note the natural gray hair--and is committed to reducing the politics of divisiveness. Perhaps a potential Obama running mate.

Tomorrow I'll break down the tonight's Repub debate on CNN and start some analysis to set up Super Tuesday.

We're also waiting on a new Fed rate cut. 25 or 5o basis points? We'll see.

Give me some thoughts on McCain's prospects and Romney's strategy. Just click on "comment" below.

The State Of Things To Come

As Florida goes to the polls today, we're approaching crunch time in American politics. So let's get to it.

State of the Union
Last night a lame-duck President with a 32% approval rating took to the rostrum before a Congress with more foes than friends. I was expecting a truly depressing speech and what I heard was a reasonably well-polished call to "finish the people's business". What I didn't hear was "...the state of our Union is strong". So I give George Bush full marks for starting off the festivities with a little reality.

Bush supporters could be cheered by his typical resolve with familiar issues like his tax cuts and Iraq. He wants both to be permanent. Just kidding. Kind of. He did implore Congress to make his tax cuts permanent and he trumpeted the success of the "surge" in Iraq to make the case for continued resolve in that conflict. One of his best moments was parrying arguments against the tax cuts: "Some in Washington argue that letting tax relief expire is not a tax increase. Try explaining that to 116 million American taxpayers who would see their taxes rise by an average of $1,800. Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm. I’m pleased to report that the I.R.S. accepts both checks and money orders." It's always good rhetorical technique to acknowledge your opponents' arguments before you counter them, and that was a perfect example.

If you're a Bush detractor you shook your head at the tired accounting practice that gave him that $1,800 figure. He said "average", as in the "average" income of patrons at a bar suddenly shot up because Bill Gates walked in. "Median" is the word that tells the real story and that figure is much lower, more like $858 for the "average" American. You also shook your head when you heard almost identical verbiage used to describe the Iranian nucular, I'm sorry, nuclear threat, that described Saddam Hussein's nuclear capabilities. Minus the yellow cake. Acknowledging the recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, even if you wanted to dismiss it as overly optimistic, would have been a good move. There's still worry out there that this President doesn't read those. And, of course, if you're a Bush detractor you continue to shake your head at the language that justifies the Iraq war: "...a failed Iraq would embolden the extremists, strengthen Iran, and give terrorists a base from which to launch new attacks on our friends, our allies and our homeland. The enemy has made its intentions clear. At a time when the momentum seemed to favor them, Al Qaeda’s top commander in Iraq declared that they will not rest until they have attacked us here in Washington." No mention of getting Osama Bin Laden. For most Americans, that's a puzzling (to put it politely) omission.

Finally, though, let's try to be positive. There were some surprising and welcome points of focus. Like the "Pell Grants for Kids". $300 million to give lower income children the chance to attend better schools. "Trade Adjustment Assistance" for workers displaced by the loss of jobs to overseas competition. (I don't know how it would work or if it would work, but it's a nice idea. Especially for a Republican.) Getting tough on earmarks. That's unassailably good policy. Supporting the Dole/ Shalala recommendations to improve the plight of our injured veterans. And re-committing to the Afghanistan front. About time for both of those issues.

So while I wasn't inspired, I wasn't depressed. I saw a President who still had some energy to commit to "the people's business".

Barry's Big Day
"Perfect storms" aren't always bad things. Take yesterday. In the afternoon, Barack Obama basked in the adulation of thousands of college students as Ted and Caroline Kennedy publicly endorsed him. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/28/AR2008012801482.html?hpid=topnews
Then last night at the State of the Union Address, Obama got more face time than Jack Nicholson at a Laker's game and was even involved in a "did he or didn't he" moment concerning a picture that showed him possibly snubbing Hillary. Wow. There isn't enough money to buy that kind of PR. So do we call off this contest. Barry wins? Not so fast. The one thing we've seen in this primary season is that old 'mo' swings fast and hard and very unpredictably. Plus, I'm always sceptical of a Ted Kennedy endorsement because he's seen as the poster boy of ultra liberal democratic politics. It can really hurt in a general, when you need indies and even some Repubs. The good news is that if Obama goes up against McCain, McCain can't hammer Obama's affiliation with Ted because he (McCain) sponsored legislation with Kennedy! The real key in my mind is Caroline's endorsement. I'm sorry, but when the daughter of the most inspirational politician in the last 50 years compares you to him, that's heavy and Barry's ridin' the Big Kahuna. For now.

