I love that title. I used it yesterday in an email to a friend, and it sounded so...so...film noir-ish. The first Film Noir was apparently a 1948 RKO production called "Stranger on the Third Floor." I don't know if Sarah Palin has a third floor to her house, but omyword is she a stranger to the public.
Bottom line: John McCain acted impulsively to secure his Republican ultra-conservative base, did NOT vet her very well, and ignored the advice of his close advisors. Yet, it may work out for him. P.T. Barnum said, "Never underestimate the stupidity of the American public," as people, walking past the caged animals, followed the signs "to the Egress."
The bloggers' rumors about Palin started almost immediately upon her selection: her fifth child, the bloggers perhaps erroneously reported, is really her grandson, Bristol's child. As a result of those internet rumors, she has had to make public that seventeen year old Bristol is currently pregnant, will keep the baby, and will marry the baby's father. I'm just waiting for the internet folk to ask the question, Is this pregnancy actually Bristol's second?
Too much in the way of evil rumors can backfire on the rumor-mongers, and create a sympathy vote for Sarah Palin. That is understandable, but it would be misplaced.
True sympathy should be with the American people, who may end up with another term of a Republican administration. Some analysts have assumed McCain was hoping to get the votes of some of Hillary's disaffected female supporters, who may still be angry with Obama. That would be a horribly patronizing view of women by McCain, and is currently not being supported by the polls. The women who will vote for McCain because he put SP on his ticket would have come around to vote for him anyway. They are the extreme right wing, fundamentalist, anti-choice, hypocritical, "family values" folk.
Don't you wish I'd stop being shy and start speaking my mind? In this election, it's the Democratic candidates with the true family values.
Now that the tickets are set (assuming the Republicans do put Palin on the ticket this week), the Democrats need to do at least three things:
(1) Given the amount of negative campaigning that has already occurred, mainly by the Republicans, the Democrats would do well to find some innocuous way to call attention to McCain's impulsiveness and his quick temper. A person with those qualities is too dangerous to be trusted with having to make monumental decisions quickly--or at all.
(2) The Democrats might blow it once again, but they have been handed THE golden opportunity to seize the middle of the political spectrum in this election. John McCain is a conservative in his political positions, but not conservative enough to appeal to the far-right Republican base, so he has chosen as his running mate someone who stands so far right that she risks falling off the edge of the earth. With Joe Biden on the ticket, the Democrats have a legitimate chance to be the centrists in this election.
(3) Finally, the Democrats would do well to say little about Sarah Palin. They can concentrate on McCain and the issues, and let the media do whatever background checking on Palin their investigative journalists want to do. Let the media investigate the potential "troopergate" scandal already brewing in Alaska, and anything else they want to check up on.
Very little is known about her: I find it amazing that Palin spent her junior and senior years at the University of Idaho, and the local press has yet to find anyone who actually knew her well enough to say something positive OR negative. One professor acknowledged that she was in one of his classes, but didn't really know much about her. Several students--including the president of the student government while she was at UI--said the same: 'we didn't really know much about her' is the point they've all made. Except for one student who apparently did know her: this former classmate admitted being "really surprised that she was chosen to be--Vice President??!"
Not a ringing endorsement of one's classmate.
But given the appetite of the press, the vetting of Sarah Palin has just begun.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
#57 A Great Article about John McCain's Choice, and a Further Electoral Vote Prediction
I offer the following article (actually the first part of a longer article which deals with McCain's VP choice), which reinforces my own suspicions: except for latent racism, which can't be measured, I think Obama could win big.
In my last electoral college projections (post #35, on July 5), assigning the Tossup states as I saw them at that time, I had Obama with 298 electoral votes and McCain with 237. That of course doesn't mean he'll stay there, or that he or Biden couldn't squander what I have projected as a lead. But I think McCain has at least as much a chance to make mistakes as do Obama or Biden . And I also believe that Obama will "win" at least two of the three debates with McCain.
Barring politically-motivated manipulation of foreign events by the bush administration, deteriorating economic conditions in the United States could make Obama's margin of victory closer to a hundred electoral votes than my July 5 projection of a sixty-one point victory.
Everything below the dashes is directly quoted/triton
----- ----- -----
Jim VandeHei, John F. Harris
Sat Aug 30, 9:57 AM ET
The selection of a running mate is among the most consequential, most defining decisions a presidential nominee can make. John McCain’s pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says a lot about his decison-making — and some of it is downright breathtaking.
We knew McCain is a politician who relishes improvisation, and likes to go with his gut. But it is remarkable that someone who has repeatedly emphasized experience in this campaign named an inexperienced governor he barely knew to be his No. 2. Whatever you think of the pick, here are six things it tells us about McCain:
1. He’s desperate. Let’s stop pretending this race is as close as national polling suggests. The truth is McCain is essentially tied or trailing in every swing state that matters — and too close for comfort in several states like Indiana and Montana the GOP usually wins pretty easily in presidential races. On top of that, voters seem very inclined to elect Democrats in general this election — and very sick of the Bush years.
McCain could easily lose in an electoral landslide. That is the private view of Democrats and Republicans alike.
McCain’s pick shows he is not pretending. Politicians, even “mavericks” like McCain, play it safe when they think they are winning — or see an easy path to winning. They roll the dice only when they know that the risks of conventionality are greater than the risks of boldness.
The Republican brand is a mess. McCain is reasonably concluding that it won’t work to replicate George W. Bush and Karl Rove’s electoral formula, based around national security and a big advantage among Y chromosomes, from 2004.
“She’s a fresh new face in a party that’s dying for one — the antidote to boring white men,” a campaign official said.
Palin, the logic goes, will prompt voters to give him a second look — especially women who have watched Democrats reject Hillary Rodham Clinton for Barack Obama.
