The Political Inquiry

A Kucinich-like Thought On Health-care

2010-03-17T13:04:00.002-05:00

Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh.) switched his vote today from 'no' on heath-care in November, to what hopefully will be 'yes' to the bill in March. His validation comes, though, as "a decision, not on the bill as I would like to see, it but on the bill as it is." And in his conversations with the President, the President sees the bill nearly the same (see the whole article by the Washington Post here).

I think perhaps at this stage in the game, one of the most important things to remember is while the Health-care Bill isn't perfect, doesn't satisfy every person's deepest and above all individual desires, it presents something for everyone. It's a move forward after a long drought of going no-where. And I guess the question then becomes, would we rather move forward, even if it's only in a small way, or maintain things as they are and wait to take action only when it's too late?

Is "Deem and Pass" a Sound Solution?

2010-03-16T23:48:00.003-05:00

With drama over the "deem and pass" solution increasing by the hour, the question still seems to ask if this is a sound solution. Unfortunately, one of the first and foremost hurdles to understanding what might happen in the House is to understand what exactly it would mean to "deem and pass". Every political outlet seems to have it's own spin on what deem and pass entails that the actual rule seems a bit clouded.

According to The Hill, the deem and pass means, "the Rules Committee would adopt a self-executing rule that would 'deem' the Senate bill passed when the House votes on a package of changes to it." In essence, by voting on changes to the Senate bill that passed shortly before the Massachusetts special election, the House simultaneously passes the Senate bill without actually voting on the Senate bill. The changes the House would like to see incorporated into the Senate bill would normally require the bill be sent back to the Senate for its approval of the revised version by vote. It should be evident at this point why Democrats wouldn't want a Senate vote because of what happened in the Massachusetts special election.

The "deem and pass" solution puts enormous weight on the technique called budget reconciliation though. In this tactic, the changes the House approves in its "passing" of the Senate bill are subject to a vote by the Senate. But the Senate doesn't need a super-majority to pass these changes, because they are supposedly related to "budget reconciliation" differences between the two bills and therefore only need a majority vote to pass. However, there are a few things to note.

First, the changes under consideration by the Senate must only contain measures as they are directly related to the overall budget of the health-care bill. Second, "deem and pass" is assuming a lot when it comes to public understanding of the tactics used. When it comes to process, House Democratic leadership is assuming something like the following: we don't need to vote on the Senate bill, because it should be obvious enough that we agree with it generally by virtue of the fact that we have already moved onto making a few changes to it. The Senate bill stays alive in the House simply by passing over a vote to see if anyone in the House wants to continue seeing the bill to completion.

Where the tactic runs into problems lies exactly in the fact that this deeming everything in the Senate bill is almost perfect (of course, in the health-care bill, perfection lies in the eye of the beholder) is really a quasi-vote; a vote without actually voting. As if the House is saying, "let's not get bogged down in the process of this whole back and forth thing between the two chambers; let's just call it good by talking about a few extra measures and changes and finishing this thing up." So Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) does have a point when he was quoted as saying, "Anyone who endorses this strategy will be forever remembered for trying to claim they didn't vote for something they did." Because if Democratic representatives are really being honest with themselves, essentially they are voting for the Senate bill even though they won't cast an actual vote.

And to make this point even stronger, Speaker Pelosi says she favors this tactic because it relieves pressure from Democrats who would have a hard time voting for the Senate bill because it would mean making certain concessions, depending of course on individual Democrats and the respective state represented. The tactic of deem and pass can't be a terribly sound solution because of this quagmire; without saying it directly, Pelosi is telling the hesitant Democrats in her party that they can technically tell their constituents, "I didn't vote for the Senate bill." And instead they can say, "I only voted yes to changes that I thought should be made." And this won't ring true to informed voters; they won't say in November, "well technically you didn't vote for the Senate bill, so I'm going to deem and pass on you - skipping over what you skipped over and vote on changes I hope you'll make in the future."

Also, House Democrats aren't looking at tamping down criticism correctly. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has continually said it's about substance, not process. But anyone who has ever hidden anything knows well enough that the more you actively and publicly try to hide something, the less it becomes hidden. Rather than deflect the focus on something else, or strongly own up to the process, Democratic leadership is providing the fodder to focus solely on the process. If the Republicans attempt a tactic like "deem and pass" when they eventually regain the majority, and I say eventually because while it might not happen soon, it will happen eventually, they could justify the process by saying, "You did it to us, so we are doing it to you." Democrats need to focus more on the deflection by hammering away at the fact that Republicans have used this before and this is really more of a coming full circle.

If House Democrats could come to a consensus and solidify themselves as a Party, then "deem and pass" might not be needed at all. And if Democratic leadership could own up more to the tactic, then saying "So what?" would make so much more sense. Yet, it seems if health-care is to pass at all, "deem and pass" is the only way. It just doesn't seem to pass as a very sound solution to anyone.

How different will the Coffee Party be from the Tea Party?

2010-03-16T18:33:00.002-05:00

If you've been following the latest party developments lately, you know a new party came to town. In a rather tired response to the Tea Party, the Coffee Party was formed as a new alternative attempting to create a different dialogue on political developments. But I think the question to ask is how much will the Coffee Party really diverge from the fundamental basics of the Tea Party?

Idealistically (and by idealistically I mean the fundamental operations as a group), the Tea Party is a questioning of the actions of the government. The Tea Party seems to have come from a question as to the appropriateness of different actions and certainly what has become the specific actions of the Democratic majority in Congress. But the Tea Party has, in a sense, become an incomprehensible mess because they aren't really directed by dialogue and discussion, rather a populist and emotional response to things they don't like. They've become more a "grown-up" version of a child-like tantrum than a respectful voice of dissent.

Dissent doesn't simply mean anti-whatever-is-being-dissented-against. In it's most productive form, it's the expression of a contrary opinion supported by a well reasoned and informed argument. The Tea Party doesn't seem to ascribe to this method though; they would rather see the full-blown implications of being a Party of No than delve into constructive alternatives to current government agendas. When your organisation continually would rather see failure or emotional backlash triumph over actual solutions, I hardly think it qualifies as progressive movement in any correct direction.

The Coffee Party currently seems like an appropriate divergent organisation focused on a real dialogue rather than a movement fueled by emotional frustration. But while fundamentally their conception was borne of the same questioning of government action and agenda, they also grew from the same emotional backlash as the Tea Party. In an interview with Tom Schaller of FiveThirtyEight, Annabel Park, the founder of the Coffee Party recounts how the organisation started as a response to the Tea Party.

This isn't meant to say that starting an organisation from an objectionist idea is the wrong way to begin some kind of change - especially if it comes from a grassroots movement. Rather, as demonstrated by the Tea Party, emotional beginnings can quickly spin out of control if the fundamental underpinnings of creating a group aren't constructively built by reasoned and respectful dialogue.

The Coffee Party still has a long journey ahead until it fully forms itself into an organisation with a clear agenda, as Park mentions in her interview. It seems as though it might be on the correct track to producing constructive criticism of what many people see as the cracks and weaknesses of the government.

Gitmo Gone?

2009-05-20T14:11:00.002-05:00

The Senate has officially stripped funds away from closing Guantanamo. And Congress wonders why its approval ratings tend to be so low...

Why Arlen Specter's Defection Isn't Nearly As Big Of A Deal As People Think

2009-04-28T17:26:00.002-05:00

After the election the Democrats held 58 seats in the United States Senate. As has been mentioned numerous times, 60 votes are needed to invoke cloture and bring legislation to a vote. Pending the outcome of the unresolved Minnesota Senate election between Al Franken and Norm Coleman, Arlen Specter's defection from the Republican Party today could potentially give the Democrats the vaunted 60th seat. But the question remains, does Specter (R-PA) as compared to Specter (D-PA) make all that much of a difference in the grand scheme?

1. Arlen Specter, regardless of party affiliation, is facing a tough reelection in 2010. Whether he ran as a Republican, as he has done for the past 28 years, and faced a primary challenge from uber-conservative Pat Toomey or runs as a Democrat, as he has stated he will do in 2010, and faces an all-but-certain primary challenge from the left, Specter's relative moderate record leaves him open on both sides. If anything, his decision today certainly gives him a better chance at holding his seat in the trending blue state of Pennsylvania.

2. Despite today's fanfare, Specter still claims that he "...will not be an automatic 60th vote". He remains opposed to the unionization bill known as the Employee Free Choice Act, a major priority in the Democratic agenda. What will be interesting is how Specter tows the Democratic line. In order to avoid a primary challenge from the left, he will need to side with the Democrats on more legislation as opposed to less.

3. If anything, today's switch is more a reflection on the sad state of the Republican Party than on the triumph of the Democratic Party. Specter switched because, "... I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican Party." The Republican Party, as has been extensively covered in the media, is becoming increasingly conservative and moving further and further to the right. Specter left the Republican Party but he left to become a moderate Democrat. A Lieberman Democrat, if you will. And, lets be honest, how many Democrats would be excited about having another Lieberman in the party?