Florida
One of the reasons this blog exists is in response to the lame attempts by the pundits to handicap the primary contests. We believe that we should just wait to let the people speak. But here's the general set up. We're looking at a too-close-to-call race between McCain and Romney with this caveat: if Rudy gets wild support from absentee and mail-in ballots (reportedly, a million of them have been cast), he'll be in the mix. Conventional wisdom says that Rudy needs to win or he's done (even though he says he'll debate in SoCal, regardless); that McCain needs to win to bolster his fundraising; and that Romney just needs to have a strong showing.

It's getting personal between Mitt and Mac. Mac started it over the weekend by saying that Mitt wanted to withdraw the troops from Iraq. Then Mitt escalated it by saying McCain supported liberal policies an then...well, just read this link for the whole story. It's the usual "you're a liberal!" "No, you're a liberal!" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/27/AR2008012700912_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008012802805

Meanwhile, the liberals have got their own little game going on in Florida.
Florida Dems are going to the polls, even though their delegates won't be recognized at the convention. Hillary will be there to claim the Pyrrhic victory--anything to stop Obama's surge, while Barry will say he stuck to the Dems pledge to not campaign (even though he did run ads). We'll be up to bring you thoughts on the whole shootin' match tomorrow!

Leave a comment by clicking on "comments" below.

Travel Day

Well, Friends, I'm traveling back to the East Coast today, so I'll take a one day blogging break before Tuesday's wild ride through the Florida primary.

In addition to setting the stage for the election festivities, I'll be commenting on the President's State of the Union Address. I'll also look into the Mitt/McCain spat on the Iraq War, as well as the Clinton camp's intention to treat the Democratic non-primary in Florida as...yeah, you guessed it-- a real primary. Can't wait for Hill's victory speech to see if she acknowledges that no one actually campaigned in Florida.

Yes, I know, Obama ran some ads, which made it look as if he'd stop at nothing for the nomination. Which clearly disturbed the Clintons because they're used to claiming that turf as their own.

And I'll comment on Howard Fineman's semi scoop that the Obama camp may have been approached by the Edwards camp about striking a delegate deal. (Fineman says he was told the Obama people rejected any deal.) So stay tuned and please, comment on any and all things political during my one day hiatus. Just hit "comments" below.

Yearnin', Learnin- How Obama's SC Victory Sets The Stage For Super Tuesday

Forgive me for dating myself with a reference to an old Earth, Wind and Fire tune (who's that, Dad?), but it frames perfectly the central theme of Barack Obama's 28 point win in the South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary yesterday: They're all yearnin', but who's learnin'? The next 10 days will tell us. What we do know is this: Barack Obama survived the Clinton attack machine and walked away with a 2 to 1 delegate victory, while capturing all but three counties in South Carolina. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/26/sc.primary/index.html

We also know what Rep. James Clyburn said about Obama's victory: "If he [Obama] ends up winning the nomination, he will definitely face an onslaught of attacks this fall and he may look back on South Carolina as the place that toughened him up." Amen. But, while no Clinton supporter has stated anything as succinctly, I'll say that if Hillary wins the nomination, she'll look back on SC as the place that showed her the limits of going negative and forced her to, again, calibrate her tone to deliver a more appealing message. If last night was any indication, however, Senator Obama seemed to be the quicker study. In his speech, Barack did what Barack does in speeches: He lobbed melifluous grenades from the high ground. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22860339#22860339

Let's face it, giving him a tele-prompter, a microphone and a crowd is like giving Bob Gibson a pitcher's mound, a baseball and a catcher. It's unfair if you're anywhere near the batter's box. And Obama, once again, took care of business. With the crowd responding to every phrase like a congregation in church, Obama reframed the race, "this is the past versus the future", where "we don't have to settle for the same division, distraction and drama..."; slammed the Clinton tactics, "we're up against the status quo who will do anything and say anything to get elected"; managed expectations, "it won't be easy", "we will make some mistakes"; and sent everyone skipping into the night with "we will heal this nation", "Yes we can!"

The Clintons did it a little differently. Hillary gave no concession speech. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22860695#22860695 She blithely congratulated Obama at a town hall meeting in Nashville before butchering her old standby joke about her lousy singing voice. And Bill gave his little nod to Obama in an address in Missouri before totally co-opting Obama's theme that the election is "about change". Not a classy start for the rest of their campaign--which was singled out in many exit polls as needing some class.