The risks of a backlash from choosing someone so unknown and so untested are obvious. In one swift stroke, McCain demolished what had been one of his main arguments against Obama.
“I think we’re going to have to examine our tag line, ‘dangerously inexperienced,’” a top McCain official said wryly.
2. He’s willing to gamble — bigtime. Let’s face it: This is not the pick of a self-confident candidate. It is the political equivalent of a trick play or, as some Democrats called it, a Hail Mary pass in football. McCain talks incessantly about experience, and then goes and selects a woman he hardly knows, who hardly knows foreign policy and who can hardly be seen as instantly ready for the presidency.
He is smart enough to know it could work, at least politically. Many Republicans see this pick as a brilliant stroke because it will be difficult for Democrats to run hard against a woman in the wake of the Hillary Clinton drama. Will this push those disgruntled Hillary voters McCain’s way? Perhaps. But this is hardly aimed at them: It is directed at the huge bloc of independent women — especially those who do not see abortion as a make-or-break issue — who could decide this election.
McCain has a history of taking dares. Palin represents his biggest one yet.
3. He’s worried about the political implications of his age. Like a driver overcorrecting out of a swerve, he chooses someone who is two years younger than the youthful Obama, and 28 years younger than he is. (He turned 72 Friday.) The father-daughter comparison was inevitable when they appeared next to each other.
4. He’s not worried about the actuarial implications of his age. He thinks he’s in fine fettle, and Palin wouldn’t be performing the only constitutional duty of a vice president, which is standing by in case a president dies or becomes incapacitated. If he was really concerned about an inexperienced person sitting in the Oval Office we would be writing about vice presidential nominee Mitt Romney or Tom Ridge or Condoleezza Rice.
There is no plausible way that McCain could say that he picked Palin, who was only elected governor in 2006 and whose most extended public service was as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (population 8,471), because she was ready to be president on Day One.
Nor can McCain argue that he was looking for someone he could trust as a close adviser. Most people know the staff at the local Starbucks better than McCain knows Palin. They met for the first time last February at a National Governors Association meeting in Washington. Then, they spoke again — by phone — on Sunday while she was at the Alaska state fair and he was at home in Arizona.
McCain has made a mockery out of his campaign's longtime contention that Barack Obama is too dangerously inexperienced to be commander in chief. Now, the Democratic ticket boasts 40 years of national experience (four years for Obama and 36 years for Joseph Biden of Delaware), while the Republican ticket has 26 (McCain’s four yeasr in the House and 22 in the Senate.)
The McCain campaign has made a calculation that most voters don’t really care about the national experience or credentials of a vice president, and that Palin’s ebullient personality and reputation as a refomer who took on cesspool politics in Alaska matters more.
5. He’s worried about his conservative base. If he had room to maneuver, there were lots of people McCain could have selected who would have represented a break from Washington politics as usual. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman comes to mind (and it certainly came to McCain’s throughout the process). He had no such room. GOP stalwarts were furious over trial balloons about the possibility of choosing a supporter of abortion rights, including the possibility that he would reach out to his friend.
Palin is an ardent opponent of abortion who was previously scheduled to keynote the Republican National Coalition for Life's "Life of the Party" event in the Twin Cities this week.
“She’s really a perfect selection,” said Darla St. Martin, the Co-Director of the National Right to Life Committee. It is no secret McCain wanted to shake things up in this race — and he realized he was limited to a shake-up conservatives could stomach.
In my last electoral college projections (post #35, on July 5), assigning the Tossup states as I saw them at that time, I had Obama with 298 electoral votes and McCain with 237. That of course doesn't mean he'll stay there, or that he or Biden couldn't squander what I have projected as a lead. But I think McCain has at least as much a chance to make mistakes as do Obama or Biden . And I also believe that Obama will "win" at least two of the three debates with McCain.
Barring politically-motivated manipulation of foreign events by the bush administration, deteriorating economic conditions in the United States could make Obama's margin of victory closer to a hundred electoral votes than my July 5 projection of a sixty-one point victory.
Everything below the dashes is directly quoted/triton
----- ----- -----
Jim VandeHei, John F. Harris
Sat Aug 30, 9:57 AM ET
The selection of a running mate is among the most consequential, most defining decisions a presidential nominee can make. John McCain’s pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says a lot about his decison-making — and some of it is downright breathtaking.
We knew McCain is a politician who relishes improvisation, and likes to go with his gut. But it is remarkable that someone who has repeatedly emphasized experience in this campaign named an inexperienced governor he barely knew to be his No. 2. Whatever you think of the pick, here are six things it tells us about McCain:
1. He’s desperate. Let’s stop pretending this race is as close as national polling suggests. The truth is McCain is essentially tied or trailing in every swing state that matters — and too close for comfort in several states like Indiana and Montana the GOP usually wins pretty easily in presidential races. On top of that, voters seem very inclined to elect Democrats in general this election — and very sick of the Bush years.
McCain could easily lose in an electoral landslide. That is the private view of Democrats and Republicans alike.
McCain’s pick shows he is not pretending. Politicians, even “mavericks” like McCain, play it safe when they think they are winning — or see an easy path to winning. They roll the dice only when they know that the risks of conventionality are greater than the risks of boldness.
The Republican brand is a mess. McCain is reasonably concluding that it won’t work to replicate George W. Bush and Karl Rove’s electoral formula, based around national security and a big advantage among Y chromosomes, from 2004.
“She’s a fresh new face in a party that’s dying for one — the antidote to boring white men,” a campaign official said.
Palin, the logic goes, will prompt voters to give him a second look — especially women who have watched Democrats reject Hillary Rodham Clinton for Barack Obama.
The risks of a backlash from choosing someone so unknown and so untested are obvious. In one swift stroke, McCain demolished what had been one of his main arguments against Obama.