Over the last few months, as Obama's agenda has slowly advanced through Congress, we have observed that it is not only the Republican Party that has dragged its feet on the Obama agenda, but moderate, Blue Dog Democrats as well. And, I believe, we have just acquired another one of those in Arlen Specter.

AIG Bonus Hullaballoo

2009-03-18T21:23:00.002-05:00

Today the CEO of AIG Edward Liddy was strongarmed by the United States Congress to ask recipients of bonuses paid out by his company under contract to return half the amount paid. In a setting that looked and sounded more like a lynchmob than a congressional hearing, Liddy told Congress that he would not release the names of the employees who received bonuses paid in part by the bailout money given to the company earlier in the year, for fear of reprocussions against them.

There are a few inconsistencies that the AIG controversy has brought up:

1. It's OK to bailout a company for 200 billion dollars. AIG used .08% of this money to fulfill contracts. This made it not OK. It has caused an uproar. But why? We gave them the money to fulfill their debts. One of those debts was to pay their employees what they were contractually owed. If they did not do this, the employees had every right to sue them for wage default. If they had won, they would have been owed twice the amount orginally owed. Contracts are contracts. They cannot be renegged upon except for greivous malfeasance.

2. The American public has no idea what is happening with their money. The congress doesn't either.

3. The argument isnt about contracts. The argument is about how much people make and whether the government or, anyone, has a right to say how much is too much (and perhaps how little is too little). Who has that right? Isn't the American way to have the freedom to keep what you earn and earn what you work for?

4. "We are the effective owners of this company," Congressman Barney Frank said. The U.S. government owning a private business is unlike anything we have seen before, and is a definition of socialism.

5. This is very similar to the Big Three Controversy. It is also as ridiculous.

6. People don't understand the difference between a retainer bonus and a performance bonus. One is guaranteed money if an employee stays with the company and fulfills his obligations. The other usually depends on meeting goals or expectations.

In the end, if one considers that the company was contractually obligated to pay these bonuses let alone if we have the right to tell them what to do, there is nothing we can do about it.

Infrastructure Woes in Washington

2009-03-15T12:24:00.001-05:00

Students of infrastructure development turn to the Seattle metropolitan area as their example of what never, ever to do. In addition Washington is ranked in the top five worst traffic areas in the US. Beyond traffic, however, is very real concern of how infrastructure will fare given the economy and the weather.

The long, cold, and wet winter has caused flooding concerns in Kent valley. Flood levies are inadequate to handle super-heavy rains, and cause even more havoc on the local economy. Most commercial and industrial buildings have been surveyed and built above the 100-year flood plane. However, continued development, removal of lands that can absorb excess rainfall has distorted this flood plane, and some businesses and buildings are more vulnerable to flooding than previously thought. Big problem? Not really, unless you can’t get insurance and have the worst sellers market since the great depression. Reality check: here we are.

Washington is out of money. The state has an $8.5 Billion shortfall, with $5 Billion made up for in one-time federal aid and the draining of the state’s rainy day fund, the remaining $3.5 billion has to come from tax-payers, bonds, or budget cuts. They do not possess the funds to create solid infrastructure. Yet, as most students of development will tell you, banking and infrastructure, especially transportation, are the most essential functions of government.

Infrastructure is the backbone of any economy, but the Seattle infrastructure is relatively weak. The question for politicians is whether increasing funding for key infrastructure projects will improve the economy and quality of life, or if funding human services and education will ultimately have the greatest impact.

Looking for (R)Evolutionary Ideas

2009-03-13T17:04:00.005-05:00

It has been mentioned as a party of "no ideas". It has been named "the party of 'no'". And the sentiment seems to run along the general title of "the party of anti-everything". But as the party seeks guidance from new leadership, it still struggles to form a new identity.

An article from the NY Times covers another "debacle" by the RNC chairman, Michael Steele, over statements he made concerning abortion and homosexuality. The statements made in an interview to GQ propose a break from Republican ideology, which could mean more trouble for Steele who stumbles to find his way in the new post. But to call this a debacle or a misstep simply characterises the Republican Party as a brand that cannot get out of its own way. This might in fact, be true, as the Times article quotes Chip Saltsman of Tennessee as saying the job of Steele, "is to elect Republicans and beat Democrats."

As though the only requirement of chairman for the Republican Party is to win races, despite the Party's serious lack of innovative leadership and call for the forging of a new direction. Such pared down and non-progressive language, not to mention ideology, only moves to highlight a political force that cannot pass beyond the same rhetoric and policy that lead to its defeat in the 2008 election cycle. To be taken seriously, the Republican Party needs to become serious. Rather than live up to the expectation of saying "no" with a heralding chorus of "no", Republicans must think and act differently.

The partisan politics of electing Republicans and beating Democrats has no place in an era of progressive policies where the nation values bipartisan approaches that produce results. It only encumbers the Republican Party to the point of inarticulacy and generally banal ineffectiveness. Steele shouldn't have to fear repercussions from his party for attempting to drive in a different direction. The Republican Party elected Steele with the hopes of reforming the party, but it has made every effort to dash any such reformulation. And playing the blame game, saying that an ineffective leader is the source of the problem weakens the party even more. If anything, Steele proves to be a progressive leader striving to take the Republican Party, kicking and screaming, to a much needed next level.

Republicans have elected someone they might not want, but desperately need. They must evolve from a state of licking their wounds to a place where conservative notions can create a bipartisan atmosphere. And the GOP should take the President's words to heart when he called for an end to the politics of old. Past policies can't be repackaged into a novel idea; only working out how to say yes will help the Republican Party overcome the habit of "no".

Obama Repeals Embryonic Stem Cell Ban

2009-03-09T23:25:00.011-05:00

Today President Obama repealed a funding ban on Embryonic stem cell research begun by George W. Bush. In a flourish of rhetoric he proclaimed:

It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda - and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.

Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values.

While these statements are certainly agreeable in most respects, it is in this case that he has it dead wrong. Embryonic stem cell research was banned for good reason. President Bush banned it because of "fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science." It is here that the debate is derived, not upon "political" or "ideological" grounds. The argument those who wish to keep the research ban proffer is one of murder, not politics.

While our president will usually take arguments against his policies head on, unfortunately he did not see fit to answer this question. The question is not as the spin doctors would have it one of limiting science in the name of ideology, rather it is a moral question that must be answered before policy can go forward.

For the most part, proponents of the Embryonic stem cell ban believe that using embryos to harvest stem cells (a procedure that involves fertilizing a human embryo and then destroying it to take the non-developed cells within) is murdering a new human child. Arguments derive from the abortion debate, and generally continue along those lines.

President Obama regarded those concerns with a simple word "ideology". A placeword for any sort of moral posturing, any sort of stance that something truly is "wrong". This rhetorical device, while very effective, is simply dishonest. It is a form of ad hominem, attacking the man, the person who holds the opinion, not the argument. And so in one word, President Obama swept away accusations of murder, of genocide--accusations that can hardly be taken lightly--and by fiat, declared a questionable practice common and acceptable.

Ignored also today, was the question of whether Embryonic stem cell research (ESR) is necessary at all. Since President Bush banned ESR, scientists in the United States have been forced to look elsewhere for stem cells, and they have found them. Stem cells can be located in adult humans and harvested without any harm to the patient. These stem cells have provided medicine great advancement, and are able to treat just as easily (if not more) the same sort of diseases and genetic disorders ESR can treat. These discoveries, it can be argued, would never have been found had ESR not been banned.

The best case for banning ESR then, goes as follows:

1. Adult stem cells are able to cure and treat almost every disease and genetic disorder that ESR can.
2. ESR is of questionable morality
3. The moral rule in question is murder, a most serious crime.
4. As a society we do not know whether ESR constitutes murder.
5. A dire need for ESR does not exist
6. As such, we should err on the side of caution.

And yet, these arguments were not considered. By fiat, the President declared something lawful. Certainly a president may do so, and one may also argue that it was by similar fiat that President Bush declared ESR unlawful. Yet the two are not the same. President Bush saw that a grave moral crime might be committed. Rights might be wrongfully denied. And so, he chose to protect possible infrigement of rights until the question could be resolved. President Obama chose to bypass the question altogether.

District of Columbia Voting Rights Held At Gun Point

2009-03-09T20:13:00.002-05:00

District of Columbia Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), on January 6th, 2009, introduced H.R. 157, the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act of 2009. As introduced the bill would effectively grant voting rights in the House of Representatives to residents of the District of Columbia while also permanently increasing the size of the House from 435 to 437 members, designate the District of Columbia as a congressional district for purposes of voting representation, and temporarily granting the state of Utah an at-large representative based on the 2000 decennial census and would remain in place until the 2012 apportionment process.