So what has John Edwards been learnin' in the face of all his yearnin'? Probably that he's not going to be President of the United States. Ever. 18% in his home state. Not good. No matter how he wants to spin it, you can take out the fork, Martha, he's done. And I think I learned why. For those of you who have been reading this blog, you know I have been obsessed with uncovering why Edwards gets no traction (in spite of filling so many positive Democratic criteria). So here's my take, once and for all. John Edwards has based his message on one thing and one thing only: being the voice of the unheard. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22860487#22860487
Which is beautiful. I mean it. This country needs that. But most of us don't fit in to that category. So sub-consciously people ask, "But what about me? Can you construct a vision for me?" And the sub-conscious answer is, "I don't think so". And so, he doesn't get the votes of the "heard" electorate. Which is about 85% of Democratic voters. Which explains his consistent 12-19% support across the board. Ok. I needed to get that off my chest. But I will say this and you heard it here first: John Edwards needs to be the next Attorney General. That way he gets to fight for the unheard, while the President constructs a plan for the rest of us.

So, what has the Democratic voter been learnin'? Not too much, really. This defeat is not catastrophic for Hillary. There are too many delegates still at play and she is still the second most formidable and skillful pure politician in the land. And guess who's number one? That's right, a guy named Bill. And while it's undeniable that the Clintons schooled Obama on the art of hardball politics, we'll see how much he learned and if the Clintons remain teachable also. The good news for Democrats is that this is how the process is supposed to work. Tailor the campaigns for greatest traction, find out what works and what doesn't, and eventually pick the strongest candidate.

Democrats, fasten your seat belts, because, to paraphrase Bette Davis, it's going to be a bumpy ten nights. Let me hear your thoughts on the primary and who you think will implement the lessons learned heading into Super Tuesday. Just click on "comments".

Final Notes On The Republican Debate As S.C. Goes To The Polls

As promised, I want to complete my analysis of the Repub debate before we spend the next two days slicing and dicing the results of today's South Carolina Democratic Primary. But first these two items to consider:

McClatchy Newspapers covered a scary story this week about American citizens who are being detained or deported erroneously. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/25392.html. That's right, Immigration officials are getting their wires crossed, but insisting that they have the correct information to the detriment of hundreds and maybe thousands of Americans who have legitimate citizenship papers. It's the kind of bureaucratic nightmare we need to consider when we start talking about deporting 12 million illegals. Read this article.

In just a shocking development, Hillary Clinton's camp is now insisting that the Democratic National Committee reinstate the delegates from Michigan and Florida. Originally, the DNC shut out those delegates to punish the states for moving their primaries up in the calendar. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CLINTON_FLORIDA_DELEGATES?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US Could this move have anything to do with the fact that she has a 2 to 1 lead over her rivals in Florida and the majority of votes in Michigan--where none of the candidates put their names on the ballot...well, except for Clinton? Naaaah.

I keep forgetting to mention the fact that the NY Times endorsed John McCain and Hillary Clinton in editorials Thursday. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri1.html?_r=1&oref=login and http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri2.html Perhaps that's because in this unique election year The Grey Lady's influence is not quite as potent as it might be. Notable in McCain's endorsement is the scathing commentary on Rudy Giuliani. Yikes.

So now, let's take a last look at the Repub debate. I'll go down the list with some random notes on style and substance.

Romney
I'm not gushing here about his performance because I think there are serious holes in his candidacy, but forget Hillary, here's someone who really has found his voice. He is now more seamlessly incorporating his "I'm the conservatives conservative" message into his real strength as a competent economic manager. His stimulus package, which looked to create tax cuts on seniors' social security income and create permanent tax cuts for lower income families, was a far better combination of short term cash infusion and long term growth policy than the Bush proposal. He also effectively reiterated a portion of his stump speech that validates his statement that "I'll run away from the record of Washington". That section of his speech says that Washington keeps promising to do things and hasn't done them. But my favorite proposal was his pledge to create a "Welcome Home Bill" to attract more soldiers into the volunteer army and to overhaul the GI Bill. His weak moments were his positions on Iraq, his pandering to Huckabee's extreme position on gun control and his statement that Hillary is completely "out of step with the American people". Take your head out of the sand, Mitt. She leads in virtually every poll that pits her head to head with any Republican. Overall, though, an A-.

McCain
McCain's likable personality and "straight talk" persona gives him the advantage of never having to be as polished as the others. If he doesn't completely screw his words up (like in his victory speech in NH) and makes a few solid points, he looks good. That's what he did in this debate. He effectively explained, again, that his vote against the Bush Tax cuts was the result of protesting the spending in that bill. His position as the opponent of "pork" is a strong and consistent theme for him. He also parried a criticsim that he voted against a $200 billion dollar catastrophic insurance package because it contained no insurance reform. He was wrong to dispute his own quote about his lack of economic bona fides. He made the statement that economics wasn't his strong suit. It's in black and white. And he was labored in defending his economic expertise. He was also obviously not answering Ron Paul's question about the President's Economic Advisory Committee, giving the impression that he wasn't really sure what it was. And when Paul asked if he would like there to be "more sunlight" on the deliberations of that committee, McCain said, lamely, "I would like to see more sunshine". But again, McCain made the points he had to, and didn't look lost. Which was all he had to do. A solid B.

