Stanford Democrats

The GOP, "Voter Fraud", and Vote Suppression

2007-04-12T12:50:00.000-07:00

How can you decrease voter turnout amongst Democratic constituencies? Institute onerous voter ID laws that make it hard or impossible for poor and minorities to vote. (Not to mention highly mobile young people.)

How can you get some of those stupid voter ID laws passed to suppress voter turnout? By manufacturing bogus cases of "voter fraud" and directing millions of tax payer dollars to pursue these false claims. OK, that's not enough. But what the GOP has done over the last five years or so was to generate a hysteria about voter fraud. Guess what? Their claims of massive "voter fraud" have been shown to be without merit. Or, to put it bluntly, a bunch of bullpop. The GOP has been spending taxpayer dollars on pure, unadulterated bullplop. ("Bullflop" is a Simpsons reference that fits well into this story.)

Evidence is all over the place that puts to rest the false claim of concerted "voter fraud" efforts, as The New York Times clearly shows. (See Kevin for a little more.)

Unfortunately, this has a seemingly direct connection to the recent firing of certain US Attorneys. Two states close to my heart, New Mexico (my home state) and Washington (where I went to undergrad), had US Attorneys fired. Part of the reason for their termination seems to be that they were not interested in pushing bogus "voter fraud" cases that the GOP wanted to pursue for partisan gain. I discussed some of the GOP hackery in Washington state a while back. It's a small look at what the GOP does and does not consider "voter fraud".

RIP Kurt Vonnegut

2007-04-12T10:20:00.000-07:00

I first read Vonnegut when I was in high school but didn't pay that much attention. When I got to college a girl I knew gave me Cat's Cradle and I became hooked. I have now read most of Vonnegut's books. I really enjoy his ability to talk about serious issues with wit and hilarity. I often find humor and sarcasm to be a way of coping with frustration.

I've mentioned to friends that if I were to describe myself as a book, I'd be Gulliver's Travels or a Vonnegut. Those who talk to me enough probably notice a Vonnegut-esque sarcasm. We are all losing a brilliant writer.

(Photo from the Times via C&L.)

Six Million Dollars Is Something

2007-04-06T18:12:00.000-07:00

With Clinton and Obama getting over $20 million in Q1, it's easy to downplay even Edwards's fundraising total of $14 million. But Kevin Drum notes that Bill Richardson's $6 million isn't too shabby. The last cycle, that would have been a pretty solid total for Q1 of 2003 and have garnered some press. But as Kevin notes, Richardson was able to get a good amount of money despite being an unknown because he receives almost no press (even though he's negotiating with N. Korea!)

Of the declared candidates, Richardson is by far my favorite candidate. And if Clark doesn't jump in, then you can bet I'll be eager to help the Richardson campaign. Really, name a current candidate who has more valuable experience and has accomplished as much as Richardson. Perhaps in a time where demonstrated competence in a variety of areas was desirable for a presidential candidates, everyone would be talking about Richardson instead of those other three (who I'm happy to vote for should they win the primary). Too bad we're in the Britney Spears era of politics. I would welcome substantive policy discussions about the direction the U.S. should take.

Yo, Joe!

2007-03-27T16:58:00.000-07:00

I'll admit it. I prefer Joe Biden as president over both Edwards and Obama. I saw him give the best political speech I've ever heard back in '04. And that includes President Clinton and Obama's '04 convention speech.

But I like Biden for reasons other than his oratory. He's a pretty wonky guy who has delivered some common sense legislation for longer than Edwards and Obama have been in public office--combined. The latest is his amendment to get money for the COPS program. From his website:

Senator Biden is the author of the 1994 Crime Law that is widely credited with helping to create the lowest crime rates in decades, and has been pushing to get this legislation passed, particularly in light of recent FBI statistics that show a steady increase in violent crime. Last summer the FBI released its 2005 Uniform Crime Reports and found that murders were up 3.4%. Also, the Police Executive Research Forum recently released an updated examination of crime numbers from 56 cities around the country. They examined the two year trends and found that total homicides were 10.6% higher in 2006 than they were in 2004. Homicide rates in major cities across America were even higher according to the study, which reported 20% increases in Baltimore, Charlotte, Charleston, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Newark, and Seattle, among others.

Biden isn't my first choice, but he's not far behind my top two choices (Clark, Richardson) because of his pragmatism and understanding of how to get things done. In a fair world, he'd be getting a lot more publicity than he currently is. He is spoken of a lot when foreign policy is discussed, but his deep understanding of domestic issues is really quite impressive.

It's a shame that experience and results don't matter much in today's presidential politics.

This guy should consider running for president

2007-03-25T02:23:00.000-07:00

In a stunning move demonstrating that innovative, "out-of-the-box" thinking we've heard so much about, State Senator Dan Patrick (Idiot-TX) has proposed a gameshow-esque solution to the abortion debate. In his brilliant, brilliant scheme, the State of Texas would offer $500 in exchange for the pregnant woman not having an abortion.
It's libertarian "Deal-or-No Deal" policies like this that remind us of the power and grace of the American entrepreneurial spirit. And to think the idea is being criticized as "violating Texas laws against buying babies"!

Excerpt:

"If this incentive would give pause and change the mind of 5 percent of those women, that's 3,000 lives. That's almost as many people as we've lost in Iraq," Patrick said.

Yes. If only we could have somehow prevented deaths in Iraq.
Hey! Maybe we could use a bizarre bribery program there, too!

[CNN: Texas lawmaker offers choice: Abortion or $500]

Good News For Richardson

2007-03-23T14:41:00.000-07:00

Finally. Some good news for the most decorated and experienced Democrat in the presidential field, Bill Richardson. He just landed the support of Howard Dean's former pollster. I might be a little biased because I grew up in New Mexico, but if you want more than cheap and easy rhetoric, Bill Richardson is worth another look. It's a shame that a former UN ambassador (frequently called on for diplomatic efforts), who was also Secretary of Energy gets so little press when our country is in such a dire situation internationally and trying to develop an alternative energy policy. Oh yeah, he's also the popular governor of a key swing state in the "important" West. How he manages to go under the radar is beyond me.

I Hope Everything Is OK

2007-03-21T21:58:00.000-07:00

I know I haven't said much nice about Edwards lately, but I have been meaning too. He's taking some serious steps of late and has now moved above Obama on my list. I'm a little worried about the latest news on Edwards. I know he hurts my top candidates chances, but I hope he drops out for political, rather than personal reasons.

Do Unions Make the US Less Secure?

2007-03-14T02:38:00.000-07:00

I'm up late working and not entirely focused on the news, but this was quite the jaw dropper:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) criticized the legislation, saying it would weaken U.S. security overall by "pumping for big labor." By allowing the workers to unionize, Democrats "would make the Department of Homeland Security more like the Department of Motor Vehicles," he said.

Really, what else is there to say? According to mainstream Republicanism (only 10 GOPers voted for the 9/11 recommendations bill in question), skilled union workers are a threat to American security.

Welcome to Grover Norquist's America, folks!

Revisiting Don't Ask, Don't Tell

2007-03-14T02:16:00.000-07:00

Life long Republican and former Senator from Wyoming, Alan Simpson, thinks it's worth reviewing and overturning the anti-gay "don't ask don't tell" policy. I don't have much to add to what Senator Simpson says since I share many of the same thoughts. But one thing he says is worth pointing out:

First, America's views on homosexuals serving openly in the military have changed dramatically. The percentage of Americans in favor has grown from 57 percent in 1993 to a whopping 91 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds surveyed in a Gallup poll in 2003.

Young people, and the ones most likely to be joining the military these days, overwhelmingly support this idea. It's time the older folks start looking to the views of the people who will be serving instead of their own outdated views. It's not just about equality, it's about national security.

Leave Me Out Of It, Senator Obama!

2007-03-13T15:25:00.000-07:00

I'm a little tired of hearing Obama say that our enemy is cynicism, subtly implying that Dems are equally to blame for the current political problems. I find that offensive. It wasn't Democrats who spent tens of millions of dollars trying to "nail" Clinton, who had an illegal phone-jamming operation in New Hampshire, who sent harassing and misleading phone calls to voters in key battleground districts; it wasn't Democrats these past 6 years who have abused the power of the presidency, who decimated FEMA, attacked the American safety net and screwed over our veterans. It was the GOP.

The cynicism that I see is from the fact that Bush and the GOP have continually topped themselves on incompetence and dishonesty. I never trusted Bush to do a good job (I didn't vote for him in 2000 or 2004), but even I was surprised just how atrocious he turned out to be on so many different issues.

Based on their records and achievements, I have Obama over Edwards. But Obama's consistent lumping the Democrats in the same league, however subtly, is making me reevaluate that. Our problems are predominately one-sided at this point. Blurring that distinction gives the Republicans who have most contributed to the current cynicism some cover.

I'm tired of hearing Cheney and Fox News say that I want to help the terrorists. I'm also tired of Obama implying that I'm part of the current political problems. I realize he may not have a campaign if he stops, but it's starting to wear a little thin.

The Politics of 2Pac

2007-03-11T19:32:00.000-07:00

There are many contradictions that surround 2Pac's worldview that weren't addressed in his biographical movie, 2Pac Resurrection. But he has provided me with a lot of things to think about. For instance, this snippet from his song, "Dear Mama":

They say I'm wrong and I'm heartless, but all along
I was lookin for a father he was gone
I hung around with the Thugs, and even though they sold drugs
They showed a young brother love
I moved out and started really hangin
I needed money of my own so I started slangin
I ain't guilty cause, even though I sell rocks
It feels good puttin money in your mailbox
I love payin rent when the rent's due
I hope ya got the diamond necklace that I sent to you

There is so much in there when you take a close look at it. Not every child is lucky enough to have loving parents and that, as Hillary Clinton would say, "it takes a village" to make sure that our children have enough support and love.