“I think we’re going to have to examine our tag line, ‘dangerously inexperienced,’” a top McCain official said wryly.
2. He’s willing to gamble — bigtime. Let’s face it: This is not the pick of a self-confident candidate. It is the political equivalent of a trick play or, as some Democrats called it, a Hail Mary pass in football. McCain talks incessantly about experience, and then goes and selects a woman he hardly knows, who hardly knows foreign policy and who can hardly be seen as instantly ready for the presidency.
He is smart enough to know it could work, at least politically. Many Republicans see this pick as a brilliant stroke because it will be difficult for Democrats to run hard against a woman in the wake of the Hillary Clinton drama. Will this push those disgruntled Hillary voters McCain’s way? Perhaps. But this is hardly aimed at them: It is directed at the huge bloc of independent women — especially those who do not see abortion as a make-or-break issue — who could decide this election.
McCain has a history of taking dares. Palin represents his biggest one yet.
3. He’s worried about the political implications of his age. Like a driver overcorrecting out of a swerve, he chooses someone who is two years younger than the youthful Obama, and 28 years younger than he is. (He turned 72 Friday.) The father-daughter comparison was inevitable when they appeared next to each other.
4. He’s not worried about the actuarial implications of his age. He thinks he’s in fine fettle, and Palin wouldn’t be performing the only constitutional duty of a vice president, which is standing by in case a president dies or becomes incapacitated. If he was really concerned about an inexperienced person sitting in the Oval Office we would be writing about vice presidential nominee Mitt Romney or Tom Ridge or Condoleezza Rice.
There is no plausible way that McCain could say that he picked Palin, who was only elected governor in 2006 and whose most extended public service was as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (population 8,471), because she was ready to be president on Day One.
Nor can McCain argue that he was looking for someone he could trust as a close adviser. Most people know the staff at the local Starbucks better than McCain knows Palin. They met for the first time last February at a National Governors Association meeting in Washington. Then, they spoke again — by phone — on Sunday while she was at the Alaska state fair and he was at home in Arizona.
McCain has made a mockery out of his campaign's longtime contention that Barack Obama is too dangerously inexperienced to be commander in chief. Now, the Democratic ticket boasts 40 years of national experience (four years for Obama and 36 years for Joseph Biden of Delaware), while the Republican ticket has 26 (McCain’s four yeasr in the House and 22 in the Senate.)
The McCain campaign has made a calculation that most voters don’t really care about the national experience or credentials of a vice president, and that Palin’s ebullient personality and reputation as a refomer who took on cesspool politics in Alaska matters more.
5. He’s worried about his conservative base. If he had room to maneuver, there were lots of people McCain could have selected who would have represented a break from Washington politics as usual. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman comes to mind (and it certainly came to McCain’s throughout the process). He had no such room. GOP stalwarts were furious over trial balloons about the possibility of choosing a supporter of abortion rights, including the possibility that he would reach out to his friend.
Palin is an ardent opponent of abortion who was previously scheduled to keynote the Republican National Coalition for Life's "Life of the Party" event in the Twin Cities this week.
“She’s really a perfect selection,” said Darla St. Martin, the Co-Director of the National Right to Life Committee. It is no secret McCain wanted to shake things up in this race — and he realized he was limited to a shake-up conservatives could stomach.
Friday, August 29, 2008
#56 Sarah Palin and Personal Income
There. I've done it again. I've implied a relationship between two ideas that seem peripherally related at best, because I am not talking about Sarah Palin's personal income. But these two topics are related, and have a significant effect on John McCain's campaign.
(1) Let's take Sarah Palin first. She graduated (as Sarah Heath) from the University of Idaho with a B.S. in Journalism a little more than 20 years ago. Those of you who know me also know that I taught at UI from 1970 to 2002, but, no, I didn't know her. Most of that time I was deaning on the graduate level, and she wasn't a student in the few undergraduate courses I asked to teach.
Palin is conservative in most areas, including economics, religion, and gun rights. She will be an asset to the Republican ticket in her appeal to any still-disgruntled Hillary supporters. Whether she will actually win any of them over is to be determined. Like Joe Biden with Delaware, she does not add her home state to her party's electoral votes, since both Delaware and Alaska were expected to go Democratic and Republican respectively anyway.
Republican advisors to McCain must have sized up Hillary's supporters as being very vulnerable to desert the Democratic party despite Obama's courting of them. On that basis, they seem to have decided to do everything possible to convince disaffected HRC supporters to cross over on November 4 to vote for a woman as vice president. And that tactic may work to some extent.
But here's the big question, and it's one the Democrats may have to imply rather than ask directly, depending on how nasty or nice the rest of the campaign gets. Given McCain's increasing emotional and mental debilities, is she ready to become president at a moment's notice? "At 3 a.m.?" as Hillary might ask.
And, yes, I said "debilities." Perhaps he will shed that image at the Republican convention, but right now he fluctuates between appearing almost on top of whatever he's talking about, and appearing borderline bewildered. He is a poor public speaker, so I'm really interested to see how he does with his acceptance speech. His impulsiveness behind the scenes is now pretty well publicized.
On balance, as a female and a conservative, Sarah Palin probably helps the Republican ticket marinally by securing its base a bit more and potentially gaining some women's votes. Younger than Obama, and with McCain's age an issue, however, Palin does not seem to help it in that area, especially given her own lack of governmental experience. I don't know what kind of speaker she is, but the one debate between her and Joe Biden should be fun to watch, the young conservative and the old moderate.
(2) Personal income is a major issue. Heck, the economy is a major issue. Only in part because of the expiration of the stimulus checks, personal income fell in July by the biggest drop in three years, after moving up strongly during the time that the stimulus checks were distributed. It appears (according to AP and CNN reports) that much of the additional income from the stimulus went to pay for gas and food, the two major items whose costs increased greatly during the last year (from Mark Vitner, senior economst at Wachovia).