Huckabee
Again, Huckabee impresses with style points and good lines. His line describing others' reaction to his fair tax as people looking at me "..like I was the only guy at the UN without a headset", I thought was priceless. He also made two strong points about his economic strengths. First, he reminded everyone that he was the only one in the Michigan debates (before the economy went haywire) to say that the economy was not in great shape, especially for the little guy. Fair enough. And as I wrote in yesterday's post, his proposal to use highway construction to stimulate the economy makes real sense. His consistency on his Iraq position --that we can't walk away from a difficult situation now-- is solid. His explanation of the role that his faith plays in his life is also solid. But his analysis of the Fair Tax and it's impact on peoples' real rate of taxation was confusing--and specious. Overall, I give him an A-.

Giuliani
While Rudy was polished, his message, to my ears, has become stale and pro forma. He has fallen into the earlier Romney pattern of trying to be the conservatives' conservative by exaggerating his economic conservatism to compensate for his social liberalism. The result is a bland message that has no innovative talking points. His one proposal on catastrophic insurance was a total pander to the Florida voter. But his adroit explanation of the Wet foot Dry foot immigration/political asylum exception for Cuban immigrants (that allows any Cuban immigrant to achieve instant asylum if his feet touches the soil of the United States--when other immigrants from oppressive regimes have to more fully justify their presence in America) was a good moment. Also, his explanation of the scathing commentary by the NY Times in their endorsement of McCain was solid. Overall, a B+, but I don't know how this really helps him.

Paul
Let's face it, Ron Paul is the only guy with the onions to tell it like it is. Now, we can all say he's got nothing to lose, but the fact remains that he stakes out unassailable Republican positions. He stutters, he has a whiny voice and sounds like a wacko broken record--but he's right on many positions. He's the only one to talk about the devaluation of the dollar as an alarming trend. He's the only one to talk about the conflict between a healthy economy and the war in Iraq. He's the only one to say what we all know--that Al Qaeda was not an issue in Iraq until we got there. He's consistent on all of his positions, often enduring ridicule. Now, does anyone think he'd make a good President? I doubt it. But his presence in these debates is welcome. His weakest moment was his slight two-step on the Social Security issue. While he maintains that he would do away with it, he said he'd take care of the people who are currently on it. Huh? But he ended on a high note when he responded to the question of if he would abandon the Republican Party for an indie run, by saying the Repub Party was abandoning him by turning its back on its core principles. Good stuff. I give him a B+.

So there you have it. Tell me who you think won the debate and if you think the debate helped the winner in a meaningful way. Just hit the comment link below.

Fat News Day To Close Out Our First Week

Well, we come to the end of our premiere week at Power to the People with a fat news day of weird, scary and predictable news items plus initial thoughts on the Republican Debate.

First, the weird. Yesterday, French bank Societe General SA discovered that Jerome Kerviel, a 31 year old futures trader, created "fictious transactions" resulting in a 7.2 biiilllion dollar loss (as Dr. Evil might say). http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120115814649013033.html?mod=hps_europe_whats_news. I know, it's not funny. But the question does come to mind: what's all this talk of a European "Big Brother" regulatory system that can't protect against this kind a fraud? Maybe it's because the dude just did it for kicks. He stood to make nothing on the trades. Oh, by the way, no one knows where he is. Where's Austin Powers when you need him?

Speaking of Dr. Evil, The AP reports that Paul Wolfowitz is rejoining the Bush Administration as head of an arms control panel. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080124/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/wolfowitz_3. Now look, we try not to be overly partisan here, but Paul Wolfowitz? The guy who was the architect of the Iraq war and then bailed on the administration when the criticism got too hot? The guy who went to the World Bank and put that institution on its ear by forcing through a sweetheart compensation deal for, well, his sweetheart? And now the chickenest of the chicken hawks is named Chairman of the International Security Advisory Board that reports to the Secretary of State with advice on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation? Really, we don't need the Bush Administration to reacquaint us with the definition of irony.

And to predictable occurrences, Dennis Kucinich officially drops out of the Presidential race today. After attracting less than 1% of the votes in every primary and caucus he participated, word is, he's blaming his lack of traction on his lack of exposure in the debates. In fact, insiders point to the serious challenge he's facing for his congressional seat-- and that he's attracting less than 1% of the vote. I will say this: it might be interesting to have a ticket of Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul run the country for one term. Could they really be any worse than...oh, never mind.