The legislation, which has been introduced and failed to muster enough support multiple times, seemed to be on the fast track to President Obama's desk as of last week. Eleanor Holmes Norton felt so confident in her legislation and its long overdue approval that she even decided to make an appearance on The Colbert Report. However, her optimism turned out to be misguided and premature as gun rights advocates saw her legislation as an avenue to advance their interests.

Gun Control Provisions added to the D.C. Voting Rights Act of 2009 (thanks to the Congressional Research Service):

Senate Amendment 575, the "Second Amendment Enforcement Act," was introduced by Senator John Ensign and adopted by a vote of 62-36. It makes a series of amendments to the District of Columbia's Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975, which the D.C. Council had the authority to enact pursuant to the District of Columbia Self-Government and Government Reorganization Act (the Home Rule Act). Overall, this Senate amendment would effectively repeal the District's scheme that requires the registration of all firearms and restricts the possession and storage of firearms and ammunition. Specifically, the language in the amendment essentially provides that the D.C. Council would not be empowered to promulgate laws relating to firearm regulation either by virtue of the authority granted in the D.C. Code or any other provision granting similar police power. Further, it would appear to prohibit the District from barring firearm possession by individuals who are not prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law, and it would also appear to prevent the District from prohibiting or regulating the possession of firearms not already prohibited or regulated under federal law. However, the amendment would not interfere with the Council's authority to regulate or prohibit the carrying of open or concealed firearms, except in cases where the firearm is in a person's dwelling, place of business, or other land possessed by the person.

A major portion of the amendment would repeal the District's existing requirement that all firearms be registered, but it would allow the possession of sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, and short-barreled rifles to still be prohibited. Other provisions of the amendment would repeal the District's semiautomatic handgun ban by amending the definition of "machine gun" to conform with the federal definition. The Senate amendment would also "Restore the Right of Self-Defense in the Home" and repeal provisions of the D.C. Code that make it a policy that firearms be unloaded and either disassembled or secured by trigger lock, and further prohibits and provides criminal penalties if a person keeps a loaded firearm on any premise knowing a minor is likely to gain access. The amendment would also remove criminal penalties for carrying a firearm without a license either outside or within one's dwelling, place of business, or on other land possessed by that person whether loaded or unloaded. Lastly, the amendment proposes a change to existing federal law to allow federally licensed firearms dealers, whose place of business is in Maryland or Virginia, to sell and deliver handguns to residents of the District of Columbia.

Senate Amendment 575 also includes provisions to repeal the District's Firearms Registration Emergency Amendment Act of 2008, which is effective through April 6, 2009, and the Firearms Registration Amendment Act of 2008, the permanent version of the emergency legislation. The amendment also includes a Severability Clause, which effectively provides that the gun amendments would not be affected should any other part of the bill be held unconstitutional.

Now, due to the gun lobby and groups like the National Rifle Association, the debate has shifted from logical questions such as "is it just for residents of the District of Columbia to pay taxes yet receive no representation in Congress" and "is it constitutional to grant the District of Columbia representation in Congress under Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution which states that the House of Representative shall be composed of members chosen every two years by the people of the several states" to more trivial, procedural questions such as "will House leaders allow amendments to H.R. 157 or proceed under an open rule" and "will the NRA threaten to score any vote for a rule to ban amendments on their annual evaluation of Members". The entire nature of the debate has changed toward the non-germane and, in my opinion, for the worse.

It's actually kind of funny, not considering the ramifications for residents of the District of Columbia that will have to continue to wait for voting rights in the House of Representatives, that all that was needed to kill the D.C. Voting Rights Act of 2009 was some guns.

Grand Ol' Problems

2009-03-08T17:18:00.004-05:00

After the defeat of Sen. John McCain in the 2008 Presidential election cycle, the GOP struggles to find sure footing amongst their constituents and both houses of Congress. Indeed, Republicans find themselves splintering into different factions, from those who strongly support the lately "crowned" Rush Limbaugh to those hoping for revelation and salvation in Newt Gingrich. And even a few Republicans, such as McCain himself, seem to care more about their own agendas than trying to read signs in political cups of tea as their colleagues are apt to do.

The serious lack of leadership and the gravity of serious losses in the 2008 election cycle left the GOP in psychological dismay. This of course does not mean that Republicans are incapable of ever coming back to full strength as they once held during Presidencies such as Reagan's, because political opposition will always remain dangerous no matter the defeat, especially if their coffers are still well and full. What it does mean, however, is that the GOP will have to undergo serious reforms if they want to have even a serious chance at returning as the Congressional majority, or even assume another Republican Presidency.

For years Democrats struggled to overcome both a Republican majority and minority because congressional in-fighting left the entire party to weak against a unified opposition. Now the GOP faces the same fate as prominent members seem incapable of unifying themselves together against what they constantly decry as common opposition. And for all of the criticism and hyperbole that comes from the GOP, the seemingly very few solutions in response to Democratic legislation almost affirms the absolute dismay confronting the Republican Party.

Lately, criticism has come from such prominent Republicans such as House Minority Leader John Boehner and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor calling both the debate of Rush Limbaugh and the reversal of stem-cell research as distractions to the economic problem facing the nation. But perhaps what neither Boehner and Cantor, nor the GOP as a whole would like to admit, is the inefficiency and ineffectiveness in which they can keep pace with Legislation and policy coming from both the Democratic Party and President Obama's administration. As though pent-up Democratic politics has finally been unleashed and an already staggering Republican Party cannot manage to keep everything under control.

If the Grand Ol' Party wants to finally find the momentum to execute their policies, they need to exhibit the type of organisation and maturity this nation demands. The strategy of the past will not allow Republicans to evolve past their grand ol' problems. Rather, it will continue to divide and separate Republicans from a party seen as grand in the strength of their convictions to a party of ineffectual pluralism. To simply say "no" in an era and time when the nation looks for thoughtful responses and hopeful ideas, is to simply say "no" to a unifying identity at all. At the most, the GOP is grand at refusing to be a party at all.

On the Potential of a Re-Vote in Minnesota

2009-03-07T07:01:00.002-06:00

On November 6th, two days after the election, Norm Coleman held a press conference at which he stated, "Yesterday the voters spoke. We prevailed." He also noted that despite the slim margin separating the two Franken could opt to waive a recount. "It's up to him whether such a step is worth the tax dollars it will take to conduct," Coleman said, telling reporters he would "step back" if he were in Franken's position.

On January 5th the recount process concluded and gave Democrat Al Franken a lead of 225 votes out of 2.9 million cast. "Not every valid vote has been counted, and some have been counted twice," Coleman said shortly after the recount was complete.

The ensuing legal battle has taken months and shows no sign of ending anytime soon as the Republican National Committee recently donated $250,000 to bolster the Coleman recount legal efforts and a Franken petition that would have forced Governor Tim Pawlenty and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie to sign his election certificate, allowing him to be seated in the Senate, was rejected.

Meanwhile, as the calls for Coleman to concede have grown louder and louder, his legal challenges have had set-back after set-back.

In a somewhat desperate measure, Coleman has now begun to drum up support for a re-vote despite there being no legal precedent in the state of Minnesota, or even the nation, for such a thing. Minnesotans are equally divided with forty-six percent (46%) thinking they should vote again and 44% disagreeing. Ten percent (10%) are not sure which is best according to a March 5th Rasmussen Report.

In an attempt to recap: Coleman appeared to have a tiny lead over Franken after the election on November 4th. He called for Franken to concede. The subsequent recounts reversed the original decision and Franken was certified the winner by 225 votes out of 2.9 million. A three-judge panel is considering the case now, but in light of disparaging news and unfavorable outcomes, Coleman’s advisers are talking about a further appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court if necessary and are beginning to call for a re-vote entirely. Throughout the entire process Coleman has kept close contact with GOP leaders, is working as a consultant in Washington to the Republican Jewish Coalition, and has left Minnesota with only one Senate vote for the past eight weeks in which a very significant amount of federal dollars have been at stake.

If there was ever any question as to what kind of politician Norm Coleman is, the debate has certainly been settled.

Getting Financing

2009-03-05T21:16:00.002-06:00

If you haven’t already, I strongly suggest listening to this week’s episode of This American Life. It covers in beautiful simplicity an explanation of the conflicts and points of contention in the current financial crisis.

Listening to business leaders the other day, the most profound fact I took away was that businesses aren't doing any deals, moving, or looking for things such as new real estate to purchase. They can no longer get financing from banks that were previously good lenders. Even businesses with great credit can’t do some of the things that might position them to help our economy rebound.

A city like Seattle proves relatively lucky though. It boasts continued net in-migration, job stability, and a good environment to do business. However, when every major transaction or business move requires a bank, it is clear to see that unless we are looking for a fundamental shift in the way that America does business, fixing the problems with unemployment and mortgages begins with a major resuscitation of our banking structure. Don’t think that the government does nothing when it focuses on banks—in fact, it knows exactly where-in lies the problem.