And now how the two topics in this post are actually related: I think John McCain did well NOT to choose Mitt Romney (for all the reasons I've discussed in previous posts), whose alleged economic savvy would have helped McCain in that area. The economy is in much deeper trouble than the administration, or Republicans in general, are willing to admit, and Barack Obama has the golden opportunity to tap into that unrest among millions of Americans. Whether he will succeed is another matter. Three major battleground states--Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan--will be reflecting the economic problems in the country. Will their voters reflect their unhappiness with eight years of Republican economic mismanagement? Although Obama's speech last night I thought was masterful in its balance of attacks on Republican policies and its proposals of positive change for middle- and lower-economic-class Americans, I am still concerned about latent racism among some number of the electorate. Pennsylvania has already shown some of that latent racism in the exit polls during the Democratic primary; I saw Ohio's sometimes-NOT-so-latent racism when I lived there while in graduate school in the 1960s. Have Ohio's attitudes changed in forty years? I hope so.
-- triton --
(1) Let's take Sarah Palin first. She graduated (as Sarah Heath) from the University of Idaho with a B.S. in Journalism a little more than 20 years ago. Those of you who know me also know that I taught at UI from 1970 to 2002, but, no, I didn't know her. Most of that time I was deaning on the graduate level, and she wasn't a student in the few undergraduate courses I asked to teach.
Palin is conservative in most areas, including economics, religion, and gun rights. She will be an asset to the Republican ticket in her appeal to any still-disgruntled Hillary supporters. Whether she will actually win any of them over is to be determined. Like Joe Biden with Delaware, she does not add her home state to her party's electoral votes, since both Delaware and Alaska were expected to go Democratic and Republican respectively anyway.
Republican advisors to McCain must have sized up Hillary's supporters as being very vulnerable to desert the Democratic party despite Obama's courting of them. On that basis, they seem to have decided to do everything possible to convince disaffected HRC supporters to cross over on November 4 to vote for a woman as vice president. And that tactic may work to some extent.
But here's the big question, and it's one the Democrats may have to imply rather than ask directly, depending on how nasty or nice the rest of the campaign gets. Given McCain's increasing emotional and mental debilities, is she ready to become president at a moment's notice? "At 3 a.m.?" as Hillary might ask.
And, yes, I said "debilities." Perhaps he will shed that image at the Republican convention, but right now he fluctuates between appearing almost on top of whatever he's talking about, and appearing borderline bewildered. He is a poor public speaker, so I'm really interested to see how he does with his acceptance speech. His impulsiveness behind the scenes is now pretty well publicized.
On balance, as a female and a conservative, Sarah Palin probably helps the Republican ticket marinally by securing its base a bit more and potentially gaining some women's votes. Younger than Obama, and with McCain's age an issue, however, Palin does not seem to help it in that area, especially given her own lack of governmental experience. I don't know what kind of speaker she is, but the one debate between her and Joe Biden should be fun to watch, the young conservative and the old moderate.
(2) Personal income is a major issue. Heck, the economy is a major issue. Only in part because of the expiration of the stimulus checks, personal income fell in July by the biggest drop in three years, after moving up strongly during the time that the stimulus checks were distributed. It appears (according to AP and CNN reports) that much of the additional income from the stimulus went to pay for gas and food, the two major items whose costs increased greatly during the last year (from Mark Vitner, senior economst at Wachovia).
And now how the two topics in this post are actually related: I think John McCain did well NOT to choose Mitt Romney (for all the reasons I've discussed in previous posts), whose alleged economic savvy would have helped McCain in that area. The economy is in much deeper trouble than the administration, or Republicans in general, are willing to admit, and Barack Obama has the golden opportunity to tap into that unrest among millions of Americans. Whether he will succeed is another matter. Three major battleground states--Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan--will be reflecting the economic problems in the country. Will their voters reflect their unhappiness with eight years of Republican economic mismanagement? Although Obama's speech last night I thought was masterful in its balance of attacks on Republican policies and its proposals of positive change for middle- and lower-economic-class Americans, I am still concerned about latent racism among some number of the electorate. Pennsylvania has already shown some of that latent racism in the exit polls during the Democratic primary; I saw Ohio's sometimes-NOT-so-latent racism when I lived there while in graduate school in the 1960s. Have Ohio's attitudes changed in forty years? I hope so.
-- triton --
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
#55 The 2008 Vital VeepStakes, and the 2012 Election
Let's be clear about this: if Obama is elected in 2008, he has a good shot at being reelected in 2012; if McCain is elected, his VP candidate has a good chance of becoming president, either during the next four years or on his own in the 2012 election. That's why the Republican choice for VP is so vital right now.
Thus, before I talk about Joe Biden, let me reiterate (for the fourth or fifth time) that Tim Pawlenty would be the best VP candidate the Republicans could choose. Not Mitt Romney (for all the reasons I've already listed), not an Ohio congressman or a Virginia congressman, but Pawlenty. Now, Pawlenty may have removed himself from consideration by his comment, "The Republicans should adopt the positive tone of Senator Barack Obama," but he would bring genuine conservative evangelical credentials to the Republican ticket. And he's younger than John McCain. But, then again, who isn't? My word, even I'M younger than John McCain!
But the odds are still that John McCain will choose someone else. I think, if I were a Republican, "someone else" would be a weaker VP nominee than Tim Pawlenty.
Speaking of weaker, I still think Obama can do better than Joe Biden. I like Biden. He has good ideas (some of them possibly his own), and a tragic and sympathetic family background. The hair implants he had years ago have taken root, and he looks the part of a Vice President. More importantly, however, he has tremendous foreign policy experience during his six terms in the senate.