I don't agree with his justification for selling drugs, but there is definitely something wrong with our society when a lot of young people feel that the only way to "pay rent when the rent's due" is by selling drugs. No young child should ever feel that way and its our failure. I know there are some who will talk about personal responsibility--and I agree that we are all responsible for ourselves--but when young Americans no longer have the ability to dream of a promising future, we are failing miserably.

Not sure if it's kosher to post 2Pac on a political website, but here I go anyway:

American Liberalism

2007-03-11T19:06:00.000-07:00

It's pretty well known that self-described conservatives outnumber self-described liberals. But, as Kevin Drum notes,

Harris has been tracking liberal vs. conservative ID for several decades, and the numbers have been pretty rock solid. Ronald Reagan made conservatism slightly more popular and Clinton made it slightly less, but the changes have been modest and today we're in almost precisely the same spot as we were in 1976. What's more, the fact that this supposedly conservative country continues to favor operational liberalism hasn't changed much either. Apparently we just don't like to admit it.

I think this is important to remember and is part of the Republican overreach. We saw this with the Social Security scare. We are seeing the appreciation of liberal ideas in many states that are demanding the federal government do more to provide insurance for all children. Republicans tried to cram their conservative agenda and Americans don't like it. That's not to say that Iraq hasn't been a catalyst, but that is a symptom of the failures of conservative governance.

I consider myself a moderate because I think a deep skepticism about getting government involved in our lives is healthy. But I think there are real reasons why Americans overwhelmingly support some bedrock liberal policies: Social security, public education, medicare/medicaid, etc. We like things that work and make the country better. It just so happens that many liberal policies work and make the country better.

Hagel Announces Press Conference On Monday

2007-03-07T14:46:00.000-08:00

Steve Clemons spreads the word.

Is Hagel Jumping In?

2007-03-07T08:29:00.000-08:00

It looks like he is getting close:

Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel has not announced whether he will run for president in 2008. But his decision to tell two labor groups that he wants to participate in their upcoming presidential "cattle calls" might be showing his hand, according to the firefighter and construction groups which are slated to hear from the Nebraska senator in Washington, D.C. over the next three weeks.

"It was made absolutely clear to him that he was coming to speak at a forum where all the major presidential candidates were invited to speak," said Jeff Zack, a spokesman for the International Association of Fire Fighters, regarding Hagel's decision to speak to the firefighters in Washington, D.C. on March 14.

I've mentioned before, this could be a problem for the top three Dems. Hagel has one of the most extreme conservative voting records in Congress but comes across as a moderate. The GOP would be foolish to ignore him because he disagrees with the administrations current war strategy. After all, that would mean that the GOP supports: lack of body armor for the soldiers, extended and extra tours for the soldiers, no clear political strategy or even exit strategy.

Hagel is the one Republican I fear in this race. However, he is one of the few Republicans that doesn't come across as purely ambitious or as someone who would sink as low as the other top GOPers already have. Yeah, I'm scared of him, but I'd like a good fight over the issues. I think we'll get that most with Hagel.

What I Like About Obama

2007-03-05T17:49:00.000-08:00

I interrupt my Obama bashing to note the postives I find in his candidacy. He constantly emphasizes that government shouldn't be the answer to all of our problems, but neither should it be unfair. Our govenment is of the people and should be for the people. Responsible government can be a powerful force for good. That belief is what drove me to drop the charade that I am not a Democrat. Perhaps I take for granted that sentiment and its relation to the Democratic Party, but if that isn't something that differentiates the Democratic Party then it's great the we have someone like Obama championing that idea.

Second, in his latest book he talks about the importance of empathy. I think that's important too. My political philosophy is very much aligned with that of John Rawls' updated "Theory of Justice" and the whole "veil of ignorance" concept. Not only does this apply to social/economic situations, but it also applies to the beliefs of different people. I have strong views that may not be shared by everyone and its important to approach problems with others' views in mind. I don't mind partisan views and debates, but its unfortunate if after strong passionate debates we cannot remain cordial or even friends with our opponents. If this seems like a novel idea, then we need to have Barack Obama running and championing this common sense idea.

Third, at the danger of having a Joe Biden moment, I think it is great that a black man can be on the verge of the presidency. Even if he doesn't win, he's proof that a person of color can make it on any level. Growing up as a minority myself, I was told that I wasn't smart enough or good enough. Unfortunately, there wasn't always prominent contemporary heroes to look up to beyond my parents in which to challenge the negative stereotypes. Having Barack Obama, along with Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton in the top five in the Democratic running is something I find extremely inspiring because it gives the finger to old stereotypes.

Finally, though I don't think hope in and of itself will solve problems, its nice to believe in something. These days it is way to easy to get disheartened or frustrated and a little hope isn't such a bad thing.

I will be critiquing Obama down the road--after all, I do support another candidate--but that shouldn't be taken as a lack of respect and admiration. Nor should it ever diminish the postive aspects he brings to this race.

The Evangelical Choice

2007-03-01T09:28:00.000-08:00

Rudy Giuliani is pro-choice and in favor of same-sex unions, though, it seems, not same-sex marriage--definitely not a cultural conservative. But he also is also close to Grover Norquist on economic matters. A "you're on your own" type.

I'm interested to see where the evangelical voters stand on Giuliani--there are hints many are starting to warm up to him. I can understand and sympathize with people who are not comfortable voting for for a pro-choice candidate or a candidate in favor of same-sex institutions. I can somewhat understand them voting for an anti-choice, anti-gay candidate even though that candidate gives the shaft to people lower on the economic ladder.

But what of a candidate that is the worst of both worlds? I'd be very interested to see the justifications of those who would support the "socially liberal", economically conservative Giuliani over a "socially liberal" and economically progressive Democrat. I'm interested, not for any "gotcha" reasons, but I'd like to understand the philosophical arguments--political philosophy has been a hobby of mine for years. Ralph Reed tried to argue this at one point, but he has no credibility and his argument was pretty lame.

Why I Can't Get Into Obama

2007-02-28T16:02:00.000-08:00

Obama is making the claim that we need to get the cynicism out of politics. That we need to get away from the negatives of politics. I've said before that I've heard scores of politicians speak and they all pretty much say that and it's a pretty meaningless statement, or "cheap rhetoric" if you will. But I think this article from the Washington Post dramatically emphasizes this. Sam Fox, who donated a lot of money to the shrill GOP group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, was asked by John Kerry how he felt about the politics personal destruction. According to the Post:

Fox replied that he was "very concerned" that politics have become too "mean and destructive," especially with the participation of independent "527" groups such as Swift Boat Veterans.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see Obama saying anything novel or exciting here. And don't even get me started on his talk about "hope". I grew up close to poverty and people struggling. They don't need any more hope, they need a fair shake. I don't have to be convinced to vote for him in a general elect because he's clearly head and shoulders above the GOP candidates. But please. Give me something to be excited about.

(I should note that I'm overworked and having some experimental problems. I had to rant.)

Barack Obama's Name Problem

2007-02-28T11:09:00.000-08:00

No, I'm not talking about the absurdity of his middle name being a factor or certain rhyming of his last name--after all, if Bush and the GOP already forgot about that person.

The problem I see with Obama's name is that his first and last name initials are "B" and "O". Or, together, "BO". I've seen many bloggers use initials to refer to candidates and I have a hard time imaginining people being able to say, "I support BO!" I find the exclamation point to be the real killer. I mean, who can really be that excited about "BO".

OK, I'll admit that's silly. But it's no worse than the other stupid references to his name being a problem. Can I get a guest appearance on CNN or Fox to push this argument? Other people have spent a lot of time pushing other stupid name games. Why can't I?

(Back to work)

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

2007-02-27T22:08:00.000-08:00

I know I say I'm passionate about many things, but PTSD is something that is very personal to me. I won't share my personal experiences with people who have PTSD here, but I was glad to see that PTSD is being highlighted at the blog of Wes Clark's PAC, Securing America. The is post is worth a read:

[N]early 150,000 [veterans] have filed disability claims; over 100,000 of which have been granted, with another 30,000+ claims pending review. It is estimated that between 500 and 1,000 OEF/OIF vets are already homeless. Many have multiple deployments under their belts. For now, at least 38,000 returning troops carry invisible marks on their souls of one degree or another and are being treated by the Veterans Administration for psychological injuries once labeled nostalgia, shell shock or combat fatigue. Today we call it post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD.

The Hagel Effect

2007-02-27T20:49:00.000-08:00

I don't puch much stock in "electability" arguments for chosing candidates in a primary. I won't make an electability argument about any of the candidates currently in the running. At this point, I don't see any of the top four or five Dems in the field--Clark, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson--losing to any of the Republicans currently in the field. (I include Clark because he hasn't said he isn't going to run and there is still some time. Also, he's my top choice.) I say that in all seriousness. McCain went from "straight-talk express" (I never bought it) to "say anything depending on the audience". The real Rudy Giuliani won't be as popular as the mythical 9/11 "Mayor" is--just ask New Yorkers. I don't think the others really stand a chance with moderates.

That said, I think they dynamic changes a lot if Chuck Hagel throws his hat in the ring. When it comes to foreign policy, Hagel is everything that the "straight-talk express" isn't. Namely, a straight talker. He's probably one of the most conservative members of Congress (voting AGAINST the minimum wage increase!), but he's not portrayed as extreme as, say, a Brownback. A Hagel presidency will probably see Roe overturned by his supreme court pick as well as a host of other very important principles of American jurisprudence. But you won't likely hear much about that. Instead, you'll hear about his domestic "moderation" (a lie) and his respect in foreign policy circles. (Even I respect what he says.)

If Hagel is in the race, the Democratic nominee will be someone perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a moderate domestically and a strong national security candidate. That does not bode well for the current top three. I think Edwards and Obama would be particularly crippled by a Hagel run. They may say the right things and pursue the right policies (which I think they will), but to many you'd be taking a risk with them. To a lesser extent, Clinton is succeptible. I think Clinton is a contender no matter what and has a great campaign team, but will have a tough time with Hagel.