Oregon's Beer Tax

2009-03-05T21:15:00.001-06:00

Oregonian’s are concerned that their status as Beer-vana might be in jeopardy. The state legislature recently proposed a beer tax that would end up costing the average pub-goer a bit more for every time they enjoyed a beverage. Many pub owners and goers are worried that a new tax hike would jeopardize Oregon’s reputation as the microbrew capital of the world.

One of the most contentious points about the beer tax is that it is difficult to get a straight answer. Some news sources say that the cost of a pint at a bar would cause a $1.50 increase, others as little as 15 cents. The current state tax on beer is less than a penny per every pint of beer.

In Munich, the Kaiser wanted to build a beautiful opera house, and he thought, that a good way to raise revenue would be to implement a beer tax. The tax was steep and the protests were astounding.

Most of the time, state revenues from alcohol are meant to fund substance abuse counseling and treatment programs. Revenues from the current beer tax are about half those generated from hard liquor sales.

If Oregon is going to implement a beer tax it needs to look at the purpose of sin taxes in general. In its abstract, sin taxes attempt to correct for the harm caused by some things that are still worth having available. We limit their consumption by putting a tax on them, and as a society hope that the tax helps mitigate the harm. Sin taxes could apply to anything, smoking, gas guzzling, alcohol, but not pornography because of first amendment rights.

The point of interest for politicians should be the extent to which sin taxes are designed to fund treatment programs for excessive use or to discourage the behavior altogether. If the purpose is to discourage the behavior, we might see the tax levels of cigarettes. But if the purpose is fund state programs, then we need to adopt a more holistic way of approaching the “sin” and fund the programs without exercising judgment on the individual.

If Oregon is passionate about getting funding for prevention programs, they need to create a reasonable tax structure that will not directly impact responsible persons’ consumption. If it is to discourage the behavior, however, then I imagine we can expect a new non-profit, beer advocates of Oregon.

McCain

2009-03-03T12:40:00.002-06:00

Earlier today Sen. John McCain's amendment to end earmarks, especially those in the omnibus spending bill, failed on the floor of the Senate. McCain has made a lot of news lately in his angry tirades against federal earmarks rampant throughout the omnibus bill and the federal government as a whole.

Even though the amendment failed, McCain raises a very good point in his tireless efforts: if the problem is never raised, doesn't it simply die in the shuffle? It may seem a bit shortsighted by Senators and constituents who value earmarks as a way for individual state progress, but the point isn't to end progress. McCain seems to value progress; what he doesn't value, and probably rightly, is inadequate and reckless spending of taxpayer money.

As most media outlets see McCain as a somewhat second-rate opponent of the President and his budget plans, it seems more as though they share the same view. The hard-earned work of taxpayers should result in "smart spending" rather than becoming written off revenue to fund projects that don't actually progress very many taxpayers. We are at a time when states need to look toward working together, or the tune may become "Division We Can". And that is something neither Sen. McCain, nor President Obama could handle.

Winning the War?

2009-02-25T17:28:00.003-06:00

Today Sen. John McCain called for a reformulation of the strategy employed in Afghanistan while praising President Obama's decision to send 17,000 additional troops to the area. McCain said such a revision is necessary to win the war in Afghanistan. But the real question, the one that has been looming in the background for years, is what does it mean to win the war? And furthermore, what does that even look like?

We play games and matches with two teams who subscribe to a certain set of rules and the definition of winning is already predetermined: whoever scores the most points in accordance with the rules wins. Wars must be treated entirely differently though. They cannot be seen as a match between two different teams playing with a set of rules, because there simply aren't rules to war. At least not in modern wars fought against scattered groups of fighters fueled by deep resentment, hatred, and a seemingly unending supply of arms.

Opposing forces don't sit down to coffee and determine the terms before going to war; they hold their own and forge strategies for inflicting the most harm or terror in secret meeting places with only their own cohorts to hold them accountable. And even if they did meet prior to engagement, wars, unlike games and matches, always succumb to laws of attrition. Even if a "winner" is determined, both sides lose. They lose supplies and land. They lose culture and history. And most importantly, they lose people.

So what would winning in Afghanistan look like? What would it mean? Is it shooting enough ammunition into the goal of a "liberated", or "free" Afghanistan? Or is it less ideological than that, such as raising the Afghanistan army to a certain troop number?

I agree with Sen. McCain that the war in Afghanistan cannot simply address, or be a matter of counterterrorism, but must also incorporate a method of counterinsurgency. Still, these components alone do not make up for the fact this is a war without definition. The involvement of the United States in Afghanistan makes deferment on the war nearly impossible. Yet this does not exclude the necessity of, at the very least, attempting to define what winning the war means for the United States, Afghanistan, and the global community.

A Final Word on the Stimulus

2009-02-14T13:04:00.002-06:00

After the House voted 246-183 yesterday afternoon and the Senate voted 60-38 last night, the only thing missing from the largest public investment and spending bill in American political history is the President's signature. Debate on the $737 billion dollar bill, which received just three GOP lawmakers voting in favor, was dominated by an outcry for jobs, jobs, jobs and an exclamation against excessive spending and "pork". While the merits of spending nearly three quarters of a trillion dollars are certainly to be debated in the current economic climate, the factor that was often lost through the curmudgeoning of the minority party on fictitious earmarks for mice in San Francisco and a lack of transparency, was the historic nature of the bill itself.

Of the $311 billion dollars in appropriations in the bill:

Investments in Infrastructure and Science - $120 billion
Investments in Health - $14.2 billion
Investments in Education and Training - $105.9 billion
Investments in Energy, including over $30 billion in infrastructure - $37.5 billion
Helping Americans Hit Hardest by the Economic Crisis - $24.3 billion
Law Enforcement, Oversight, Other Programs - $7.8 billion

The spending is only the beginning as a significant portion of the bill consists of the largest tax cut for middle class families in the history of our country.

I will be the last one to disagree with the Republican Party when they claim, as they have done throughout the stimulus process, that this is an unprecedented amount of money that we are about to spend on infrastructure and public works. In fact, we are in complete agreement. The stimulus is the largest spending bill in the history of America and we will most certainly have to pay that amount back at some point. But, after eight years of pretending that we wouldn't have to pay back the cost of trillions of dollars of tax cuts for the extremely wealthy or the billions that it cost to invade and rebuild Iraq, it seems disingenuous for the GOP to be screaming about fiscal responsibility and the debt we are placing on their grandchildren.

The fact is, in my daily life, I am starting to hear of more and more friends and acquaintances that are being laid off and are having difficulty finding work. I would be lying if I said I knew that the stimulus would succeed and bring American Recovery and Reinvestment. But isn't it better than sitting on your hands?

Economic Theories

2009-02-11T17:55:00.002-06:00

In an article today on Real Clear Politics, Michael Gerson attacked the stimulus plan as a formulation derived by, "pent-up Democratic spending appetites instead of an explainable economic theory."

Gerson fails to recognise one of the most important facts about economics: it isn't an exact science. As with all theories, economic theories only hold until a disproven part forces the theory to adjust it's previously held beliefs. However, the gravity of the current economic status hampers economics in such a way as to limit the abilities for an "explainable economic theory."

Even today, the House Financial Services Committee grilled the top executives of eight banks as to where the billions of dollars from TARP had been spent. Clearly, attempting to add up some economic theory requires convoluted mathematics as we haven't even seen the effects of the first Stimulus.

While Gerson has a very legitimate argument in dismaying at the lack of educational funding in the new Stimulus bill, he seems to miss the overall objective point of a stimulus in the first place. The Stimulus Bill isn't simply a bill about underfunding education or the pragmatic views and philosophies of the President; it is first and foremost about rehabilitating the nation and aligning it onto a road of economic recovery.

If injecting cash, unfreezing credit, rescuing homes from subprime mortgages, creating jobs, and improving the general welfare of the nation isn't an explainable economic theory in itself, then there won't be need to worry about any kind of future education.

Poetic Justice

2009-02-02T21:49:00.001-06:00

Of all the political lawn signs that I've masking taped to my wall, which one decided to fall down today?

Tom Daschle.

Change Has Come To America

2008-11-08T16:06:00.001-06:00

And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world – our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down – we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security – we support you. And to all those who have wondered if America’s beacon still burns as bright – tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.

For that is the true genius of America – that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

2008-10-29T19:04:00.001-05:00

A democrat that lowers taxes and doesn't increase the size of government? That'd be like a Republican in office who grows the size of government and increases the national debt...

2008-10-29T19:01:00.001-05:00

I was a little surprised to hear that Sen. Obama decided to go with a prime-time, half-hour long advertisement. I mean, what does he have to gain? Everything I've read states that, if anything, he's reached his peak poll numbers. To me, it almost seems like a pre-inauguration address. Brazen, indeed. We'll see.

Barack Obama's Paid Advertisement Liveblog

2008-10-29T19:00:00.001-05:00

Obama premieres his "Perot" style, half-hour, paid advertisement.