Did I say SIX TERMS? How in the Blazing Saddles does a six-term senator fit in with Barack Obama's call for "change" in leadership and "change" in direction?
There's a problem with Joe Biden as the potential Democratic vice-presidential nominee. Actually, at least four problems: (1) calling for change, should Obama choose a Washington insider, a long-time feeder at the public trough? Again, Biden is smart, personable, and now seems to have gravitas and dignity. But (2) he doesn't quite know when to stop talking, and tends to say TOO much; (3) he will be 66 years old a few weeks after the election this year and, while he certainly has the qualifications to become president if that need arises, if Obama wins in 2008 Obama will run again in 2012, and Biden would likely be replaced on the ticket by a younger running mate.
There's another problem about Biden, from my point of view a big problem, that would almost certainly surface were he to be on the ticket. The Evil Karl Rove or one of his minions would bring it up: (4) the claim of plagiarism against him in 1988, and a history of stretching the truth, or at worst, just "saying the thing that is not so" (to use Jonathan Swift's Gulliverian euphemism).
See NOTE 1 at the end of this entry for the discussion of Biden's not-always-telling-the-truth, if you're interested in the details.
I think that either Biden or Richardson--both with foreign policy experience--could be pre-announced (i.e., before the election) as likely Secretary of State. Biden has previously said he wouldn't accept such a position, but he's had some time now to mull it over. Besides, if a newly-elected president comes to him and asks him to serve, it's less easy in practice to say No than it is in theory to say it.
For his VP, Obama should consider choosing a qualified candidate from a state that has not recently gone Blue in presidential elections, but could this year if a favorite son were the VP candidate.
You all remember that I think that Jim Webb (VA) or Ted Strickland (OH) would be good candidates, but both have claimed they're not interested in that position. Tim Kaine would also put Virginia in play. And Evan Bayh, whom I could not stop thinking about as a VP candidate, would help put Indiana in play. All of these good folk are qualified leaders.
We'll know soon enough. The Democratic convention begins in less than a week. In the meantime, John McCain would do well to say nothing about his VP candidate until after the Democratic convention, and perhaps use the Democrats' choice to help him decide.
-- triton --
NOTE 1 -- quoted material is from Wikipedia (not always a reliable source, but I've checked it out, and this does seem to be accurate). This is serious material against Joe Biden:
Biden ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988, but "the campaign ended when he was accused of plagiarizing a speech by Neil Kinnock, then-leader of the British Labour Party. Though Biden had correctly credited the original author in all speeches but one, the one where he failed to make mention of the originator was caught on video. In the video Biden is filmed repeating a stump speech by Kinnock, with only minor modifications. 'Why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go a university? Why is it that my wife . . . is the first in her family to ever go to college? Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? . . . Is it because they didn't work hard? My ancestors who worked in the coalmines of northeast Pennsylvania and would come after 12 hours and play football for four hours? It's because they didn't have a platform on which to stand.' After Biden withdrew from the race it was learned that he had correctly credited Kinnock on other occasions. He failed to do so, however, in the Iowa speech that was recorded and distributed to reporters (with a parallel video of Kinnock) by aides to Michael Dukakis, the eventual nominee. Dukakis fired John Sasso, his campaign manager and long-time Chief of Staff, but Biden's campaign could not recover. A speech that Biden had given to California Democrats earlier in the year contained passages from a Bobby Kennedy speech, but it was reported that Biden pollster and strategist Patrick Caddell had slipped the lines into the speech without Biden's knowledge. This however was hardly Biden's only problem. It was also revealed that he had plagiarized an article when he was in law school. As the New York Times pointed out: 'The faculty ruled that Mr. Biden would get an F in the course but would have the grade stricken when he retook it the next year. Mr. Biden eventually received a grade of 80 in the course, which, he joked today, prevented him from falling even further in his class rank. Mr. Biden, who graduated from the law school in 1968, was 76th in a class of 85. The file also included Mr. Biden's transcript from his days as an undergraduate at the University of Delaware. In his first three semesters, his grades were C's or D's, with three exceptions: two A's in physical education courses, a B in a course on Great English Writers and an F in R.O.T.C. The grades improved somewhat later but were never exceptional.' When questioned by a New Hampshire resident about his grades in law school Biden claimed falsely to have graduated in the 'top half' of his class."
Thus, before I talk about Joe Biden, let me reiterate (for the fourth or fifth time) that Tim Pawlenty would be the best VP candidate the Republicans could choose. Not Mitt Romney (for all the reasons I've already listed), not an Ohio congressman or a Virginia congressman, but Pawlenty. Now, Pawlenty may have removed himself from consideration by his comment, "The Republicans should adopt the positive tone of Senator Barack Obama," but he would bring genuine conservative evangelical credentials to the Republican ticket. And he's younger than John McCain. But, then again, who isn't? My word, even I'M younger than John McCain!
But the odds are still that John McCain will choose someone else. I think, if I were a Republican, "someone else" would be a weaker VP nominee than Tim Pawlenty.
Speaking of weaker, I still think Obama can do better than Joe Biden. I like Biden. He has good ideas (some of them possibly his own), and a tragic and sympathetic family background. The hair implants he had years ago have taken root, and he looks the part of a Vice President. More importantly, however, he has tremendous foreign policy experience during his six terms in the senate.
Did I say SIX TERMS? How in the Blazing Saddles does a six-term senator fit in with Barack Obama's call for "change" in leadership and "change" in direction?