The Dems who will most easily be able to fend off a Hagel challenge on foreign policy credentials are Clark, Richardson and Biden. Listening to Hagel talk now is like listening to Clark from three years ago. (In fact, a lot of the FP establishment is starting to repeat Clark's advice.) Clark has already won a war and is well respected internationally--which other candidates are invited to speak at middle east economic development conferences or testify at the Hague? Similarly, Richardson has been ahead of the curve as well and is very much respected internationally. He's called to negotiate for prisoner release and has dealt with N. Korea in nuclear negotiations. He's ready to go. Biden can go toe-to-toe with Hagel and has always been a step ahead of Hagel in realizing the dangerousness of the Bush administration.

I prefer Hagel as the GOP nominee because I think he may be less sleazy than the other GOP candidates on the campaign trail. However, that will make it much tougher for any Democrat to win. I do think Dems can win, but we'd have a much easier time if Clark or Richardson were the nominee--and I'd like to be lazy this time.

I have to admit that I also find Clark and Richardson to be the candidates with the most pertinent experience and the most qualified.

Stop The War With Iran

2007-02-24T17:18:00.000-08:00

Wes Clark has been calling for dialogue with Iran for quite some time--long before it became en vogue to do so. Now it's becoming the Democratic consensus. Wes Clark has been the leader on the Democratic side of the foreign policy debate and specifically the middle east.

I hope he gets in the race. He probably doesn't have the tabloid appeal of Obama, Clinton or Edwards, but when it comes to the meat of policy he's been way ahead of everyone. Even if he doesn't win the nomination, perhaps we can talk about more than just hope. Because the problems this country and world face require more than just feeling good, they require answers.

Why Is Hillary The Only Ambitious Candidate?

2007-02-24T14:40:00.000-08:00

OK, anyone running for president is ambitious. That goes for Edwards, Obama, Richardson and even my candidate of choice, Wes Clark. There is nothing wrong with a little ambition. I think all the Dem contenders, even the lower tier believe they can change the course our country is headed in. But at the same time, you have to be really naive to think that any one of them lacks ambition.

I've been astounded of late by the Clinton bashing from the left. Whether it's the not so subtle inuendo from the Obama campaign, or bloggers constantly talking about, say, Hillary being one of the "most single-mindedly ambitious politicians". I'll grant that she has some ambition, but is she really single-mindedly ambitious compared to the others? (I won't even discuss the GOP since McCain's been running for president all of my adult life...)

Hillary Clinton has spent nearly all of her adult life fighting for child welfare and women's rights, amongst other things. She did so taking a back seat to her husband--who she got involved with before he was a heavy hitter in politics. I suppose it's possible that someone would hedge their bet that a young law student would eventually become president and help propel her to the presidency some thirty years later. Possible, but unlikely. And pretty stupid, if you ask me.

During Bill Clinton's rise Hillary stood aside. For someone with as much ambition as she is credited with, that seems more than a little odd. She never wavered in her commitment to children and women. Many of the things she did have never really been heavily publicized. If she were so ambitious, why would she have continued to do so much for so little recognition?

To me, the evidence isn't all that great that Hillary is one of the "most single-mindedly ambitious politicians". Does she have ambition? Sure. But what about Senators who decide to run for president in their first term with no other federal experience. To me, that seems more ambitious than someone who's dedicated an entire life to helping the most vulnerable citizens: children. I think it's unfortunate and unfair that Hillary Clinton gets all the scorn while others who, in my opinion, seem to be much more politically motivated than her get off completely. I don't understand this double standard and am shamed by Democrats who continue to push right-wing talking points about Hillary Clinton.

The Anti-Poverty Candidate

2007-02-20T23:56:00.000-08:00

People who know me intimately know that I'm pretty passionate about ending poverty. I'll get teary-eyed when I spit out sad statistics, curse efforts that increase poverty, curse when common sense solutions are ignored, and ask most politicians I meet pointed questions on poverty. It occassionally makes me callous to other people's problems, sometimes even my own. Given that, one would imagine that I'd run to sign up for John Edwards campaign. But I didn't. And I won't.

I am glad that Edwards talks a lot about poverty. To me its a serious moral and practical problem and it should be discussed. I was excited when Edwards started a poverty center in North Carolina--a truly noble goal. Unfortunately, I never noticed anything in Edwards's Senate career that showed the same level of concern for anti-poverty measures as he's pushed in his presidential campaigns. What's worse is looking at the events calendar on the UNC Poverty Center website. Perhaps there are events missing, but the last event noted on the website took place November 9, 2006. That's three and a half months ago! The last press on the website was from October 11, 2006--over four months ago.

I don't mean to question the people at the center, but this, along with his lack of effort in the senate on these measures, makes me question the real level of commitment that Edwards has when it comes to poverty. What's more, I don't get a feeling from listening to Edwards talk about poverty that he truly understands the situation or the solutions. I don't care that he's wealthy because wealthy people can understand the burdens of poverty as well as the solutions. FDR wasn't exactly poor, but he set up Social Security which dramatically decreased poverty amongst elderly Americans. A truly heroic feat.

I've never met or talked to Edwards so he may very well possess a deep understanding of what it takes to combat poverty. But I have yet to see that in anything he has said or has done.

But I have met Wes Clark. And, yes, I asked him one of my impassioned and pointed questions on poverty. What really surprised me was that he skipped the talk about what poverty is like--sparing me details that I'm quite aware of--and jumped right into the meat of possible solutions. I'm not one to be overly impressed with famous politicians--after all, I am a couple minute walk from more than one Nobel Laureate--but I was struck by his candor and his depth of knowledge on practical solutions. We talked about community and neighborhood based financial planning programs, microcredit, fair trade policy and national cultural impediments. A far cry from "we can do better". That he was willing to discuss some of the hurdles in addressing this issue demonstrated that he knows what he's talking about.

I won't enumerate or elaborate the solutions discussed right now--I'll save that for after he announces--but I just want to mention that as a person who cares very deeply about reducing poverty, Wes Clark is my clear choice as the anti-poverty candidate. Not platitudes, but practical solutions. Not just hope, but tangible solutions.

I know he most likely won't read this, but if so, I hope he runs because I want a real anti-poverty candidate. I'm sick of slogans and gimmicks. And, frankly, I've been hoping for a long time and that doesn't cut it either.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

2007-02-18T09:38:00.000-08:00

I know Wes Clark hasn't officially jumped in the Democratic primary, but every time I see him in the news he's doing something interesting. This time he's speaking at an economic forum in Saudi Arabia:

Her Majesty Queen Rania Al-Abdullah of Jordan will deliver a special keynote address at the conclusion of the opening day, Sunday 25th February. Plenary Speakers will include: HRH Prince Turki Al Faisal, H.E. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Prime Minister of Turkey; The Hon Dato� Sri Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak, Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia; H.E. Lech Walesa, former President of Poland; H.E. Benazir Bhutto, former Prime Minister of Pakistan; The Rt. Hon. Jean Chretien, former Prime Minister of Canada; Minister Liu Jiangfeng from China; General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO; Mr Peder Wallenberg, Founder of Carpe Vitam and Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, UK Chair of the Saudi-British Business Council.

The great thing about Clark is not having to subscribe to hope based politics. He has already done and continues to do what needs to be done to make our country secure and to help bring more economic security in other countries--this is his second such event in the last few months.

Much Ado About Jack (Bauer)

2007-02-16T17:57:00.000-08:00

I recently started watching "24". It was $18 for season one and the first episodes of the latest seasons were engaging. I won't defend the quality of the show, but I find the latest "liberal" attacks on the show to be astonishing and absurd. It's a TV show and the military shouldn't scape goat a TV show!

If troops are getting their advice from a TV show, then there is some serious problems in leadership that are much more disturbing than anything on the show. Troop behavior is the responsibility of the commanders. When will the buck stop with the leadership?

Shame on liberals for letting a military leader scapegoat a TV show! It's a TV show, not a military guidlines book!

I'm Joining The NRA

2007-02-13T09:05:00.000-08:00

I agree with Sandra Froman:

“The point,” she said, “is that every responsible, peaceful, law-abiding American should have the right [to bear arms] if they want to.”

I have no problem with people who hunt and use guns responsibly--though I question those who call themselves hunters who pay a lot of money to shoot birds from a cage. It's silly for commentators to comment on their gun toting ability--kinda like that straight person who goes out of their way to "know" someone who is gay--so I'll leave my gun toting resume ambiguous.

I don't know everything that Froman said, but the quote above demonstrates a typical paranoid strawman argument that emanates from the right. Those of us who favor gun regulation don't have any problem with "responsible, peaceful, law-abiding American[s]" who want to have guns. What gun regulators want to stop are the irresponsible, nonpeaceful, law-breakers from attaining guns and harming others. It's that simple.

Follow-up questions I have for the Fromans of the world is: Should we allow irresponsible, nonpeaceful, law-breakers from using guns to break the law? Should we make it harder for irresponsible, nonpeaceful, law-breakers from obtaining guns to break the law?

Let The Obama Cynicism Begin

2007-02-12T07:35:00.000-08:00

I don't blame Obama for going on the offensive, but what happned to getting away from cynicism?

Seriously, I think his campaign theme is stupid. He's been brutalized by the right-wing ("is he 'black enough'?", John Howard, the madrassa thing, etc.) and it's stupid to talk about elevating the debate. The other side lowered the debate a long time ago. His anti-cynicism thems is pretty naive. I'm glad he's starting to fight back. As president, sitting around and singing Kumbaya won't cut it. Obama is trying to copy Bill Clinton and we know how divisive and polarizing he turned out.

Five For Five

2007-02-11T21:51:00.000-08:00

It's been a while since I've mentioned the Dixie Chicks and I guess their five Grammies is as good reason as ever to mention them again, even if C&L beat me to the punch.