I'll be here with insight.

Volatility

2008-10-14T21:13:00.002-05:00

An excerpt from The Daily Show:

Why the volatility in the market?

Well Jon, volatility often occurs when everyone suddenly realizes that the stock market is just a conceptual mass illusion based on fictitious valuings of abstract assets.

You know, it's like finding out Santa Claus is real because you catch him robbing your house.

2008-10-07T21:25:00.000-05:00

What an incredibly poignant question.

2008-10-07T21:24:00.001-05:00

Of course McCain could only respond with a "maybe" after Obama's response.

2008-10-07T21:20:00.001-05:00

And what would those penalties look like?

2008-10-07T21:11:00.002-05:00

McCain just answered the question, "What don't you know?" by responding, (I'm paraphrasing here) "I, like most Americans, don't know what's going to happen tomorrow."

That's the best answer I've heard all night.

McCain's not a psychic.

2008-10-07T21:09:00.000-05:00

John McCain, "My hero is Teddy Roosevelt."

Ronald Reagan is pissed right now.

2008-10-07T21:05:00.002-05:00

McCain bringing every question back to "The Surge" is akin to a lone tree standing in a forest that has just burned down. The economy is in shambles, deregulation and the free-market have failed, and McCain's party and it's policies have directly influenced the situation our country is currently in, but check out that tree.

2008-10-07T21:02:00.001-05:00

The Obama doctrine and the McCain doctrine.

Is that their worldview, Charlie?

2008-10-07T20:55:00.000-05:00

Tell the Russian citizens they are rather wealthy.

2008-10-07T20:54:00.000-05:00

For a bit more in-depth analysis of McCain's health plan see the following article.

2008-10-07T20:53:00.002-05:00

Medical errors, as they call them? I thought a medical error was a medical error, not just something called a medical error.

2008-10-07T20:50:00.002-05:00

Obama looks serious and addresses the audience in a serious manner treating them like adults. McCain continually seems to wish he wasn't there.

2008-10-07T20:47:00.001-05:00

Both candidates are obviously finding it hard to follow the time limits. But perhaps the question should be asked, how effectively can an issue really be debated in two minutes?

2008-10-07T20:44:00.002-05:00

Evidently McCain didn't get the memo that nuclear waste is dangerous and needs to be disposed in a safe manner.

2008-10-07T20:41:00.002-05:00

McCain is coming across as an asshole. He just interrupted Tom Brokaw to interject, from an earlier claim about Obama fining families that don't insure their children, "Did you hear about the cost of the fine?"

McCain is certainly on the offensive tonight and has forced Obama to answer to his attacks. Obama is certainly on his toes, but I'm afraid that McCain is coming off as too strong, too pushy, and too much of an asshole.

2008-10-07T20:38:00.000-05:00

Everyone on your knees, it's time to worship Ronald Reagan.

2008-10-07T20:35:00.001-05:00

Obama's face, while listening to McCain's version of his (Obama's) tax policy, is classic.

Like a little kid waiting to open up presents on Christmas morning. Surprise and all.

2008-10-07T20:25:00.003-05:00

A spending freeze on everything but Defense and Veteran's Affairs?

While our bridges and infrastructure are crumbling? While 40 million Americans can't afford health insurance? While our economic system is on the verge of collapse?

A spending freeze, when we need to be funneling money into our domestic needs that have been severely overlooked, makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

2008-10-07T20:19:00.002-05:00

I find it hilarious that McCain chose to answer the question from the "cynical" American, who is upset at both parties, by attacking Senator Obama on new spending.

McCain answered that lady's question perfectly. But he didn't mean to.

2008-10-07T20:18:00.004-05:00

Tomorrow the papers will read, "Pretty high on the hog." Or maybe not...hopefully not...

2008-10-07T20:18:00.002-05:00

McCain is flat out wrong on the question, "Will this economic crisis get worse before it gets better?"

Of course it will. It already has. Congress passed the Economic Bailout plan on Friday. The Dow lost over 500 points today (Tuesday).

The crisis has already gotten worse.

2008-10-07T20:13:00.002-05:00

McCain is attempting to reach out to the middle class without actually addressing them by name.

2008-10-07T20:11:00.003-05:00

I thought Obama was supposed to be the elitest? Evidently McCain doesn't believe very many people have heard of Frannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

2008-10-07T20:11:00.001-05:00

Brokaw, already proving a good moderator, is reigning in the debate.

2008-10-07T20:08:00.002-05:00

It seems like both McCain and Obama are touting their "I saw this crisis coming first" credentials. But, to me, that seems like a ridiculous claim. If they both saw it coming, then why didn't one of them prevent it? Aren't they both Senators?

2008-10-07T20:03:00.002-05:00

Obama ends up being the first person to address the middle class. He's also making some very direct attacks against McCain, whereas McCain would like to defer.

2008-10-07T20:02:00.004-05:00

McCain's already dodging the question that was presented to him.

How does energy independence fix the economy? If I'm not mistaken, didn't the economic crisis begin due to lax oversight and regulation in the mortgage and credit industry?

2008-10-07T20:02:00.001-05:00

Both candidates take the stage looking cordial towards each other, but McCain already seems to have shown a bit of disdain. Probably imperceptible to most viewers.

Live Blog: Second Presidential Debate

2008-10-07T20:01:00.000-05:00

Here we go.

Pre-Debate: The Gloves Are Off

2008-10-07T19:58:00.003-05:00

Tonight John McCain will attempt to resurrect his candidacy. All of the recent polling suggests that he is traveling head-on into a defeat on November 4th. In the days following the Vice-Presidential debate he has decided to pull a Faust. He will stop at nothing, including dragging the entire campaign into the gutter with vicious attacks on Obama's past including but not limited to, William Ayers and Rev. Wright.

The venue and style of debate definitely favor McCain. But can he connect with voters on an issue that he clearly doesn't understand? We're about to find out.

Pre-Debate Post

2008-10-07T18:53:00.003-05:00

In anticipation of tonight's Presidential debate, we'll be providing a brief summary of points we think will be addressed and things to be looking for as you watch the two candidates.

First and foremost, tonight's debate is town-hall style, meaning the candidates will field questions by the audience and written questions submitted through the Internet. The moderator tonight is Tom Brokaw, who, while known for his excellent journalism and analyses, probably won't be nearly as tough as the late great moderator Tim Russert.

While being able to control the question a bit better than Gwen Ifill did in the Vice-Presidential debate, Brokaw tends to take a slightly softer approach than Russert ever did, so look for the candidates escaping a few of the more nuanced or harsher questions.

The economy, as in the previous debate, will play a certain and crucial role, especially with the Dow Jones and the S&P taking extremely hard hits again losing more than five percent each at the end of the day. Questions to look for will be those regarding what either candidate will do should the economy continue to worsen and should the economic bailout package enacted by Congress fail to stem the tide of Wall Street's woes.

As the economy is absolutely a weak point for John McCain, look for a series of non sequiturs leading McCain to attack Obama for his relative inexperience rather than address economic questions. If McCain ends up debating tonight in the same manner and fashion as Sarah Palin did last Thursday, then the evening could end up being ninety minutes of winks, nods, and grimmaced grins.

Obama has thus far played a cool hand not allowing outrageous claims and attacks affect him. He looked rather Presidential last Thursday, but everyone has a breaking point. Should he be attacked too aggressively on his connection to Weather Underground co-founder Bill Ayers, Obama, as campaign chief strategist David Axlerod suggested, might lose his cool and face off against McCain.

The tell-tale weakpoints of each candidate remain roughly the same as the first debate; look for McCain to continuously tout the experience argument by making incessant, dated remarks aging the Senator and making him look less able to change in an era when the only good thing seems to be the ability to make change occur domestically, economically, and internationally.

On the other hand, Obama is always just one SAT vocab word away going from Presidential to professorial. Watch for Obama to do away with the chalk and blackboard, honing down his policies and succintly addressing questions in more accessible terms. Releasing a barage of vocab words would only reverse the hard work the campaign has done to align Obama with the middle-class; it would effectively widen the gap between the working and elite classes - Marxism at it's finest.

At any rate, both candidates will have to restrain themselves, expressing ideas in sentences rather than paragraphs, connecting the dots - especially when using a series of numbers and figures, or naming different heads of state, and realising the implications of their body language over national media. Nixon won the radio debate, but JFK looked overwhelmingly good on television; McCain and Obama need to be aware of how presentable and Presidential they look to a national audience.

Of course there are many other things to look and watch in both candidates. Hopefully our live blog this evening will help with some of the more nuanced and detailed items we see as we watch the debate with you.

2008-10-02T21:18:00.000-05:00

Palin seems to only be able to focus on energy. She can't even answer Ifill's question as to her real weakness.

2008-10-02T21:16:00.001-05:00

Palin started off strongly, but now her comments are becoming more and more incoherent.