More predictable occurrences: After kneecapping Obama with a reference to his helping Chicago "slumlord" Tony Rezko, Hillary is trying to explain away a photograph that has surfaced of her and Bill standing (and looking pretty happy) with, guess who? That's right. Tony Rezko. It would be unbelievable--except that it's sooo believable. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22839654/

And now a look at the Republican debate, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/which was refreshing in it's civility and clarity. I've got a ton of notes which will form the bulk of tomorrow's post, but here are some general thoughts.

Tim Russert got each candidate (except Ron Paul) to unequivocally state that the Iraq War was "a good idea and worth the blood and treasure". I mean, none of these boys now has any wiggle room on this issue in the general election. And Russert framed the question in the context of a poll that shows 60% of respondents believe the war is a bad idea.

Mike Huckabee (in the candidate to candidate question and answer) got Mitt Romney to say that he, Romney, believes that there should be no new gun control legislation passed, even for assault weapons. Romney stated that Americans should be able to own guns for hunting or for"protecting themselves". Whoa. Kennisaw, Georgia, anyone? (I'll explain that in a later post, but Google it and you'll get my reference.)

Once again, Mike Huckabee was the only candidate talking about poor people, using the term "trickle up economics" to make a point of addressing the economic woes of the lower middle class folks who are struggling. He also made what I thought was a great point about "building two new lanes of highway from Bangor to Miami...using American labor, American steel and American concrete..." as a real stimulus package for the economy. Can you say, "Dwight Eisenhower"?

All in all, I thought Romney, Huck, and McCain were strong. Rudy sounded polished, though not compelling, and, as usual, Ron Paul made an awful lot of sense about the war and fiscal discipline.
Today's question is: how can the eventual Repub candidate convince those 60% of Americans that don't like the war that they should vote for a supporter of the war?

Leave your comments by clicking on the comments button and thanks for reading this week. We'll strive to keep you informed and thinking.

Random Notes on a Redundant Newsday

Greetings from the beautiful southwest where I am spending a few days in Tucson, AZ.

Before I briefly comment on the random news of the day-and refuse to comment on news that is becoming redundant by the day- I want to take care of some housekeeping:

• If you want to comment on any post, and I hope you do, go to "comments" at the bottom of the post and click on it. There is also an envelope icon, which allows you to email the post to anyone you choose. But...clicking on the envelope is not how you comment. There has been some confusion on this.
• Power to the People is a topic oriented blog. It is not a random thread blog. If you want to get tangential in your comments, you are welcome to do so, but I've created this blog to inspire dialogue on specific topics. If you would like to request certain topics for future discussion please do. I'll take all suggestions under advisement.
• There is an option to leave your email address. There is only one reason to do this: if you want to be considered as a panelist once Power to the People becomes a TV show. I need a way to find you if that's the case.

Ok. Now that we've cleared that up. Let's get to some news.

President Bush and Congresional leaders have agreed on the terms of a stimulus package. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22782454/. While lower-end earners who don't pay income tax get a $300 "rebate", single earners who make more than $75,000 and couples earning more thn $150,000 do not. Resentments, anyone? I'd love to know what you think of the package.

Speaking of stimulous packages (as I have recently), check out this great op-ed piece from yesterday's WSJ that describes the danger of a devalued dollar. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120112814944311367.html

I'm sick of the Bill, Hill, Barry show. It was entertaining for a few days, but it's now just redundant news that needs a new plot twist. Bottom line for Barry: quit playing in the Clinton's sandbox and you'll be fine.

There was lots of talk last night of the new website that has documented all the false statements that were uttered in conjuction with selling the country on the Iraq invasion. http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=project_home&context=cast_of_characters&id=948. Go check it out. It puts in black and white what we've all heard before, but I don't think it presents revelatory information that increases the case for, say, impeachment. If you have always believed Bush should be impeached, this report will bolster that opinion; if you have believed he shouldn't be, I'm not sure this will change your mind.

The question of the day is this: After looking at this site, do you think it indicts the Bush Administration even more than before? Or is it it more of the same ol' same ol'?

Finally, I'll have lots to say about the Repub debate tonight, in tomorrow's edition.

Let me hear from you. Click "comments" below.

Ah Freddie, We Hardly Knew Ye

Well, we've got a mixed bag of news today. In the non-political arena, Heath Ledger was found dead yesterday. Gone at the age of 28. The lesson? Not sure. Don't judge your insides by other people's outsides, maybe. Here's someone who led a life we think we all would love, but he was clearly miserable. In any event, he was a real talent and gave the world some wonderful performances as an actor.

Apropos of yesterday's post, the Fed slashed its interest rate by 75 basis points to 3.50%. Watch out for inflation, as we mentioned yesterday.