I related to the song "Wide Open Spaces" way back when because it was a time of personal transition and moving on to new and different things. I've been listening to them ever since. I'm definitely glad that they were able to bounce back after the horrible treatment they received after criticizing Bush. Way to go, Chicks!

(Photo from MSNBC.com)

Obama

2007-02-10T18:04:00.000-08:00

OK, I'm about to post another jab at Obama. I actually like him, so it's probably because of the rain and that I'm working on Saturday. Or maybe because there are already loads of Obama-love all over the internets. But most likely to point people to a new Stanford blog that has a post on Obama:

Unfortunately, Obama's campaign seems to eschew the substance in favor of vague notions of hope and generational responsibility. Those are powerful notions, but I can't think of a presidential candidate in recent history who hasn't invoked them. Even worse is that Obama explicitly suggests that people who want to hear plans and specifics somehow "don't believe in talking about hope":
"There are those who don't believe in talking about hope," Obama told the crowd. "They say, 'Well, we want specifics, we want details, and we want white papers, and we want plans.' We've had a lot of plans, Democrats. What we've had is a shortage of hope."
Honestly, this kind of rhetoric can start to sound a little Bushy. How can you even engage in a debate with a man who tells you that offering an argument is a sign that you're not hopeful enough? I don't get it.

I like what Obama says, but the more I hear from his campaign, the weaker and weaker he looks. I've been trying to avoid coming out and saying it, but it comes off to me as quite naive. Cynicism is not fighting for your view when it's approved by most people.

I want leadership, not hope. To quote a famous passage, faith without action is dead.

The "Republic" Party

2007-02-10T14:41:00.000-08:00

C&L points to a video of Rep. Anthony Weiner repeatedly calling the GOP the "Republic" Party:

I'm a fan of satire and irony, so this was definitely amusing. It also makes me question Obama's understanding of the political reality we face. The GOP has spent a lot of time criticizing Pelosi for something that was forced on her by security personnel. The GOP has spent years slandering the Democratic Party by calling them the "Democrat" Party. And he wants to end cynicism amongst current leaders.

Public sentiment is already on the side of the Dems. But the current GOP leadership is doing what they did to Clinton: Thwarting popular efforts for the sake of political gain, not because of ideological disagreement (e.g. the anti-surge resolution filibustered by its author). I like Obama's angle, but we need a leader who won't let a few bad apples (the GOP congress) thwart efforts that most people support. When its primarily one-sided cynicism--after all, all Dems, more or less believe that Government can do good--it makes no sense to let the other side completely roll over us. Happy rhetoric is no substitute for leadership in difficult times.

I know I come off as anti-Obama, but I'm ready to get things back on track. I want to make sure that the Dem I vote for in the primary knows how to make their case and pushes for something they believe in. The "Republic" Party is fighting for the future of their party, and just like in the 90s, they are not going to play nice. Obama doesn't seemed to have learned much from recent history. The only thing Dems get when they unilaterally put down their guns is the Iraq war, reckless deficits, and a turning back of the clock on social progress. I'm ready to move forward, but as the Dixie Chicks would say, I'm not ready to make nice. Not until the other side is as well.

Who Cares?

2007-02-08T16:25:00.000-08:00

By now everyone knows that John Edwards is at the bottom of my list of potential Democratic presidential nominees. I have many criticisms of Edwards, in particular his short, lame and ineffectual tenure in the Senate--a third of which was spent campaigning for president. I think its fine to bring that up. What I don't think is worthy of a story is the Edwards' house. FDR was wealthy and he was a great president, especially for those on the bottom of the economic ladder.

There is much for the media to report on, and much for bloggers to scrutinize, but this is not worth the time. I don't understand why the media focuses on this but doesn't bother to scrutinize Edwards (and others') leadership ability. Give it a rest. This has no impact on Edwards ability to lead.

Playing the Game

2007-02-05T22:37:00.000-08:00

No more football posts. The game I'm talking is politics. Josh Marshall discusses the GOP trickery here. Definitely worth the read and contemplation.

I've had numberous conversations about what Dems could or should do. What many people seem to ignore is the utter cynicism of the current Republican Party. Why else would Warner (R-Va) write and sponsor a bill only to filibuster it? That tells you a thing or two about the GOP. The other thing that is commonly ignored is the willingness of the President to bypass Congress with secret programs and signing statements that allow him to follow laws however he feels like.

There's a lot of talk about Dems needing to do this or that, but it really isn't that easy. In the Senate we're still evenly divided and we have a president who likes to stretch the rules. Dems have to force the GOPs hands and rushing for everything at once, like Feingold seems to want, probably won't work. We couldn't even get a non binding resolution that had bipartisan support and over 50 votes passed. Reid and Durbin are going to have to play the game a little rougher in the future. I'm convinced they are capable so I hope they start playing hardball soon.

Congratulations Indy

2007-02-04T20:31:00.000-08:00

It looks like the third times was it. I thought Dominic Rhodes or Bob Sanders deserved the MVP over Peyton Manning, but I thought Manning did pretty good himself. Yeah, it was a sloppy game with a lot of turnovers, but once the Colts settled down in the 2nd quarter, it was clear that the Colts were the better team.

9-2

2007-02-04T12:57:00.000-08:00

So far I've picked 8 of 10 games correctly during the playoffs. Both of those losses have been picking against the Bears. Well, maybe the third time's a charm: I'm picking the Colts over the Bears.

Go Peyton!

To Bathe Or Not To Bathe

2007-02-01T09:31:00.000-08:00

You gotta love Al Sharpton's quick wit in response to Biden's remark:

“I told him I take a bath every day."

No Point

2007-01-31T13:37:00.000-08:00

There isn't a point of this post, only the hope that it will take the Clinton announcement off the front page. The video loads automatically and it's really quite frustrating. (This shouldn't be construed as a criticism of Sen. Clinton, just their auto-start of the video.)

John Edwards' Experience

2007-01-30T11:48:00.000-08:00

I found Edwards' revelation to be shocking:

But as he prepared to leave Wake Forest, a member of the crowd asked him why he was a better candidate than Illinois Sen. Barack Obama — also a 2008 Democratic hopeful.

"Experience," Edwards responded. "I've been through a presidential campaign."

I'll keep my initial reaction to myself. There may be more to it than just that quote.

Join The Troops

2007-01-30T00:40:00.000-08:00

Stop the escalation (via Wes Clark):

Say What, Sen. Obama?

2007-01-26T08:26:00.000-08:00

Everyone probably knows that I rank Obama near the bottom of the list of Democratic presidential contenders for '08 (above maybe Dodd and Edwards). Al Sharpton best described the Obamamania as "razzle dazzle". This isn't to say that I can't worm up to him, but he's given me nothing but cheap rhetoric. Kevin Drum sums up my sentiments:

I still think there's an important distinction to be made here between cheap campaign rhetoric and serious campaign rhetoric... Among Democrats it includes paeans to the importance of education or a commitment to keeping Social Security safe.

There's nothing wrong with stuff like this, but it's a freebie. It doesn't really tell you anything beyond the party ID of the speaker. Conversely, serious campaign rhetoric commits you to something. "No child should go without healthcare" is cheap rhetoric, something nobody disagrees with. "I think everyone over the age of 55 should be covered by Medicare" is serious rhetoric.

Kevin hits on my pet peeve among Edwards and Obama:

And now to literally repeat myself: I know that endorsing a serious universal healthcare plan is politically difficult, and maybe Obama is just working up to it slowly. That's fine. But high-profile candidates have a special obligation here. Dennis Kucinich can yell "Medicare for All" until he turns blue, and nobody's going to listen. That's not fair, but it's reality. High-profile candidates like Obama, Clinton, and Edwards can change that. If they commit to a genuinely bold healthcare initiative, it becomes a legitimate topic overnight.

Personally, I'm waiting for Obama to stop singing Kumbaya and start giving me something real. Until then, I only have hope. And I'd prefer to select a candidate on more than just hope.

Why Wes Is The Best

2007-01-26T04:22:00.000-08:00

All the talk of the surge, and a litany of non-binding resolutions on Iraq have clouded one of the central problems going on in Iraq. And that is the absence of any broad, useful political strategy in the country and the region. The New York Times (via Americablog) paints a disheartening picture of the problem:

Iraq’s Shiite prime minister and Sunni lawmakers hurled insults at one another during a raucous session of Parliament on Thursday, with the prime minister threatening a Sunni lawmaker with arrest and the Sunni speaker of Parliament threatening to quit...

In Parliament on Thursday, Mr. Maliki focused his anger on Sunni lawmakers, accusing one of being involved in sectarian kidnappings. The confrontation erupted after Mr. Maliki described the outlines of the new Baghdad security plan and pledged there would be no “safe haven” for militants.

The leader of a powerful Sunni bloc, Abdul Nasir al-Janabi, provoked Mr. Maliki, saying over jeers from Shiite politicians, “We cannot trust the office of the prime minister.”

His microphone was quickly shut off, and Mr. Maliki lashed into him, essentially accusing him of being one of the outlaws he had just said would not be granted sanctuary.

It's no secret that I support Wesley Clark for president and I think this demonstrates why. For some time now, Wes has been trying to get lawmakers to realize that the problem in Iraq is largely a political problem that requires a political solution and this demonstrates this problem.

It's now becoming common for some of the more seasoned and informed lawmakers are coming to the consensus that a far reaching diplomatic avenue must be pursued. Both within Iraq and within the entire middle east as well. Long before it became vogue for political leaders to disucss the importance of regional diplomacy, Wes was talking about how important it is. This is nothing new, people have talked about this since before the invasion but few political leaders bothered to discuss this. One of the first was Wes Clark.