There's a problem with Joe Biden as the potential Democratic vice-presidential nominee. Actually, at least four problems: (1) calling for change, should Obama choose a Washington insider, a long-time feeder at the public trough? Again, Biden is smart, personable, and now seems to have gravitas and dignity. But (2) he doesn't quite know when to stop talking, and tends to say TOO much; (3) he will be 66 years old a few weeks after the election this year and, while he certainly has the qualifications to become president if that need arises, if Obama wins in 2008 Obama will run again in 2012, and Biden would likely be replaced on the ticket by a younger running mate.
There's another problem about Biden, from my point of view a big problem, that would almost certainly surface were he to be on the ticket. The Evil Karl Rove or one of his minions would bring it up: (4) the claim of plagiarism against him in 1988, and a history of stretching the truth, or at worst, just "saying the thing that is not so" (to use Jonathan Swift's Gulliverian euphemism).
See NOTE 1 at the end of this entry for the discussion of Biden's not-always-telling-the-truth, if you're interested in the details.
I think that either Biden or Richardson--both with foreign policy experience--could be pre-announced (i.e., before the election) as likely Secretary of State. Biden has previously said he wouldn't accept such a position, but he's had some time now to mull it over. Besides, if a newly-elected president comes to him and asks him to serve, it's less easy in practice to say No than it is in theory to say it.
For his VP, Obama should consider choosing a qualified candidate from a state that has not recently gone Blue in presidential elections, but could this year if a favorite son were the VP candidate.
You all remember that I think that Jim Webb (VA) or Ted Strickland (OH) would be good candidates, but both have claimed they're not interested in that position. Tim Kaine would also put Virginia in play. And Evan Bayh, whom I could not stop thinking about as a VP candidate, would help put Indiana in play. All of these good folk are qualified leaders.
We'll know soon enough. The Democratic convention begins in less than a week. In the meantime, John McCain would do well to say nothing about his VP candidate until after the Democratic convention, and perhaps use the Democrats' choice to help him decide.
-- triton --
NOTE 1 -- quoted material is from Wikipedia (not always a reliable source, but I've checked it out, and this does seem to be accurate). This is serious material against Joe Biden:
Biden ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988, but "the campaign ended when he was accused of plagiarizing a speech by Neil Kinnock, then-leader of the British Labour Party. Though Biden had correctly credited the original author in all speeches but one, the one where he failed to make mention of the originator was caught on video. In the video Biden is filmed repeating a stump speech by Kinnock, with only minor modifications. 'Why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go a university? Why is it that my wife . . . is the first in her family to ever go to college? Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? . . . Is it because they didn't work hard? My ancestors who worked in the coalmines of northeast Pennsylvania and would come after 12 hours and play football for four hours? It's because they didn't have a platform on which to stand.' After Biden withdrew from the race it was learned that he had correctly credited Kinnock on other occasions. He failed to do so, however, in the Iowa speech that was recorded and distributed to reporters (with a parallel video of Kinnock) by aides to Michael Dukakis, the eventual nominee. Dukakis fired John Sasso, his campaign manager and long-time Chief of Staff, but Biden's campaign could not recover. A speech that Biden had given to California Democrats earlier in the year contained passages from a Bobby Kennedy speech, but it was reported that Biden pollster and strategist Patrick Caddell had slipped the lines into the speech without Biden's knowledge. This however was hardly Biden's only problem. It was also revealed that he had plagiarized an article when he was in law school. As the New York Times pointed out: 'The faculty ruled that Mr. Biden would get an F in the course but would have the grade stricken when he retook it the next year. Mr. Biden eventually received a grade of 80 in the course, which, he joked today, prevented him from falling even further in his class rank. Mr. Biden, who graduated from the law school in 1968, was 76th in a class of 85. The file also included Mr. Biden's transcript from his days as an undergraduate at the University of Delaware. In his first three semesters, his grades were C's or D's, with three exceptions: two A's in physical education courses, a B in a course on Great English Writers and an F in R.O.T.C. The grades improved somewhat later but were never exceptional.' When questioned by a New Hampshire resident about his grades in law school Biden claimed falsely to have graduated in the 'top half' of his class."
Saturday, August 9, 2008
#54 A Little Note about Little Integrity, and a Touch of Irony
So John Edwards had an affair while his wife was in remission from cancer. Frankly, I don't care. It's his life and if he wants to screw it up, that's his call. And, yes, the pun is intended: puns have been called the lowest form of humor, an appropriate form for John Edwards' behavior and then lying about it.
When a person in a high-profile position violates his integrity, especially when he claims to be representing the integrity of the common citizen (as Edwards did during his campaign), it becomes news.
I feel for his family. Everyone feels for his family. Few seem to care any more about Edwards.
But that has nothing to do with the upcoming presidential election. Except insofar as Edwards had been running for the Democratic nomination to be president. David Gergen, whom I really like and whose views are very insightful, said it as well as it can be said: had Edwards been successful and become the Democratic presidential nominee, it would have ruined the Democrats' chances of winning the White House.
Edwards' behavior in having an affair would have been enough to sink his own chances. But the videotapes of his constantly denying that he had one would have brought the entire Democratic ship down. How can a person be so self-absorbed that he forsakes all reality of integrity and jeopardizes not only his own future and his family's future, but the future of all he has claimed to represent in his career?
Here's the irony.
The National Enquirer broke the story. The National Enquirer develped sources and tailed him and followed through in every way possible to get this story. That shouldn't surprise us. But, had John Edwards been successful in his campaign to become the Democratic presidential nominee...
are you ready...?
are you really ready for this...?
are you SURE you're really ready for this...?
the National Enquirer might have been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Journalism.
Ta DAH!
-- triton --
When a person in a high-profile position violates his integrity, especially when he claims to be representing the integrity of the common citizen (as Edwards did during his campaign), it becomes news.
I feel for his family. Everyone feels for his family. Few seem to care any more about Edwards.