And the dust up between Hil and Barry has some of his supporters suggesting that he find a surrogate to take on Bill. Hmm. Must've read my post on the 21st.

And finally, 'Ol Fred packed it in. And that's what we'll focus on today. Because it is such an anti-climactic news story, it gives us the opportunity to spend a little time on bigger questions concerning the Republican race and the Republican message. So let's get to it.

In April of 2007, I was down at one of my favorite places in the world, Old Waverly Golf Club in West Point, Mississippi. As I finished my round, I overheard one golfer say to another, "I'm gettin' my Fred 08 buttons tomorrow. Want some?" The response was, "Hell, yeah. 'Bout time we got someone we can get behind."

Ah, yes. That was the promise of Fred Thompson. Someone the good 'ol boys could get behind. Son of the South. No crap. Good wit. Conservative principles. Tall.

Too bad the promise was never delivered. On his website http://www.fred08.com/ Fred talked of having doors open and walking through them toward opportunity. Ironically, the door opened again so he could walk away.

So what happened? Why didn't he resonate more? Was it really a question of not having enough fire in the belly? Or was it something else? Something to do with his message?

First of all, I think his Hollywood resume clouded his political resume. I felt there was only a little to know about Fred and none of it seemed to point to why he should be Potus. The comparisons to Reagan were not based on reality. Remember, people, Ronald Reagan ran for President four times before winning the nomination. He was considered a national joke and he was never, I mean never, taken seriously as a national candidate until 1980. Talk about fire in the belly. That's a persistence Fred can only dream about.

And then Fred's one real accomplishment that could translate to the job of President was never adequately showcased. Until I went to his website, I had no idea that he had been Chair of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee that enacted a law requiring federal agencies to calculate the true cost of regulations on the taxpayer and businesses. He also held hearings that forced those agencies to tally up the total cost of improper payments each year. The figure for one year came to $20 billion. I find that impressive. The size and waste of the Federal Bureaucracy is a real issue for our economy and our government. Getting agencies to admit a problem is a huge achievement.

But I think his lack of relevance ultimately stemmed from the political sea change that rejects what I call "either/or" politics. It started with the centrist movement of Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council. For example, Clinton understood that Democrats had to capitulate on Republican wish-list items like welfare reform--because the majority of Americans wanted it. Clinton also capitulated on other issues (telecom deregulation comes to mind) to spur a bourgeoning sector of the economy. That, in turn, contributed to the single largest economic expansion in our nation's history.

Unfortunately, the backlash of Clinton's moral laxity and dishonesty led just enough people to embrace a standard bearer of appropriate personal conduct, George Bush. And even he assured everyone that he was a centrist ("compassionate conservative", no "nation building"). Well, we know what happened there. And now, we find ourselves gearing up for another backlash that will send the country in a new direction.

So, clearly, no one, except for the hard core conservative, is going to believe that ancient conservative bromides will handle the challenges of today. For example, to preach the small government and reduced regulation message of the Reagan years, at a time when greed and chicanery in a major financial sector (subprime mortgages) has sent the global marketplace reeling, is not going to resonate. People are ready for a little government oversight and some innovative approaches to safeguard our markets.

It is no coincidence that the more centrist Repubs like McCain and Huckabee are leading the pack. They have a mixed message that non-partisan Americans recognize as "reality", even as it drives the hard core of their party crazy. It's also telling that once Mitt Romney calibrated his message away from his early "I can out conservative any conservative" reinvention, he has done better. On that point, the ultimate irony of Romney's situation is that if he had run as the same guy who became governor in Massachusetts, he'd be well in front. The majority of the country, as so many have noted, is not living on the extreme fringes of either party, but 5 degrees to the left or right of center.

So the big question for you Repubs to help me with today is: If Fred Thompson was the real conservative deal and his regurgitation of the old conservative platform did not resonate, what is the new message that will resonate?

You can leave comments by clicking on on the "comments" link. Not the little mail icon.

It's the Economy, Stupid Pt. 2

Ok. This is a double barreled day on Power to the People. I promised you Repubs we'd talk about the economic crisis and we will. Right now.

But we also need to talk about the wild and woolly Dem debate last night. I figured another civil, ho hum affair that wouldn't reveal anything new after the other 86 debates we've heard. Wrong!! So later in the morning, we'll delve into that, as well.

But first, it's the economy, stupid. Part 2.

In 1992, The Clinton camp coined that phrase to keep themselves on message. Today, I coin that that phrase to refer to my inadequacy in wrapping my head around this crisis, the proposed stimulus packages, and other economic concepts.