I judge the presidential candidates, not on "hope" or speeches that tug on the sould, but by their ability to find pragmatic solutions to problems. I got to talk to Wes recently and was impressed most by his ability to delve into specific policy measures that needed to be implemented. I'll say more on that later, but the NYT article clearly shows Wes's understanding of the situation, and his understanding long before others were coming to the same conclusion.

Tom "The Abolitionist" Tancredo

2007-01-25T14:16:00.000-08:00

I don't that I have anything to add to Tom Tancredo's call to abolish the Congressional Black and Hispanic Caucuses.

I'm beginning to wonder if the GOP wants to remain a viable political party anymore.

Late postcript:From the article:

The request comes in the wake of reports that freshman Rep. Stephen Cohen, D-Tenn., was refused admission to the Congressional Black Caucus because he is white. All 43 members of the caucus are black.

Cohen said in a statement that he told a reporter that he would be honored to join the caucus but did not apply, "nor has the CBC denied membership to me."

British Catholics forced to gay-ify orphaned babies

2007-01-25T02:51:00.000-08:00

Time after time, independent studies have proven that gays have no experience growing up in family-oriented environments. In addition, they are all uncapable of love and affection. Turns out they're all aliens.

[BBC News]

Kerry won't run for President

2007-01-24T10:11:00.000-08:00

Thank God - wouldn't that have been embarrassing?

[Boston Globe via Political Wire]

Finally!

2007-01-21T20:14:00.000-08:00

It was finally Manning's turn to have a game winning drive to seal the deal for the Colts. Joseph Addai sealed the deal with a nice run on 3rd down, but Manning's 349 yards passing sure helped. Way to go, Peyton. Enjoy Miami.

The relation to politics you ask? Well, Peyton is clearly the leader of the pack as far as QBs...Just like Wes Clark is! (Had to throw that in there, sorry.)

Democratic Nomination: Bill Richardson

2007-01-21T12:02:00.000-08:00

Democratic Nomination: Joe Biden

2007-01-20T15:37:00.000-08:00

Democratic Nomination: Chris Dodd

2007-01-20T15:36:00.000-08:00

Democratic Nomination: Dennis Kucinich (& Lovely Wife)

2007-01-20T15:35:00.001-08:00

Democratic Nomination: Tom Vilsack

2007-01-20T15:35:00.000-08:00

What's With Wes?

2007-01-20T13:39:00.000-08:00

Retired four star general Wesley Clark joined a small group of Bay Area supporters for breakfast on Thursday for a light, informal chat. For some reason they let me sneak in--what were they smoking? We all wanted to get the scoop on whether or not he would be running. I can't divulge all the details, but will discuss a major reason he hasn't announced one way or another.

If you hadn't noticed, Wes Clark has been pretty busy talking to Congress, military personnel, diplomats and many others involved in setting policy on Iraq. He has been a prominent advisor and spokesman for Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid--God, it's nice to be able to say that. He's been frantically working to push a reasonable, responsible and workable Iraq strategy that encompasses a much broader Middle Eastern strategy. A "Surge in Diplomacy", to use his words.

While the rest of the Dem presidential field is engaging in, to be frank, childish and irresponsible one-upmanship on dueling Iraq proposals, behind the scenes, Wes is very much involved in discussions with top Democrats (essentially on call for Pelosi). What he wants to avoid, as he mentioned previously, is the view that his work on Iraq is a political calculation. He stated that he does not want political ambition to be a factor in his advice and help on Iraq. Unlike any other candidate--Dem or GOP--he has directly worked with, or was in charge of many of the current military personnel. He wants what's best for them and the country, regardless of political calculations. He is postponing a decision while he works on getting a working Iraq strategy initiated. His concern, first hand knowledge of the situation, and clear headed proposals was refreshing and encouraging.

More on my impressions and what Wes had to say later.

Democratic Nomination: John Edwards

2007-01-20T12:50:00.000-08:00

In keeping with the Fairness Doctrine...

2007-01-20T09:18:00.000-08:00

I'm going to post the videos of the other Democratic candidates that have announced their candidacy for the President. Those candidates are John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Tom Vilsack, Chris Dodd, and Joe Biden. Bill Richardson will announce tomorrow. Everybody's in and it's only January!

The only potential candidate that has not announced (at least of those who have been considered as possibilities) is Gen. Wes Clark. Can our resident Clark supporter clear that up?

As you probably know already, those who are not running (among those discussed as Presidential hopefuls) are Mark Warner, Russ Feingold, Evan Bayh, Al Gore, and Tom Daschle. Keep an eye out for these guys - they will still play important roles, in various capacities, during the 2008 Presidential election.

Hillary wants to talk, Rahm Emanuel hides under table

2007-01-20T07:35:00.000-08:00

return Object.extend.apply(this, [this, object]);
}" flashvars="vidwidth=426&vidheight=239&startfile=http://panther.www.hillaryclinton.com/i/video/vids/announce.flv&startfile8=http://panther.www.hillaryclinton.com/i/video/vids/announce_8.flv&openscreen=http://panther.www.hillaryclinton.com/i/video/images/announce_500.jpg&closescreen=http://panther.www.hillaryclinton.com/i/video/images/announce_close_500.jpg&extend=function (object) {
return Object.extend.apply(this, [this, object]);
}" height="311" width="426">

For some reason, I can't prevent the video from auto-starting. It's like she can't wait to get started! Or something.

Bush folds, FIS Court to have jurisdiction over domestic NSA program

2007-01-18T04:31:00.000-08:00

Court that doesn't exist to oversee program that doesn't exist conducted by agency that doesn't exist.

Better than no oversight, right?

Obama announces

2007-01-16T09:35:00.000-08:00

I have a dream

2007-01-15T11:37:00.000-08:00

Denver, bitches.

2007-01-12T09:57:00.000-08:00

It's official. The 2008 Democratic National Convention will be held in Denver, CO, at the Pepsi Center.

A much better choice than NYC, in my opinion.

August 25-28, 2008: mark it down on your calendars, people.
(It's the week before the GOP convention in St. Paul, MN)

The Obama Challenge

2006-12-21T08:27:00.000-08:00

This is a line from a blog post by MJ Rosenberg:

Staking out some new territory here will make Obama look like the leader I think he is.

I tend to prefer a President who knows how to get things accomplished. I generally prefer to see a demonstrated leadership ability or else some specific ideas, or a framework in which I can judge their decision process. I've yet to see that from Obama. I've gone through his legislative record during his Illinois tenure and was less than impressed.

So here's my Obama challenge. Can you name something specific that clearly demonstrates Obama's leadership and ability to get done? For the people in my top five list of candidates, I can name things off the top of my head which are pretty specific. I just can't find anything even comparable with Obama. Before I consider him as a serious presidential candidate, I'd like to know why I should vote for him. I just don't see him as being better than my other top contenders.

Fight The Power

2006-12-18T08:28:00.000-08:00

Is there anything energy companies are good for?

This is a bit personal to me. My parents live outside of Seattle and have been out of power for a few days now and word on the street is they may be out for several more days. My last remaining grandparent--my maternal grandmother--lives with my parents and is not in the best of health these days. The temperature in my parent's house is in the 40s.

Fortunately, one of my sisters lives close enough and has power. But what about those who do not have this luxury. There have already been reports of several deaths and a hundred cases of carbon monoxide poisoning. I've been listening to a radio show based out of Seattle and have been hearing horror story after horror story. Yet no outrage from prominent politicians--and very little coverage of the problems there.

Once again, nature has exposed our vulnerabilities and unpreparedness. We're in the 21st century and a windstorm shuts down a large chunk of a highly populated area and the lovely power companies can't get their stuff together. Meanwhile, my parents are hovering around a battery operated radio trying to figure out when they are going to get power. If this is all it takes to shut down a city, we're in trouble. The mayor and governor--whom I've defended and lauded--have some explaining to do.

Bush Deserves No Credit

2006-12-11T23:23:00.000-08:00

One thing that has been bugging for a while now is Bush getting credit for suddenly taking an interest in listening. John at AmericaBlog brings it up:

Let me get this straight. The President of the United States has decided he needs to consult with the people who work for him about Iraq. Almost four years in to this disaster, Bush wants "advice," now.

For the life of me, I can't figure it out. If Bush were a CEO, his rear would have been chucked a long time ago. How many workers would be able to get away with blistering incompetence for so long without getting the boot. Yeah, he got reelected, but would he have if the media reported more accurately. Heck, even the ISG says things are worse than most Americans think. Half of us believe we have found WMD in Iraq. A lot believe Hussein was directly behind 9/11. I guess it is no surprise, then, that the media wants to portray him as looking for answers rather than the incompetent leader that he has been. After all, the media would have to share in the blame as well.

Better late than never doesn't cut it when thousands of American troops have been killed or wounded and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died. Not to mention the fact that this is projected to be a trillion dollar war.

2008 Is So Far Away

2006-12-08T15:16:00.000-08:00

2008 is so far away and I'm already tired of hearing about it.

I'm tired of hearing how evil and bad Hillary Clinton is. She's a deeply caring person, a solid leader, a smart tactician and much more popular than she's given credit for. I find it ironic that the left has bought into the tens/hundreds of millions of dollars worth of "anti-Hillary" propoganda more than people in the middle and to the right. Anyone who has a 50 percent approval rating despite universal name recognition and such a concerted effort to trash their reputation has to have something going for them. The truth is, she can win a primary and win a general election. I wish I didn't have to hear how she can't anymore, but such is life.

I'm also a little tired of hearing how great Obama is. What has he done and what are his ideas? That's what I want to know. He likes to have it both ways. And when all you do is give heartwarming speeches, its easy to do so. For most of my adult life, and definitely the last 6 years, our country has been run by GOP rhetoric. I'm tired of that. I want answers not slogans and soundbites. Talk is cheap so I judge my presidential candidates by results, their votes, and/or their experience(s). I don't have such stringent criteria for lower offices, but president is pretty darn important to me. I guess my lack of enthusiasm is about ten fold higher for Edwards. Saying you want to end poverty is not the same as proposing ideas and actually doing something legislatively.