But that has nothing to do with the upcoming presidential election. Except insofar as Edwards had been running for the Democratic nomination to be president. David Gergen, whom I really like and whose views are very insightful, said it as well as it can be said: had Edwards been successful and become the Democratic presidential nominee, it would have ruined the Democrats' chances of winning the White House.
Edwards' behavior in having an affair would have been enough to sink his own chances. But the videotapes of his constantly denying that he had one would have brought the entire Democratic ship down. How can a person be so self-absorbed that he forsakes all reality of integrity and jeopardizes not only his own future and his family's future, but the future of all he has claimed to represent in his career?
Here's the irony.
The National Enquirer broke the story. The National Enquirer develped sources and tailed him and followed through in every way possible to get this story. That shouldn't surprise us. But, had John Edwards been successful in his campaign to become the Democratic presidential nominee...
are you ready...?
are you really ready for this...?
are you SURE you're really ready for this...?
the National Enquirer might have been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Journalism.
Ta DAH!
-- triton --
Friday, August 8, 2008
#53 The Rust Belt and Romney
Today's forbes.com has the following article about the declining economy in the Rust Belt. The article implicitly coincides with my earlier point about why Mitt Romney's presence on the Republican ticket as VP won't help McCain win the presidency (by winning Michigan's electoral votes): the economy is worst in the industrial midwest, and not likely to improve in the foreseeable future.
Ironically, however, the very problems created during dubya's administration may turn out to be John McCain's salvation in the industrial midwest: the economy is SO bad that people have been moving away from the area, and hence won't be there to vote in November for change that will help their cities.
Here's Jonathan Zumbrun's article, excerpted for this post:
"Where's it worst? Ohio, according to our analysis, which racked up four of the 10 cities on our list: Youngstown, Canton, Dayton and Cleveland. The runner-up is Michigan, with two cities--Detroit and Flint--making the ranking. These, and four other metropolitan statistical areas, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, face fleeing populations, painful waves of unemployment and barely growing economies. By our measure, they've struggled the worst of any areas in the nation in the 21st century. And they face even bleaker futures...."
"Another brutal statistic all the cities share is a diminishing population. So far this decade, 115,000 people have left Cleveland, for other climes. Smaller changes in other regions can be just as painful. Nearly 30,000 people have left Youngstown, Ohio, and they aren't being replaced by either new babies or new immigrants...."
"The worst news is, of course, economic. When we looked at the most recent gross domestic product estimates for 155 metropolitan statistical areas estimated to have $10 billion or more GDP in 2005--economies about the size of Asheville, N.C., or Tallahassee, Fla.--the news was predictably terrible for the Rust Belt."
"In the fall of 2007, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) published its GDP estimates from 2001 to 2005. Nearly every city in the country grew during this period (New Orleans, devastated from Hurricane Katrina, was the notable exception), but the struggling cities on our list grew more sluggishly. None of them grew more than 1.9% a year, versus a nationwide average of 2.7%. Canton, Ohio, managed to grow its economy just 0.7% annually. Flint was worse still at 0.4%."
"None of these cities now face the huge declines in real estate prices seen by Phoenix, Miami or Las Vegas, where the Case-Shiller Home Price Index shows nearly 30% declines from a year ago. Detroit is off only about 15%, Cleveland only 8%. Don't call it a bright spot. Prices never went up in the first place."
-- triton --
Ironically, however, the very problems created during dubya's administration may turn out to be John McCain's salvation in the industrial midwest: the economy is SO bad that people have been moving away from the area, and hence won't be there to vote in November for change that will help their cities.
Here's Jonathan Zumbrun's article, excerpted for this post:
"Where's it worst? Ohio, according to our analysis, which racked up four of the 10 cities on our list: Youngstown, Canton, Dayton and Cleveland. The runner-up is Michigan, with two cities--Detroit and Flint--making the ranking. These, and four other metropolitan statistical areas, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, face fleeing populations, painful waves of unemployment and barely growing economies. By our measure, they've struggled the worst of any areas in the nation in the 21st century. And they face even bleaker futures...."
"Another brutal statistic all the cities share is a diminishing population. So far this decade, 115,000 people have left Cleveland, for other climes. Smaller changes in other regions can be just as painful. Nearly 30,000 people have left Youngstown, Ohio, and they aren't being replaced by either new babies or new immigrants...."
"The worst news is, of course, economic. When we looked at the most recent gross domestic product estimates for 155 metropolitan statistical areas estimated to have $10 billion or more GDP in 2005--economies about the size of Asheville, N.C., or Tallahassee, Fla.--the news was predictably terrible for the Rust Belt."
"In the fall of 2007, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) published its GDP estimates from 2001 to 2005. Nearly every city in the country grew during this period (New Orleans, devastated from Hurricane Katrina, was the notable exception), but the struggling cities on our list grew more sluggishly. None of them grew more than 1.9% a year, versus a nationwide average of 2.7%. Canton, Ohio, managed to grow its economy just 0.7% annually. Flint was worse still at 0.4%."
"None of these cities now face the huge declines in real estate prices seen by Phoenix, Miami or Las Vegas, where the Case-Shiller Home Price Index shows nearly 30% declines from a year ago. Detroit is off only about 15%, Cleveland only 8%. Don't call it a bright spot. Prices never went up in the first place."
-- triton --
Thursday, August 7, 2008
#52 The Second of Two Posts: The Media's Conservative Bias
I know that some folk will argue that the media are liberally biased, and favor Barack Obama by giving him more face time, more complimentary stories. I don't buy that. I see the media as having an increasingly strong conservative bias.
I'm not just talking about Rush Limbaugh or other radical right-wing talkers, though Rush (as those of us who don't know him call him) is of course a prime example. I'm talking about the lack of success of liberal talk shows (Al Franken's, anyone?) whose audience has been sufficiently small that liberal talk radio's number of markets has decreased noticeably in recent months. Of course, that's the result of "market forces," but it doesn't change the nature of the argument. There are more--many more--hosts spouting the conservative mantra in the media than there are liberals, or even moderates.