But this is what I know:

International markets fell precipitously due to the fear that the American economy is heading toward a possible recession that has not yet revealed a "bottom". http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120096287671805087.html?mod=todays_us_page_one

In very general terms, this economic downturn is apparently the result of a "housing bubble" that inspired the proliferation of subprime mortgages issued to people who were unaware that the fine print included escalating payments that would be unaffordable down the road. (Big breath...) So, many people are defaulting on these loans, losing their homes and leaving the banks who issued these loans holding the bag. Which means they don't have as much capital to lend to people and businesses, which slows the economy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120096351182805111.html?mod=todays_us_page_one

Now, adding to the overall squeamishness are not just fears of recession but also some signs of inflation. Prices are growing while wages are slowing. Which means the Fed has to be a little careful about dropping interest rates too precipitously. http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.27309/pub_detail.asp

So, let's get to the interesting part of this mess: the massive disagreements concerning what to do about it.

For example, true conservatives will explain that short term stimulus packages, like the one proposed by George Bush http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120066658450000649.html?mod=sphere_ts are not really helpful. Giving people, who are probably in debt, some money to spend on consumer items is an idea based on a mistaken assumption, conservatives say. Consumer spending, they insist, is a symptom of a good economy, not the cause of one. So, a brief infusion of capital into the system will not solve anything. Especially if those indebted folks use the money to pay down their debt, instead of buy a new pair of Nikes.

Conservatives will also tell you that in a free market economy you have take your lumps and let things correct themselves. There are steps the government can take (everyone agrees that the Fed needs to lower interest rates) but generally, hand outs are bad, low taxes are good. And for those of you who are going belly up, oh well. It'll be better in 2009. Now, in fairness, this makes some sense. Giving businesses some reassurance that they won't be taxed to death and even giving them immediate tax breaks may allow companies to keep Joe and Jane American on the payroll, instead of firing them. I get that. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120096316700305131.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

But then there's Jim Cramer, Host of Mad Money on CNBC. He presents a scenario so dangerous that I am as baffled as he that no one is addressing it. I won't even try to get too deep into it. Go to the link and open the video. It's scarier than Cloverfield. http://www.cnbc.com/id/22728371 The short story is that the handful of outfits that insure banks against these bad subprime loans don't have the capital to protect the banks. They might go belly up. Cramer says that if that happens, banks stop lending entirely, the economy grinds to a halt and the Dow drops 2000 points. He insists that what the government needs to do is buy these insurers outright and guarantee that the banks will at least get 50 cents on the dollar. This way banks recover, economy starts up and the Dow recovers.

So why is no one listening to Cramer? And why does it look as if we are going to have a massive stimulus package? Because it's the election, stupid.

I have included links to several candidates stimulus packages:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120070044545701647.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/01/13/obama-releases-stimulus-plan/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120061974887199345.html

Check 'em out and then tell me which way we need to go: Stimulus, Cramer or true market conservative?

And while you're at it, let's hear about Ben Bernanke. Most folks I've talked to on both sides of the aisle think he's doing a terrible job. What do you think?

Back later to talk debate.

Am Too! Are Not!

In last Sunday's New York Times, novelist Dave Eggers wrote a revealing column about young peoples' impressions of the current election campaign. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/opinion/20eggers.html . What caught my eye was the idea expressed by one young woman who said that young people reflexively reject the politics of acrimony because..."it reminds us of watching our parents at their worst."

After last night's Democratic debate in Myrtle Beach, I know what she means.

Barack and Hillary conducted a total cringefest for an hour and a half, turning me into an anxious 9 year old, and turning John Edwards into the sane next door neighbor you run to when things get a little crazy in your house.

Fortunately, I took some notes with my right hand, while I was peeking through the fingers of my left, so I can give you some impressions of the debate.

Barack
I saw a candidate trying on a new pair of shoes--that were maybe a half size too small. He employed a strategy that alternated between admirable assertiveness and reckless accusations-and the latter opened him up to some pretty harsh attacks. Most of them were fair, especially criticism of his Illinois and US Senate voting record. The good news for Obama supporters is that he withstood it without whining. The bad news is that Hillary punctured his cloak of credibility--making him parse the justification for certain votes. He certainly had one of the top lines in the debate in response to Hillary's overused rejoinder about Bill that "I'm here. He's not". Barack stated with appropriate disgust, "Well, I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes." He was also typically strong reiterating his core strength as a candidate: his ability to "expand the scope of the electorate" and "redraw the political map...to create a working majority". Overall, I'd give his performance a B. He dished it out, he took it, he hammered home his theme of "unity now". But he did allow Hillary (with the help of John Edwards) to mitigate his advantage on the credibility issue. And he is not, by his own admission, a Great Debater. Denzel in the house?