I'm tired of the media trying to crown their favorites (e.g. McCain). Let's cut the crap about momentum and do some reporting on the issues. Give us a chance to elect the best leader, not the best rhetorical Houdini, would ya?

End rant.

Iraq Study Group

2006-12-06T11:58:00.000-08:00

The Iraq Study Group report is out and from the little I've had to take a look at it, nothing seems earth shattering. After browsing through the executive summary I went back to a post I wrote a year and a half ago on what I wanted Bush to address in his Iraq policy.

Not to pat myself on the back, but I have to say I'm a little surprised that my ten minute blurb overlaps at least a little with the executive summary. Specifically, I mentioned a year and a half ago that we needed to get a regional discussion going and have Iraq's neighbors secure their borders. I even mentioned the need to address Iran's nuclear program in the context of Iraq. In terms of reconstruction, I mentioned that "A timeframe will be set for the completion of all vital projects in conjunction with regional stability." Not word for word, but kinda close. The ISG mentions that there should be some flexibility in time frame for the milestones, which I also mentioned--seems common sense to me.

I think everything the ISG is coming out with should have been addressed a long time ago. If the administration couldn't come up with it on their own, they should have sent this group out years ago. Hell, if you're going to start a war, you should have had this information BEFORE you went in. I don't think the president should be praised for this. It should have been known by now. You don't undertake a big "project" without having a detailed plan to get it done as quickly and effectively as possible. I get a little sick thinking that the president is getting credit for something he should have done years earlier and after many soldiers and Iraqi civilians died. Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Frist Out, Biden In (Again)

2006-11-29T08:45:00.000-08:00

Bill Frist is not going to run for president. That's not too surprising considering how poorly he managed to run the Senate. And let's not forget the work that he basically just left for the next Congress. (I think that was the pettiest action that grown up politicians could do. A true American embarassment.) Frist would have gotten clobbered, as I think most GOP Senators would. They were very ineffectual and will only be remembered for their string of failures--fair or not.

Biden, Biden, Biden. I don't think he has a shot. Though he is overly "verbose", I think he'd be a decent president. I saw him give the best political speech I ever heard in 2004. At that point, I don't think I was as cynical toward political speeches so that may explain it. But I appreciated what he had to say more than what Clinton or Obama said at the convention. I respect his public service. He's not in my top three, but isn't far behind. Maybe number 5?

My 2008 Favorites List

2006-11-27T22:18:00.000-08:00

I needed a little break from that talk I have to give this week so I figured I'd jot down my favorites list for 2008.

Democrats

1. Wesley Clark. I don't have Clark '08 buttons for nothing. I think he is the least polarizing of any potential candidates, which is a big plus to me. He is also bright, having won a Rhodes Scholarship and taught economics at West Point. (He's currently a lecturer at UCLA.) He wowed me in 2004 by the depth of his position papers--he had put out more position papers in his short run than any of the other candidates. Hell, I'm not sure if all the candidates could find Puerto Rico on the map, but he had a position paper on Puerto Rico. He knows his stuff, even though he probably wasn't the best communicator last time around. When it comes to experience, he's way up on the list. He has experience working with leaders from around the world while Supreme Allied Commander (SACEUR). He's well respected internationally and was invited to the 4th Arab Strategy Forum. His prestige on the international scale would be an asset. Little noticed or appreciated is that, as SACEUR, he was responsible for the living conditions (education, health care, etc.) of 150,000 troops, their dependents, and some 50,000 civilians. I find that executive experience more relevant than most people in Congress.
2. Al Gore. I've been following the controversy in the last FL-13 election and am now convinced that Gore really did win enough electoral votes in 2000--not to mention the popular vote. He's got Senate experience and executive experience. I like the combination of both. As VP, he helped make the federal government leaner and meaner (or, in other words, more efficient). I don't have a knee-jerk aversion to taxes like right-wingers, but I loathe government waste. He was part of an administration that generated surpluses and put us in a fiscally sound direction. That's pretty amazing. He is a generally respected leader on the international scene. I rank him behind Clark on this because I think Clark has more first hand experience with international leaders and diplomacy. But I proudly voted for him in 2000--the first Dem for president that I ever voted for!--and not just "against" Bush. We missed out by having the Supreme Court rule on a case that will live in infamy as one of the worst rulings ever. His work on global warming has also been heartening. I hadn't considered Gore before because I didn't think he'd run, but since this is a favorites list, I have him jump up to number two.
3. Bill Richardson. He has a great resume. Former cabinet official. Internationally recognized diplomat. He's called on to talk to North Korea and negotiate for hostages (or captives) in Sudan. As governor he's been involved in a lot of practical solutions. He helped get paper ballots in New Mexico, worked for health care, education and economic development. He also has some street cred on immigration. Unlike Schwarzenegger, he's for solutions that don't involved vigalante groups. I see him more as a VP than a top ticket, but he has surpassed my current number 4 for top of the ticket. I hesitate to include a minority at the top because, I'm not sure I want to find out whether or not racism--which I've experienced first hand--is better or worse than I think it is. In 30 years I don't think this will be much of an issue.
4. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Previously my number two, she's now down to four. I think she's electable and can win both the nomination and the presidency. I'm not concerned about that. I think she's experienced enough and respected internationally. I align with her a lot on the issues and have very little bad to say about her. She's dropped on my list for two reasons. The first is that she's polarizing. I really want to have the country move away from divide and conquer politics. Not that she would do it, but that she gives the GOP ammunition. The second is that she's a Clinton. Don't ge me wrong, I think Clinton was a great president. But in the last 20 years we'll have had only Bushes and Clintons in the White House. I'm ready for a change. This is a hard choice for me because I'd have no qualms about volunteering for her or donating money. I'm more excited about her than Gore. But I am ready for a change. Sorry, Senator Clinton, I really, really like you, but...

Right now, I'd like to see a Clark/Richardson ticket.

Republicans

1. Chuck Hagel. I've already mentioned that I have respect for Senator Hagel. I don't agree with him much, but so far he has demonstrated the least amount of sleeze of potential candidates. Unfortunately, that probably makes him less viable. I think he'd be a disaster if he had his way, but I think he'd be one of the most willing to work with Democrats. His experience in the military and his efforts for veterans are a plus. He seems less hawkish than most--perhaps his military experience doesn't require him to spew testosterone to look tough. I also happen to think that his candidacy would elevate the dialogue instead of cheapen it. My praise is more for his demeanor and level headedness than his position on any issue.
2. Mike Huckabee. I don't know much about him, but he seems to be the most moderate of the potential candidates (now that Romney and Giuliani have sold their souls). He used to be very conservative in Congress, but as Governor he's had to abandon some of the unrealistic positions of conservativism, or at least incorporate moderation into his conservativism. If he had international experience, he'd probably jump up to number one for the GOP. Sadly, his level headedness seems to be a liability for the GOP nomination. I probably agree with him more than I would Hagel, but that's not saying a lot.

I'm interested in others take on GOP candidates. I have an aversion for wealthy people to buy their way into power so Bloomberg--whom I'd LOVE to see win the GOP primary if that were possibile--is almost disqualified. Powell? Would that he'd run and bring some sanity to the GOP. I really want Powell to make up for his UN speech. I had a lot of respect for him until that day. *Sigh*

Boomer Deficits

2006-11-27T14:26:00.000-08:00

The "Boomer Deficits" are something that not many young people are talking about--but should. What I mean by "boomer deficits" are the huge budget deficits from the Reagan and Bush II presidencies that skyrocketed the debt. I add "boomer" because, of late, it's largely been the congressional baby-boomers who have amassed such an enormous debt, not to mention the two boomers that are our President and VP. I'll also reiterate, as a Californian, that the baby-boomer in the Governor's Mansion is also contributing to the Boomer Deficit by borrowing money to "balance" the state budget instead of using the general fund, which is the responsible thing to do. (Alternatively, he could be consistent and cut programs as he cuts taxes. Not popular, but at least consistent.)

You can't continue to amass debt and someday it's going to have to stop, and the burden is going to have to be carried by a different generation, probably ours. Additionally, the interest on the debt that we have to pay is going to be paid and is continuing to increase. This will pidgeon-hole much of what we can do in the future.

I'm not into intergenerational fights. In fact, a large amount of my efforts with the Stanford Dems has been to bridge the gap between generations--I feel we have much to learn from each other. I've always extolled the ability of Social Security to dramatically reduce poverty amongst the elderly and will always make sure that I let my Congresspersons and Senators know how important I think S.S. is. That said, I don't think we should deny the fact that the Boomer Deficit is a real thing and that it needs to be addressed. I don't think that the Boomers want to have their legacy include a debt that was passed on to their children. It's time we start asking them to help us out before they all retire.

Soft Spot for Chuck Hagel

2006-11-25T11:43:00.000-08:00

Although I think Senator Hagel will continue the domestic disaster of the Bush Administration--after all, he is also a conservative--I now find him to be the last Republican Senator that I could trust. He's been the most consistent GOP critic of the war in Iraq. And unlike McCain, when he calls to respect the freedom of people to disagree with the president, he doesn't use his next sentence to say critics are helping the terrorists. It was nice to see Hagel come out and say how ignorant McCain's proposal to send more troops into Iraq is. From his op-ed in the Post:

The time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed. We do not have more troops to send and, even if we did, they would not bring a resolution to Iraq. Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations...

...We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam. Honorable intentions are not policies and plans. Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there. They will decide their fate and form of government.

I don't know if he'll run for president, but I'd be happy to see him win the GOP nomination. He has yet to reveal the snake-oil salesmanship that seems to have seeped out of McCain, Guiliani and Romney. I think he's the only GOP contender that could elevate the level of debate, instead of relying on the Rove/Gingrich/DeLay slime that has plagued our country for the last 12 years.