2008-10-02T21:12:00.000-05:00

A bit confused as to what just went on in Palin's mind...

2008-10-02T20:41:00.000-05:00

My name isn't Sarah Palin, it's William Jennings Bryan.

2008-10-02T20:34:00.001-05:00

It looks like Palin is a bit confused; she continually flip-flops back and forth between ending all drilling and drilling sources at home.

2008-10-02T20:28:00.003-05:00

Gwen Ifill needed to push Palin on that last comment, moving directly to energy rather than address Biden's hook and lure.

2008-10-02T20:28:00.001-05:00

Was that a smart move, attacking your running mate? The jury will still be out for a while.

2008-10-02T20:23:00.002-05:00

It looks like the only thing saving Sarah Palin are her notes. When referring to the energy plan, she looked down at her podium for a majority of her comment.

2008-10-02T20:22:00.000-05:00

Biden still needs to shore up his comments.

2008-10-02T20:17:00.002-05:00

The deferment trick: Biden is directly attacking John McCain rather than Sarah Palin. Rather than attack the opponent who already has a reputation for being a rather poor and unversed debated, focus the energy toward the opponent with stronger debating skills.

2008-10-02T20:16:00.002-05:00

Biden needs to slow down. His answers are slowly becoming paragraphs not sentences. While ten word answers can be the tip of the sword, they can be extremely effective when conveyed well and intelligently.

2008-10-02T20:11:00.001-05:00

Biden is making the correct move by correcting the false attack.

2008-10-02T20:10:00.002-05:00

The other side of the coin, though, is that responsibility cuts both ways. Greedy lenders were at fault for their over-confidence in taking advantage of those looking for a home loan. But those looking for a home loan should have had the responsibility to know they couldn't take out such a large mortgage; a mortgage they knew wasn't in their ability to pay back.

2008-10-02T20:09:00.001-05:00

Gwen Ifill is already proving to be a good moderator by commenting that neither candidate really answered her question concerning what either would do as Vice-President.

The Vice-Presidential Debate

2008-10-02T20:07:00.001-05:00

We'll be live blogging the debate tonight.

It should be a good showdown between Senator Joseph Biden and Governor Sarah Palin.

A Well Done Analysis

2008-09-29T20:19:00.001-05:00

An article by Ben Pershing gives a very enlightening account of today's economic bludgeoning.

The Economic Bail-Out: An Ideological Bender

2008-09-27T09:48:00.003-05:00

This past week has been a flurry of anxious nervousness over the economy and the government's role in its supposed bail-out. All week people have been conversing with one another expressing concern and hesitancy over their investments, retirements, and mortgages. And while the economy is the major topic of conversation currently, even for people who could care less about politics and economics, I find myself focusing on a completely different aspect of the crisis.

Most all political situations or, if you will, choices can usually be broken down into two ideological frameworks. Republican or Democrat. Conservative or Liberal. More government or less government. And while deducing every political argument into left versus right may be overly simplified and ignorant of the nuances within American political theory and thought, often times, for better or worse, that is what occurs.

The most interesting thing about the economic collapse brought about by the mortgage failure, to me, is how the debate surrounding the proposed government "bail-out" refuses to mold into the traditional Republican versus Democrat model. And not only does it refuse to be typecast, moreover it seems to fundamentally turn traditional Republican or Democratic ideology on its head.

Over the past week I have heard typically staunch Republicans, who normally adhere to a free market philosophy with less government intervention in the economy express the extreme need to urgently fix this economic crisis through a $700 billion dollar bail-out by the United States Government with the American people's tax dollars. Over this past week I have also heard typically staunch Democrats, who normally adhere to an economic framework that includes more oversight, more regulation, and more government, along with an abhorrence of free market philosophy, express extreme outrage at the fact that the United States Government would ever even think about giving "those fat-cats on Wall Street" $700 billion dollars all while wanting the "market to work itself out".

Perhaps this seeming incongruity in ideology amongst the two parties and their traditional platforms can be attributed to the fact that, in our American society, probably less than 2% of the entire population truly understand this situation, its enormity, and its consequences. After all, we're not all economists. Have you ever tried to watch CNBC for any period of time?

However, regardless of the subject matter or the level of knowledge surrounding it, this economic bail-out is a serious matter which has the American public baffled and disoriented. Apparently so much so that, in a traditional ideological sense, they don't know whether to turn left or right.

2008-09-26T21:03:00.000-05:00

Obama has suddenly directed the debate: "Let's move on, you've got one more question."

2008-09-26T20:45:00.002-05:00

Obama is making a very good attack by calling McCain out on "muddling through..." McCain is attempting to make a point about his record, but there are two points.

One, as Senator Clinton has already proved, the experience argument doesn't necessarily work against the change argument.

Two, McCain has a "proven" record, but he and how many other Senators?

2008-09-26T20:41:00.000-05:00

McCain is attempting to hijack Petraeus' surge strategy, of which Petraeus wrote the book.

2008-09-26T20:22:00.002-05:00

McCain: You cannot have a failed strategy that will make you almost lose a conflict.

Which strategy is McCain talking about and what does he consider the parameters, the definitions of winning and losing the war in Iraq?

McCain is doing a great job at making broad, sweeping generalisations, but not very good pinpointed definitions or particular solutions.

2008-09-26T20:19:00.002-05:00

When it comes to pork-barrel spending, will McCain look disdainfully at his own Vice-Presidential partner?

Maybe we need to look back at the Bridge to Nowhere and remember, "Thanks, but...thanks."

2008-09-26T20:18:00.001-05:00

McCain: It corrupts people. It corrupts people.

As though a lot of money hasn't corrupted people until now...

2008-09-26T20:09:00.002-05:00

Remember the Al Gore sigh in 2000? I think we just caught John McCain making a McCain "smirk".

2008-09-26T20:07:00.002-05:00

McCain: "The end of the beginning [to the economic crisis]."

Doesn't McCain mean the beginning of the end? Isn't the question in the minds of all American, is this the end?

2008-09-26T20:04:00.002-05:00

Obama is correctly analysing the root of the economic problem. The root isn't the failure of the investment banks such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers; it is the problem with mortgage defaults that has sent the economy into complete disarray.

2008-09-26T20:03:00.000-05:00

Here we go.

Financial recovery plan is the very first topic.

First 2008 Presidential Debate

2008-09-26T20:01:00.002-05:00

Tonight we will be live blogging the first Presidential debate between Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain.

It should be an incredible debate, especially given the turmoil in the American economy.

The Representation of Taxation

2008-09-18T17:14:00.002-05:00

An article by Chris Cillizza does well to analyse the differences between Democrats and Republicans concerning taxes especially in light of John McCain's latest ad attacking Barack Obama as willing to raise taxes in order to fund an enormous growth in government.

"For Republicans, that means portraying Democrats as advocates of a nanny government that is involved in every part of your life and is funded by huge tax increases that take money from your pocket.

For Democrats, it's casting Republicans as favoring a go-it-alone, every-man-for-himself attitude and driving that message home specifically on domestic issues like health care and the economy."

What Cillizza does not mention is the fundamental psychology behind the two sides. A Republican attack on Democrats and their tax philosophy grounds itself by a "something-that-can-be-taken-away" psychology. Republicans are effective in this attack because they portray Democrats as always willing to take away money from the American public.

Thus, Democrats are less successful in their attacks on Republicans as no one really seems to be bothered by a "go-it-alone" person as long as they aren't infringing on anyone else's privacy, property, and personal space. Besides, Adam Smith and Milton Friedman practically endorse a go-it-alone economy where free markets and the invisible hand can do its proper work.

Republicans, though, seem to make a falicious argument by assuming larger government is despised due to primary funding by Democrats who have taken money away from the American public in the form of taxes. So the question asked wonders, if taxes weren't the concern and issue of the American public, how many Americans would really despise larger government?

Here It Is

2008-09-18T16:51:00.001-05:00

The Obama campaign just released an email with a video attached displaying Obama's economic plan. As duly noted, Obama realises how strong an attack this could become.

A Different Economic Bail Out

2008-09-17T13:46:00.005-05:00

Ever since the Republican National Convention, John McCain rose in the polls to marginally edge out Barack Obama. Given this slight increase in poll numbers, the Obama campaign must reconsider the campaign focus.

Many political analysts and pundits noticed a subtle change in the political atmosphere as McCain's numbers began to grow. A once dominate Obama campaign lost command of the center stage and the ability to force the McCain campaign and Republicans to play by Democratic rules. Instead, McCain has exploited this opening not only by stunning both parties choosing Sarah Palin as his Vice-Presidential pick, but also controlling the political conversation.

This was not, however, completely by Republican design. What plagues the Obama campaign is a complete loss of focus, especially when all attempts struggle to maintain a grasp on issue rather than character. Democrats would like nothing more than to attack McCain on every issue front and if possible, character flaws as well. But in typical Democratic style, the Obama campaign has picked too many issues to attack at once and seems to have confused itself in the process.