Hillary
A routinely strong showing, but there was a difference: she sounded much more authentic, even when she was shrill and accusatory. This wasn't "Miss Congeniality 2" and she didn't apologize for that. She parried Obama's accusations of her husband's aggressiveness on the trail and issues of her credibility. She was, as usual, strong on issue talk. Negatively, she was not artful in leveling veiled charges against her opponents. And when she tried to wax philosophic about Dr. King it started to sound like "Wah, wah, wah, wah, wah". What really struck me, though, was the coded admission of preparing for a general election. She stated that in a general race, the Republican nominee (all three thought that it would be McCain) would inevitably make the election about "national security". She felt that she was best "positioned" to take on that issue. In other words, that's why she voted for Iraq, that's why she voted for more funds for the war and that's why she voted to designate the Iranian Republican Guard a terrorist organization. Glad that's cleared up. I give her an A-.

John
The question of the night is: why can't John Edwards get any traction?!! He makes sense, he is absolutely fair, he is the most issue-oriented of all the candidates, he has solid proposals that the others emulate, he calls out opponents only when it is appropriate and he seems to embody everything Dems say they want in a candidate. And no one votes for him! I don't get it. I mean, I'm not a supporter but why isn't any one else? (I guess that's the problem right there). But, really. It's one of those great campaign psych101 mysteries. I thought his best moment came on foreign policy when he stated that "everyday, young people around the world are straddling a fence"; on one side there's America and what we stand for and on the other Al Qaeda and what they stand for. He exhorted us to have a foreign policy that makes America a light for those young people. He is so right. That is the fight we are in. An A-.

Random Observations
Tonight I saw why Senators rarely win the Presidency. Their numerous votes can be distorted to paint an unflattering picture that can only be defended by arcane legislative-speak. This is what happened to Barack last night. And it's happened to both Hillary and Edwards in other debates (Hillary-" I voted for it, but I'm glad it didn't pass"). Obama was forced to explain to a lay audience how the political machinery of legislative bodies work. Impossible. Any one who has spent time in political organizations understands that consensus building, legislative legerdemain, compromise, and back scratching are the tools that get things done politically. But it's like sausage--even if it tastes good, you don't want to see how it's made. The second major observation is the striking contrast with Republican debates. These Dems really talk about poverty, education and helping the least among us (yes, I know, they were in South Carolina speaking to a constituency that is very familiar with those issues). But when you listen to Repubs, that stuff never comes up. It's like a badge of dishonor to talk about helping the poor, unless it's through tax cuts. Maybe once again, John Edwards is right: maybe there are two Americas. We'll see.

So tell me how you saw the debate. Who scored, who buckled, and who is best positioned for Saturday's primary.

Obama's Bill Problem

Welcome to the first topic on Power to the People.

Today's topic is more for the Dems and indies to weigh in on but, as usual, any political stripe can join the fun.

The Clinton's are ratcheting up the heat on Barack Obama as you would expect. They are showcasing their incomparable political will by adopting a tag team strategy that forces Obama to defend himself on two fronts. As Bill lays the wood directly to Barack, Hillary calmly outlines her proposals to highlight the substantive differences between her and the junior Senator from Illinois. www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/us/politics/21clinton.html?ref=politics

Very effective. Obama has already acknowledged that he must address Bill's attacks, which plays right into the Clinton's strategy. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22769395/

While many, including me, feel it is unseemly (a polite word) for a former President to insert himself so strenuously in a national campaign in which he is not running, "unseemly" does not deter the Clintons. In fact, "outrageously inappropriate" doesn't deter the Clintons. Come to think of it, nothing deters the Clintons--not impeachment, not public humiliation, not losses in caucuses, not brow-beating opponents, not bad press, not even bad hair days. That's probably why they win.

So... what's a brother to do? How would you advise Obama as he starts to hear that old Motown gem "Don't Mess With Bill" drown out his message of hope? Here's what I'd do:

Sic Michelle on Bill.

That's right. If one spouse can call out a candidate, so can another. Michelle is ready, willing and able. As a lawyer, she can represent with the best of them. As a mother, she knows how to command respect. As an attractive woman, she can draw a crowd.

But what she can really do is highlight the fact that Bill, when all is said and done, is merely a spouse. Like she is. Influential? Of course. Involved? Of course. On top of the situation? Of course. Just like she is. And with that, she undercuts the notion that Bill has special authority because he was Potus.

And any criticism she might receive is easily parried by saying, "Hey, I'm not going to stand by while another spouse attacks my spouse. If he can do it, so can I".

This allows Obama to keep his focus on just one opponent--without the other jumping off the ropes behind him and slamming him to the canvas.

Love to hear your thoughts. Tomorrow we talk about the economy. For all you Repubs.