California GOP trying to work out why they suck so hard

2006-11-23T08:05:00.000-08:00

I'm guessing it's something to do with them being the Cal GOP.

Two Discoveries

2006-11-20T14:13:00.000-08:00

First of all, Mitt Romney seems to think Richard Pombo should be classified as a "success story." Usually, success involves winning, which is something he might need to know when runs for President (and loses) .

Second, I think I've found the most politically bizarre donor ever. He lives in Palo Alto and donates to both crazy-ass Tom Tancredo (and the hillariously named "Team America" PAC) & English Language PAC, as well as Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, ACT, the DNC, & the Sierra Club. How would Karl Rove microtarget this guy?

Favorite Campaign Commercial

2006-11-17T15:39:00.000-08:00

You all know that I'm a supporter of General Wes Clark for president so it shouldn't be a surprise that I'm posting an ad for him. But I wouldn't do it if the ad wasn't good, like this one:

All We Are Saying Is Give War A Chance

2006-11-17T09:43:00.000-08:00

Sen. John McCain was, and continues to be, the biggest cheerleader of the Iraq war--even as the facts make him look absurd. He also seems eager to push the William Kristol line of attack, attack, attack (Iran, Syria, etc.). I don't trust McCain to protect us. As we see every day, going to war in Iraq has made us less safe. I could go on and on, but his judgement about sending more troops to Iraq seems a bit off. At least according to Gen. Abizaid:

Senator McCain, I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no.

So McCain is off on Iraq. Check. He's courting the religious right with a fervor that not even Bush had. Check. He's adopting the Grover Norquist economic strategy (e.g. starve the government so we can drown it in a bathtub). Check. I thought the 2006 election was evidence that the American people rejected the Bush philosophy. Why then is McCain running to the right of Bush now? If those are the positions one needs to take to win a GOP nomination, I don't think the GOP is going to be around much longer.

McCain '08

2006-11-12T15:30:00.000-08:00

It's funny that the media thought it a story that McCain is running for president. The guy has been campaigning for president since 1999--non stop. I give him props for running one heck of a long presidential campaign.

I'm not sure if anyone noticed McCain's appearance in the talk shows on election night once it became clear that Dems were the overwhelming victors. He looked tired and beaten. It's been a long, hard fought campaign and most of us were tired that night. Though the excitement gave most Dems a second, third and fourth wind--finally. But McCain was beaten on more than the GOP's utter disaster. Though I don't expect him to actually commit suicide.

McCain hitched his pony to the idea that he needed to out-Bush Bush. While Bush threw casual bones to the religious right, McCain openly endorsed and tongue-kissed them. When many Republicans began distancing themselves from Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, he was one of their staunchest supporters. Tuesday was a repudiation of Bush and hence everything that McCain has positioned himself as. McCain became W. Bush part two and saw himself getting rejected over and over again--thirty-five times so far (29 House seats, 6 Senate). Millions of people rejected Bushism and by extension rejected McCain.

It's no surprise that McCain appeared so battered and disillusioned on Tuesday. He hitched himself to extremism that the country does not want. He gambled that the country really was a "Right Nation" and it turns out that it is not. Now that he lost this hand, it will be interesting to see what makeover McCain has in store. He went from "straight talk" to "say anything" rather quickly. My guess is that he'll become "say anything so long as it is not straight."

I think McCain is a true American hero and patriot. But nearly a decade of campaigning for president seems to have taken its toll on him. I find that saddest of all. I'd be happy to have McCain circa 2000 back, but I'm not sure that person exists anymore. If so, he's going to have a hard time convincing me he exists.

Hmm...

2006-11-09T22:11:00.000-08:00

Through much of 2005 California had a governor who was extremely hostile to unions and did his darndest to make them powerless. The unions had to spend millions and millions of dollars trying to defeat his anti-union ballot measures which were staunchly opposed by most union members. Throughout this time, while many Democrats were on the sidelines, cowed by a popular ~~movie star~~ governor, Phil Angelides led a strong fight to protect unions. He stood up for the unions when they needed someone to stick up for him.

I mention this because I took another look at the exit polls for the governors race and noticed that unions gave Schwarzenegger 43% of the vote (only 51% went to Angelides). Angelides went so far on a limb to fight for unions and when he needed someone to fight for him against Schwarzenegger, half of them abandoned him. Wow! Not a way to keep your friends if you ask me.

I'm a former Teamster and have a certain affinity for union organizing. While I have many issues with how a lot of unions are run, I am a very big believer in the need for strong unions. Much of the things workers take advantage of today (child labor laws, safety regulations, 40 hour work week/overtime, benefits, getting paid, etc.) are a result of union organizing. I guess Angelides' advocacy for them didn't mean that much to a lot of them. Either that, or they quickly erased 2005 from their memories. I think its the latter because during the primary, they definitely did the work to get Schwarzenegger elected.

I'm also surprised that LA county barely went for Angelides. With a Democratic mayor who caused quite a stir not too long ago, I'm more than a little disappointed he didn't do more for Angelides. That's not something I'll be forgetting when he thinks about running in '10. It seems like his ambitions took precedent and I find that politically and morally abhorrent. (I'm happy for someone to convice me otherwise. Really, I am.)

Bush's Pants On Fire

2006-11-09T11:52:00.000-08:00

What a lieing piece of macaca:

Pushing Bolton after all the partisan fighting earlier is not a show of bipartisanship. He's talking about bipartisanship while simultaneously doing the opposite. People joke that you know Bush is lieing whenever he opens his mouth. It is definitely true today. I wonder if journalists will call a rat a rat and expose this lieing.

So Sad...

2006-11-09T11:14:00.000-08:00

I didn't have the heart to open this email yesterday. I'm about as disappointed in Angelides' loss--and shoddy treatment--as I was when Kerry lost. I'll be surprised if there will be another CA gubernatorial candidate as competent and deserving of the office as Angelides any time soon. Yes, I really do think he was that good.

Dear Gilbert,

I'd like to thank you from the bottom of my heart. Although we may not have come out on top on Tuesday, together we accomplished some great things.

I'm proud of the campaign we ran. I'm proud that so many of you poured your hearts and souls into something we all believe in so strongly.

I'm proud that our campaign stood for improving California's schools and colleges, making health care accessible for all, protecting our environment, and making California work for working families again.

This has been the most energizing experience of my life.

And today I am more energized than ever because across the country our Democratic values have prevailed. Democrats have taken back the House of Representatives and may also take back the Senate. California's own Nancy Pelosi will become the first woman Speaker of the House in the history of our nation.

With Democrats across the country leading the charge, we must recommit ourselves to the fight.

Together we can - and we must - stop bowing to the special interests, Big Oil and pharmaceutical industries. We must stand up for the Democratic values of fairness and opportunity.

We can make sure that every California child has access to a doctor when he or she needs one. We can make college more affordable and accessible for the next generation. And we can make sure that government is on the side of the working people of this state and this nation.

I look forward to continuing to work and fight with you in the months and years ahead.

Thank you again for all of your support.

Treasurer Phil Angelides

A Pile of Macaca

2006-11-09T09:41:00.000-08:00

Bye-bye Sen. Allen. I think this is the money sentence:

Despite millions of dollars in money from the national Democratic Party, Webb never managed to break away from Allen in polls before election day.

We all know that the GOP and Allen didn't spend much and were the underdogs throughout. Heckuva an article! You're doing some fantastic reporting! (Sorry, I've been up for a long time and snarkiness is overactive.)

2008 Prediction

2006-11-09T09:04:00.000-08:00

Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack will get whalloped in his bid for the presidency. I'd be surprised if he could muster 10% in NY or CA. He's a pretty popular governor so perhaps he'll win Iowa pretty easily. If that's the case, then you have to ask if other candidates will even bother canvassing Iowa and if it's worth their time. That would mean Iowa won't be a bellweather in '08 and all the people there will be ignored--then they'll know how the rest of us feel. This puts more focus on New Hampshire and Nevada. Should he chose to run, I believe Gen. Wes Clark will do really well in both those states amongst Dems--he and his volunteers campaigned pretty hard for candidates that the other potentials didn't even notice, from top of the ticket races to the state legislature.

I think it's obvious that Clark is my top choice in '08, and now that Dems won the Senate, I think this puts Clark in the best position for '08 since Warner is out. The GOP is probably pull their grade school hijinks over the next couple years so I have a hard time imgaining a viable Senate candidate emerging as a clear leader. There are a lot of competent Senators, but most of the well deserving committee chairs don't seem to have presidential ambitions and the ones that do are going to have a hard time getting out of the shadow of Harry Reid, who has been--and hopefully continue to be--a solid leader.

I won't predict Clark will be the nominee--heck I don't even know if he'll run--but I know I'll be helping out. You should too!

More On Schwarzenegger

2006-11-09T06:24:00.000-08:00

I'm in the middle of a data collection run right now so I figured I'd brainstorm some reasons why the only age group to go for Angelides was young people (according to CNN exit polls). I'd like really like to see a real study on this, but from my conversations with people around my age is that they thought it was a joke to have this guy as our governor. I think I'll call that the Jon Stewart effect.

I can't overemphasize the fact that most people I talked to feel rather embarassed that Californis chose this guy the first time. I think young people are more skeptical and cynical and didn't necessarily fall for the ~~love fest~~ media coverage of ~~Schwarzenegger's entourage~~ the press corps. Also, young people are more likely to get their information from the web from multiple sources and less suceptible to overly choreographed TV coverage.

Perhaps its the fact that young people are less likely to believe claims of GOP bipartisanship. Few of the young people I talked to have forgotten about Schwarzenegger's about face between 2004-2005 when he was an uber Grover Norquist conservative, rude to Democrats and definitely not into that whole bipartisanship thing if it didn't suit his needs. When I got to ask Schwarzenegger a question on TV, it was about his use of terms like "girlie men" and "stooges" in describing his critics. I didn't forget those days and most of the people I encountered remembered those days as well.