The Obama campaign would be doing much worse if it wasn't for the enormous economic blunders of the past year and the political missteps of the McCain campaign. As Lehman Brothers fell, Merrill Lynch sold itself, and AIG desperately sought federal aid, the Obama campaign was the lucky recipent of a much needed refocus. As John McCain stated, "the fundamentals of our economy are still strong," the Obama campaign has correctly decided to use this as the spring board into a strong and focused attack on McCain's lack of economic know-how.

Rather than a back and forth between the two campaigns, Obama has attacked McCain where he is utterly defen

Clearing the Air

2008-09-04T22:40:00.003-05:00

In our culture of 24 hour news cycles and constant media reporting through the internet it is easy to lose oneself in the political spin wars. In our current atmosphere, with both Democratic and Republican conventions and VP selections, it is easy to lose oneself in political partisanship. I have succumbed myself. But perhaps now that the conventions are over and football season is beginning, a much needed sabbatical will ensue. If nothing else, I am more conscious and aware of my own biases. Now it's just a matter of controlling them.

Sometimes Government is the Solution

2008-09-01T10:45:00.004-05:00

From my favorite NY Times Op-Ed Columnist, Paul Krugman:

"FEMA’s degradation, from one of the government’s most admired agencies to a laughingstock, wasn’t an isolated event; it was the result of the G.O.P.’s underlying philosophy. Simply put, when the government is run by a political party committed to the belief that government is always the problem, never the solution, that belief tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Key priorities are neglected; key functions are privatized; and key people, the competent public servants who make government work, either leave or are driven out.

What we really need is a government that works, because it’s run by people who understand that sometimes government is the solution, after all. And that seems to be something undreamed of in either Mr. Bush’s or Mr. McCain’s philosophy."

It's Biden Time

2008-08-27T20:50:00.001-05:00

These lead in, DNC videos are fantastic.

Kerry on Rovian Tactics

2008-08-27T20:05:00.003-05:00

Liked the John Kerry portion of the evening. When referring to the fact that McCain no longer supports the immigration and climate legislation that he wrote, Kerry said, "Before he debates Barack Obama, he should finish the debate with himself. Talk about being for it before you were against it."

Considering the way in which the wounds of 2004 haven't necessarily healed for many Democrats, it was a nice touch bringing Kerry out to comment on Rovian tactics.

Day 3 Keynote: Bill Clinton

2008-08-27T20:02:00.002-05:00

Bill Clinton just took the stage to anthem that defined his campaigns of the 90's: "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow". But yet, ironically, being the 42nd President of the United States, I can't help but think of the past.

Live DNC Blogging

2008-08-24T18:56:00.002-05:00

The Democratic National Convention will take place August 25 - 28 in Denver, Colorado. Although we will not be blogging live from the convention, we will be following the events very closely and will momentarily offer thoughts, observations, and an overall perspective.

Tomorrow will feature Michelle Obama as the prime-time speaker as well as a tribute to Senator Ted Kennedy.

Check in often as it should be a whirlwind four days.

Our Subjective Reality

2008-07-18T21:43:00.006-05:00

Remember when one could read a newspaper or watch a cable news station without having to question the inherent bias of the particular publication or station? Was there ever a time when we used to be able to turn on the news and actually receive just that? Not that I can remember. Now I can't listen to NPR without someone telling me that I'm a hippie-liberal. I can't sit down in front of a Washington Post without someone telling me that doing so will only expose me to one singular point of view. What ever happened to being able to read one newspaper to inform myself? Now I can't even watch ESPN for Twins baseball highlights without being bombarded with some subjective nonsense like "The Search for Titletown."

When did our political culture start forcing me to read both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal in order to get a balanced view of what's going on in American current events? Moreover, when did our media, and the way we convey information, shift from objective to subjective? Media outlets have begun to separate themselves from the very principle on which they stood since their creation. The motto: Objectivity at all costs. Keep all subjective thoughts and the writer's personal opinion out of reporting.

Yet ever since Bush assumed the White House Americans have decided to pick and choose their reality. That's the brilliant thing about this hyper-realization combination of individualism, technology, politics and culture. Don't like the fact that George Bush won a controversial election in 2000? You can maintain your elitist, conspiracy theories and liberal sentiments through reading the New York Times, watching Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, and starting up a liberal blog. Or perhaps the fact that the Supreme Court decided the election in the Republican's favor made you happy? You can justify that decision by watching Fox News, reading the National Journal, and listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio while you drive your pickup truck through West Texas.

It's both basic and complex. Choose your form of media, choose your reality and simply ignore anything that doesn't mesh with your view of the world. No weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Psssccchhht. That's not really why we went over there, right? We really invaded Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people from the tyrannical Saddam and to plant the seeds of a glorious democracy. The surge is actually working and stabilizing Iraq? Well, my platform has always been to defer to my commander's on the ground for tactical advice and on the ability to draw down troop levels. All that stuff about withdrawing immediately? That's not actually what I said.

It is as if the 2000 election, in true Donnie Darko fashion, opened a wormhole in the space-time continuum and spawned a parallel universe in which our ideology, no matter how radical or moderate, remains steadfast regardless of all the facts surrounding it. It is a politics, to borrow Stephen Colbert's words, from the gut rather than the head.

A great example of this phenomenon is the issue of the flip-flop. Changing one's mind on a political topic based on changing facts and scientific studies has become a sort of political suicide. But should it? Let us break down this matter and analyze what the Presidential candidates are asked to do. They are forced to present a platform for foreign affairs, during the middle of a foreign war, a year and a half in advance of the election and then are forced to adhere to that platform despite all current developments in said foreign war or else face political fallout for changing positions.

We, as a country, are no longer able to effectively digest the things that are happening to us. We have a conscious inability to distinguish reality from fantasy. The overwhelming presence of media, and the explosion of blogs, radically shapes and filters our view of everything from politics to daily experience.

We continue our culture wars, but in a way that is very much anti-cerebral. We approach things from an emotional, self-absorbed perspective that prevents us from understanding the opposite point of view to such an extent that we choose to pretend that the other view simply doesn't exist. Whether that means watching Bill O'Reilly instead of Keith Olbermann or reading the New York Times rather than the Wall Street Journal, it all depends to which subjective reality you subscribe.

Counter-Terrorism Be Damned

2008-06-14T00:07:00.006-05:00

Are there moments in which the suspension of our civil liberties is justified? Is there ever a situation or event or time in which the protections that we, as American citizens, are afforded in the Constitution are null and void?

The Supreme Court weighed in this past week and their decision was not only a rebuke of the President's policy regarding detainees at Guantanamo Bay but was also reflective of the current division in national politics.

In a strict adherence to the ideological breakdown on the Court, Justices Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Bader Ginsberg all voted on the side of granting terrorism suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay the right to seek their release in federal court while Justices Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas all voted against granting the detainees their Constitutional right of due process. As has been the case in many contentious Supreme Court decisions in recent times, Justice Anthony Kennedy served as the deciding swing vote.

Antonin Scalia, in rare form, summarized his opposition thusly, "America is at war with Radical Islamists. This decision will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today."

To which I ask, how is granting terrorism detainees, many of whom have proclaimed their innocence and maintained that they were handed over to coalition forces for money and who have been held for years without formal charges being brought against them, a chance to challenge their captivity causing more Americans to be killed?

To simplify the entire question on the war on terror and how it relates to this very case and the Constitution, ask yourself:

Are our civil liberties being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism?

I don't know about you but if I were ever arrested and sent to jail, I'd sure like to be afforded my basic, Constitutional right of a writ of habeas corpus. And despite the best efforts of the so-called "Constitutionalists" on the Court, detainees will finally have that right.

The Next Battle

2008-06-04T23:27:00.004-05:00

In slight contradiction to the former post aptly named the Final Battle, the Democratic Party must and has to acknowledge the very facticity of a Presidential campaign: a nomination process is only the beginning. Despite the newest political headline that Senator Clinton has effectively conceded her nomination campaign and endorsed Senator Obama, a long road lies ahead for the nominee.

Firstly, Senator Obama will have to decide whom to offer the Vice-Presidential ticket seat. Does he indeed, as many Clinton supporters have strongly suggested, present Hillary Clinton the hard-sought position? Or does he turn to one of her many strong-willed advocates such as Governor Ed Rendell, Senator Jim Webb, or Ret. General Wesley Clark? Does he instead look after one of his own such as Fmr. Senator John Edwards or Governor Kathleen Sebelius?

Secondly, the choice of a Vice-President brings with it the extra stress of a two-fold implication, namely, how best to sway Clinton's voters who have increasingly expressed their own doubts of Obama, and which Vice-Presidential option will best add value to the ticket in garnering those states where he has struggled in the nomination battle and traditionally called "Swing-States". The best solution, obviously, garners support from both Clinton's disaffected voters and pulls Swing-States to his side. The worst leads only to fallout of perhaps the worst political kind.