Glenn Beck appears daily on, of all networks(!), CNN Headline News. I watch his show occasionally. At least, until what he says makes my blood pressure rise to untenable levels. The fact is, I agree with some of the things he says, but I'm very much put off by his frequent nastiness. Tonight, for example, he had an ad on about his now appearing on YOUR cell phone. Well, okay, not on mine. I don't have video, and I don't keep my cell phone on anyway. But he has select ringtones that (I suppose) people can download or buy or whatever one does with ringtones, and one of them (he indicated) says, "I smell a liberal calling!"
That may be his attempt at humor. But even as a joke, it's not funny. It's just silly and sophomoric, though I admit that I had to suppress a smile when I first heard it.
But when you add the Glenn Becks of the media to the ENTIRE fox network, and combine their conservative ranting with the fact that other networks generally do NOT editorialize within alleged news shows (as fox does), then you get a pretty heavy dose of anti-Obama "news" and commentary. Note that I did not say, "pro-McCain." I find it significant that the editorialists, even when parading under the guise of news reporters, have more negative things to say about Obama than positive things to say about McCain.
I am concerned that the weight of such anti-Obama comments will eventually takes its toll, the precise hope of the far-right commentators, and that people on the fence will fall over into the McCain camp, in order to cast a vote against what Obama allegedly stands for (as alleged by the conservative media). Obama cannot afford to be answering his many critics all the time, and so far I think he's found a pretty good balance between answering them and providing the positive information about his own ideas for change in America.
Obama needs to continue doing so.
On another (though always related) topic, I think that Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, my favorite choice for the Republican VP slot, has intentionally or unintentionally removed himself from consideration by John McCain. Yesterday Pawlenty said--out loud, in public, for everyone to hear--that in this campaign the Republicans should adopt the more positive tone that Senator Barack Obama has adopted. Pawlenty did not say that McCain was being negative (though McCain's ads, probably under the guidance of the Evil Karl Rove, have been very negative).
With Pawlenty likely out of the running (will McCain surprise everyone and pick him anyway for his legitimate conservative credentials?), Mitt Romney may have the upper hand as the VP choice. I've already discussed why he would be a weak choice for McCain (he won't bring Michigan, but he will bring Idaho and Utah, which have no chance of NOT going Republican anyway). I see only one "positive" to Romney's being selected: that he can adopt McCain's negative campaigning by being the attack dog against Obama; and John McCain can try to elevate himself to a higher level than he has been on so far. I actually don't think McCain is in sufficient control of his own emotions to carry it off.
-- triton --
I'm not just talking about Rush Limbaugh or other radical right-wing talkers, though Rush (as those of us who don't know him call him) is of course a prime example. I'm talking about the lack of success of liberal talk shows (Al Franken's, anyone?) whose audience has been sufficiently small that liberal talk radio's number of markets has decreased noticeably in recent months. Of course, that's the result of "market forces," but it doesn't change the nature of the argument. There are more--many more--hosts spouting the conservative mantra in the media than there are liberals, or even moderates.
Glenn Beck appears daily on, of all networks(!), CNN Headline News. I watch his show occasionally. At least, until what he says makes my blood pressure rise to untenable levels. The fact is, I agree with some of the things he says, but I'm very much put off by his frequent nastiness. Tonight, for example, he had an ad on about his now appearing on YOUR cell phone. Well, okay, not on mine. I don't have video, and I don't keep my cell phone on anyway. But he has select ringtones that (I suppose) people can download or buy or whatever one does with ringtones, and one of them (he indicated) says, "I smell a liberal calling!"
That may be his attempt at humor. But even as a joke, it's not funny. It's just silly and sophomoric, though I admit that I had to suppress a smile when I first heard it.
But when you add the Glenn Becks of the media to the ENTIRE fox network, and combine their conservative ranting with the fact that other networks generally do NOT editorialize within alleged news shows (as fox does), then you get a pretty heavy dose of anti-Obama "news" and commentary. Note that I did not say, "pro-McCain." I find it significant that the editorialists, even when parading under the guise of news reporters, have more negative things to say about Obama than positive things to say about McCain.
I am concerned that the weight of such anti-Obama comments will eventually takes its toll, the precise hope of the far-right commentators, and that people on the fence will fall over into the McCain camp, in order to cast a vote against what Obama allegedly stands for (as alleged by the conservative media). Obama cannot afford to be answering his many critics all the time, and so far I think he's found a pretty good balance between answering them and providing the positive information about his own ideas for change in America.
Obama needs to continue doing so.
On another (though always related) topic, I think that Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, my favorite choice for the Republican VP slot, has intentionally or unintentionally removed himself from consideration by John McCain. Yesterday Pawlenty said--out loud, in public, for everyone to hear--that in this campaign the Republicans should adopt the more positive tone that Senator Barack Obama has adopted. Pawlenty did not say that McCain was being negative (though McCain's ads, probably under the guidance of the Evil Karl Rove, have been very negative).
With Pawlenty likely out of the running (will McCain surprise everyone and pick him anyway for his legitimate conservative credentials?), Mitt Romney may have the upper hand as the VP choice. I've already discussed why he would be a weak choice for McCain (he won't bring Michigan, but he will bring Idaho and Utah, which have no chance of NOT going Republican anyway). I see only one "positive" to Romney's being selected: that he can adopt McCain's negative campaigning by being the attack dog against Obama; and John McCain can try to elevate himself to a higher level than he has been on so far. I actually don't think McCain is in sufficient control of his own emotions to carry it off.
-- triton --
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)