Thirdly, Obama's next project must be to refocus the Democratic Party for the general election and a new competitor. John McCain is not only seasoned in the highs and lows of different and various political processes, but also comes from a political party that will not simply throw up their hands surrendering the Presidency.

The road, to paraphrase Milton, is long and hard, leading up to Light. We could and undoubtedly will make our own theories and projections as to what will happen next. But perhaps we should take a cue from Obama and Clinton advisers both of whom have advocated for everyone to take a deep breath and let the dust settle for a moment.

Just as we thought the process could not be longer, we still have months of fatiguing battle ahead.

The Final Battle: South Dakota?

2008-05-29T12:30:00.003-05:00

In what could be the most unlikely of events in an already unlikely contest for the Democratic nomination for President, it appears as though South Dakota may actually be playing a significant role.

Last week Hillary Clinton, in a interview with the Sioux Falls Argus Leader's editorial board, commented on her continuing campaign despite unfavorable odds by saying, "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

To which she later apologized.

And even today, the small, rural state which is overwhelmingly comprised of white (88 percent), elderly (eighth-largest percentage of residents older than 65), and Native American (8 percent) residents is projecting a tight, hard fought battle.

Both sides are claiming that a victory in South Dakota would bolster their claims to the nomination. For Barack Obama, a win in the overwhelmingly white, elderly state would further secure his claims of being able to win white, rural states. Moreover, his support from the largest minority population in the state, Native Americans, could be beneficial come November. For Hillary Clinton, a win, in a state with demographics that seem to benefit her, means further questions surrounding Obama's seeming inability to "wrap-up" the nomination. Momentum out of the final primary to convince super-delegates is at stake for both.

June 3.

The stakes: The Democratic nomination for President.

The location: South Dakota...

Really?

The Written Word

2008-05-22T21:14:00.003-05:00

Occasionally, a moment makes itself recognizable. In a series of infinite time and space, infinite moments making no claim of their own from one to another, a certain piece of an objective whole demands our immediate and noteworthy attention. It calls upon our faculties of comprehension and understanding in a way that is only reserved for what we have already preconceived as greatness. One moment makes itself known amongst the many to remind us why exactly we are able to see past the surface and perceive a larger beauty. The Form of beauty and gracefulness replicates itself once again to a moment formed from and into its own beauty and grace.

To make this statement, as an editor, takes clear judgment and vision. Over the years, I have read many writers, some who were considered ahead of their time, some who have been socially canonized as majestic, prolific, and clairvoyant, and many who were only beginning the difficult journey that such writing demands. But nothing encourages me more than when out of a certain kind of silence, something this brilliant and stunning shows itself.

I am speaking of the most recent post written by someone that I consider not only my friend, but also my colleague. I have watched as his writing has taken shape and forged a path of his own making. It is not crass or abrasive, not haughty or pretentious. Writing of this nature exclaims the power of the written word. This is not mediocrity, but boldness, courageousness, and graceful.

The most recent piece written for this blog exemplifies and expands what little grasp we have of beauty. Not only has it done absolute justice to a man who, himself, exemplifies the constant striving for justice, but it has shown itself as what one might call, "a fine piece of writing."

I have been stunned to silence by a work coming out of silence. I commend the thoughtfulness, ingenuity, and emotion a piece like this commands. It has become an inspiration, and without wanting to put excessive pressure on the writer, I can only hope to see more of the same.

Thank you.

Kennedy's True Legacy: Empathy

2008-05-22T10:50:00.004-05:00

Once the news of Ted Kennedy's malignant brain tumor hit the Senate floor many members were moved to tears amidst their shock. Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), the oldest member of the Senate and President Pro Temp, added an emotional tribute. The way in which members of Congress and the media have discussed, eulogized, and payed tribute to Senator Kennedy in recent days hearkens the thought that he has already passed. However, Senator Kennedy lives. But perhaps the premature homilies that are being offered on Senator Kennedy's record of public service are serving a more noble purpose.

Coming from a family lineage as misunderstood and public as any in American history, Ted Kennedy consistently fought for and supported people that were on the outside of society. His history, as was the case of most of the Kennedy family, was fraught with tragedy and controversy. Whether it was the assassination of both John and Robert,the Chappaquiddick incident, a 1964 plane crash that crushed three of his vertebrae, or his several defeats in seeking the Democratic nomination for President, Kennedy forged ahead to become one of the most influential members that Congress has ever seen. Simply put, he was a lion in the Senate.

But the way that he went about becoming such an influential force in the Senate was the most unique part of his legacy. The method in which he tackled the singular issue that he overwhelming stood for, providing for those who were less advantaged than he, was unlike anything we see in current politics. He debated and worked with members on the other side of the aisle that he fundamentally disagreed with on many signature issues, but never in a way that was personal or mean-spirited. He understood that compromise is something that is inherently written into the very fabric of American politics. The framer's intended it to be such.

While reading and observing the extent of the condolences and remembrances that have been penned on behalf of Senator Kennedy the past few days, I am reminded of another politician who embodied the same characteristics, morals, and ideals.

Hubert H. Humphrey once said, "...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."

Kennedy certainly believed that and throughout his 46 years in the Senate fought for that very purpose.

Senator Ted Kennedy is not dead. But taking a moment to step back and view his service in American politics over the last four decades provides a foundational framework and a vision of the future. A future with less partisanship, more compromise, and a common goal of providing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to each and every American citizen.

The ancient Greek Thucydides was once asked, "When will there be justice in Athens?" He replied, "There will be justice in Athens when those who are not injured are as outraged as those who are."

Maybe Kennedy's service, viewed in scope, displays the quality that we need most as a country currently. Empathy.

The Baggage Claim

2008-05-16T16:30:00.003-05:00

In the aftermath of the West Virginia primary, the issue of race has infected the campaign trail in a large way.

Hillary Clinton has, largely, scaled back her attacks on Barack Obama. However, the one argument that she continues to make, perhaps in vain, is that Obama does not have sufficient support among white "hard-working" voters that is needed in order to amass a winning Democratic coalition in the fall.

Let us make no mistake, when Hillary Clinton talks about rural, white, "hard-working", uneducated voters she is actually referring to poor, ignorant racists. The only reason Clinton still hangs on to a thread of hope of winning the nomination is because she is the candidate that is on the beneficial receiving end of voters who will not vote for a black man.

Case in point, a documentary from W. Virginia:

Obama Faces Racism in West Virginia - Awesome video clips here

As is evidenced above, we most certainly do not live in a post-racial society. In fact, up until I discovered this video, I had completely forgotten about Obama's race. Then I'll come across an article on RealClearPolitics that mentions the fact that Barack Obama is, indeed, African-American. Oh yeah, that's right. Obama's black.

The African-American race has endured many hardships, stereotypes, prejudices, and racism throughout American history. It appears as though Obama has more to worry about than Rev. Wright, clinging to "guns and religion", the flag pin, Bill Ayers, and his wife's comment about truly being proud of her country for the first time in her life. Make some room in your baggage Barack, you still need to pack "race".

A Southern Intention

2008-05-14T21:54:00.002-05:00

On the off chance that you haven't heard, former Senator and 2004 Vice Presidential nominee John Edwards has officially endorsed Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination. This comes on the heels of a stunning loss by Obama in West Virginia where he lost by a 41 point margin.

A Presidential Relationship

2008-05-14T13:54:00.002-05:00

A basic formula seems to stand out amongst all others when considering the nature of romantic relationships. And the miracle of this formula isn't simply that it applies to nearly all relationships (without exception there are, of course, exceptions), but it also seems to apply to Presidential campaigns.

The formula goes something like this: physical appearance is the first step, drawing one person to become attracted to another. The second step is personality, furthering and deepening the connection between two people.

But what tends to make relationships difficult are the possible confused constructions in this formula. What if I am physically attracted to someone, but not emotionally? Or, I really like the personality, but I am afraid to be seen in public with him/her? And of course, there are higher levels of this confusion, "She might not be my 'type'." "I feel like I can talk to him, but only as friends."

We tend to do the same things to Presidential campaigns. Does he or she look like a "President"? If the first test is passed, then the second test tends to always be on policy. The tests, however, are frequently and often subject to their own confusion. "I really agree with his policy on the economy, but doesn't he look too tall to be a President?" "She would probably be a good leader, but she isn't the most attractive candidate." As we ask these questions, we also look for those other things we deem important to a successful relationship: support, financial security, fidelity. "Will he make enough money to support raising a family?" "Will he fix the economy to support educating our Nation's children?" "Will she support me during the rough periods of life?" "Will she support our Nation's struggling classes during periods of strife?"

With all of the difficulties experience so far in the Democratic nomination, we need to remember what it is we look for in a good relationship. Looks? Money? Intelligence? Devotion? Only then can we begin to forget about the distractions and focus on our relationship.