The other thing, and something I frequently mention, is that younger people are just aligning more and more toward Democrats with little interest in voting Republican. For most of our lives, and definitely most of our politically conscious lives, the Republican Party has been corrupt, heartless, hypocritical and overly partisan. Most of us have rejected that whole-sail and want nothing more of it. If this is true, the legacy of Rove, Gingrich and company is that they have created a generation of staunch Democratic partisans. Rove's long term GOP majority probably won't ever come to fruition. With younger people showing signs they are interested in flexing their political muscle, it's likely that Rove's strategy will usher in a long term Democratic majority. (Thanks, Karl "the math" Rove!)

The other thing to consider is the fact that young people are just more progressive by nature. If you look at the exit poll for Prop. 85, young people voted it down 3 to 1, a significantly higher percentage than other age groups. To me, at least, Angelides had a much stronger commitment to progressive ideals. He was a national leader on divestment from Darfur, a cause being fought for by young people across the country.

And then there are, perhaps, people like me. I just took a Zogby poll that had a list of reasons why I voted for Angelides. There are many, but one that's become increasingly important to me is the screwing of my generation through incessant borrowing of money. That is, Angelides wasn't reliant on borrowing money to pay todays bills so that he could be popular. He knew the right thing to do even if it wasn't popular and forcefully argued for it, perhaps to his downfall. Angelides was less willing to give my generation the finger as Bush and Schwarzenegger have done with their borrowing frenzy. I think Democrats need to be a little more sensitive to that to hold on to my votes, and probably many others.

Whatever the reasons, young California Democrats once again got their peers to vote Democratic. Two years in a row. That usually means a bunch of young people are going to be voting strongly Democratic for quite some time.

Please Stop The Plundering

2006-11-08T13:30:00.000-08:00

The CNN exit poll for the CA Governor's race is pretty interesting. People 18-29 gave the nod to Angelides while every other age group overwhelmingly supported Schwarzenegger. I'm not surprised. I've been talking about the forthcoming stable Democratic majority for a while to anyone that will listen. More on that later.

I contemplated a very harsh criticism of the older generation but that's useless. Instead, I'd like to beg and plead, right now, for the older generations to quit stealing my future. Please, don't force me to be responsible for paying the debts you incur toay. As the LA Times points out, Californians voted to borrow money to pay for what they want today. Taxes stay the same for now as we continue to borrow, but when the bill collectors come in 20 years, it will be the young people of today who are going to bear the brunt of that burden. That is unfair. Young people fought for social security and will be leading the charge to make damn sure seniors will always have health care and perscription drugs. Do not thank us by digging us further and further into debt.

I am placing the bulk of the blame on older generations because they are responsible for Schwarzenegger's reelection and he has been borrowing money on our future like there's no tomorrow (in 2004 and this year). That is, much of Schwarzenegger's ability to "balance the budget" as has been reported, has relied upon his ability to get the state to pass bond measures. That is not governance. That is cowardice. That is dangerous. That is short sighted. That is unfair. I'm going to fight for the older generations, but I'd like to ask them the fight for my generation as well. Please!

Goodbye and Good Riddance

2006-11-08T10:38:00.000-08:00

I know I won't shed a tear.

Update: From CNN:

Got any Rummy resigns pics? Send them to me with source and I'll post em.

Na Na Na Na Hey Hey Hey Goodbye

2006-11-08T01:31:00.000-08:00

Note to media: Karl Rove is a cheating lieing sack of garbage, not a genius. All his "genius" has done is get us in a losing position in Iraq (while leaving real threats like Iran and N. Korea to run free), generate record deficits, halt progress in science and combating global warming, etc. He's a big fat (well, not fat, he has lost some weight) LOSER. Quit giving him credit he has not earned and does not deserve. I've said it before and I'll say it again: He has nothing but treachery and cheating.

That said, Karl Rove has been helped by a sorry excuse for a legislative branch that deserves to be retired. With 17 seats yet to be decided, Dems have already picked up 28 seats in the House. In the Senate, we are ahead in 51 (as of 1:40 a.m.). We picked up the majority of governors AND the majority of legislatures in the country. Make no mistake, this was a stunning and impressive defeat given the GOP's structural advantages across the board. Their gross incompetence, cynicism and divisive politics has been completely and utterly rejected across the board. America is ready for a positive change and an inclusive government.

The current crop of Republicans has really upset me but I am truly sad to see some decent moderate Republicans go--though they could have done something to reign in on Bush and rightly suffered for it. But, given their incompetence on Iraq, the economy and definitely Katrina, I have only one thing to say:

Cheers to McNerney and those of us who helped canvass for him. Thanks for all your effort and hard work. Democracy is about participation and it has been fun working with so many different people! You all rock:

Here's to a better America!

Jump

2006-11-07T07:40:00.000-08:00

I'm off to work for a bit then to help out at the polls. This is a really cheezy video, but you can't have a party without this classic:

Final Plug for Angelides

2006-11-06T17:04:00.000-08:00

Is the guy as photogenic as Westly or Schwarzenegger? Definitely not. Is he more competent and better versed on specifics relating to the issues? Definitely. He's been a phenomenal state treasurer when most state treasurers don't really do anything. He has instituted nationally recognized programs in investment and smart growth and started a program that gives teachers the opportunity to get good loans for houses near their school. It shocks me that one of the most competent candidate for governor--including those seeking reelection--is not running away with this one like Spitzer. Few treasurers have done as much as Angelides. His ideas for the future far surpass anything that Schwarzenegger has proposed. A vote for Angelides is a vote for a California that takes the lead in smart, responsible government. A vote for Angelides is a vote for a sane economic policy that doesn't pass the buck to future generations (i.e. you and me) by using loans (e.g. bonds) to pay for things while leaving taxes untouched and all but ensuring dangerous structural deficits. Angelides will take off the cosmetics and get to work on the real problems as very, very few in the country are capable of.

Examining Schwarzenegger's "governance", you see that he's been able to "balance" the budget by passing the buck onto future governors through bond measures. We had them in 2004 and again in 2006. This is the same "governance" as Bush. Unfortunately, the fellatial media coverage by an enamored, salivating press corps doesn't even mention this fact. And when it comes to "bipartisanship", it was tough guy Schwarzenegger who called hard working autoworks and steel workers "girlie men", not to mention many California Democrats. It was this same governor who the press orgasms over in mentioning his bipartisanship that called Democratic critics "stooges" and tried to completely buck the legislature in an expensive and needless special election. A vote for Schwarzenegger or Camejo is a vote against the real future of California and a free-pass to the media for failing to cover the issues in an intelligent way.

You may have noticed that I've used a very sexual context here. I'll have to be forgiven, I just finished watching this clip:

Lucky Lamont?

2006-11-06T16:45:00.000-08:00

I thought it was stupid for Lamont to run and still think it was a stupid decision. The whole race is a freak show. But that freak show may be just what Lamont needs to win.

Will Lamont convince people that he is a competent Democrat? He needs to win Dems decidedly and I'm not sure he is in that position. He also needs enough independents and I'm not sure he is there yet either. But, in a twist of fate, I think it might be the Republican playing the role of the spoiler for the third party candidate. I'm not convinced that the oppressed white male and anti-tax crusaders that make up the base of the GOP will be able to vote for Lieberman over Schlesinger. At least not on the scale that polls are predicting. I'd guess Schlesinger needs to pull 20% for Lamont to have an obvious win by night's end. 15% will make it close. 10% will make it a real long shot. Anymore than that and I think CT will elect a man who named a political party after himself.

This would be my darkhorse race along with Pederson in AZ. The other darkhorse would be a closer than expected finish by Angelides. Schwarzenegger is struggling to get 50% despite having been fellated incessently by an embarassingly infatuated press.

Don't Forget Karen Sinunu

2006-11-06T13:08:00.000-08:00

I forgot to include Karen Sinunu on my recommendations list. But she'd be a great D.A. and deserves her own post. She wrote the book on Hate Crimes!

GOTV With The Stanford Democrats

2006-11-06T11:56:00.000-08:00

Yesterday some of the Stanford Dems went to go help Jerry McNerney beat up on the scary Richard Pombo...and I took some pictures. I didn't get in the pictures, but here are some of the highlights.

There were some people who seemed to have a harder time waking up than others.

Then they had to learn more about how great Jerry was.

Then get to work planning

And of course take to the streets. (Caitlin is conspicuously absent from most of the pictures, but that's a story you have to ask her about.)

If you didn't make it, you missed a good, productive time. Jerry's supporters have been breezing through the walk lists--not to mention the DoW and other groups who are a little tired of Pombo. From my experience, the undecideds were breaking toward Jerry and the leaners were getting more excited about him as well. More people are paying attention and more people are liking what they see in McNerney, the far better candidate of the two. Hopefully he gets to join Congress and use some of his expertise in alternative energy!

Sabato's Prediction: 29 and 6

2006-11-06T08:29:00.000-08:00

It seems like more and more are predicting close to what I did three weeks ago. Sabato's Crystal Ball predicts Dems will pick up 6 in the Senate and 29 in the House (I predicted 6 and 32).

Election Endorsements

2006-11-05T22:56:00.000-08:00

I had to take a deep breath after my last post to calm down a little. Since I've been asked by several people now my prefrences for this election, here goes:

Governor: Angelides all the way. He may look like a nerd, but he has his stuff together. He's bright and knows more about the details of the issues than Schwarzenegger ever will. He's one of the best state Treasures--if not thebest--of my lifetime. I really believe he'd be the best governor of my young lifetime (which includes Bill Clinton). Any policy wonk would love this guy, even if the media has already made love to Schwarzenegger.
Congress (14th CD, Senate): I love Anna Eshoo as a Rep. and am proud to be in her district. She's a great person, good on the issues and a forceful advocate. She rocks. Feinstein should romp her opponent and I'm happy to vote for her.
Lt. Gov: Garemendi. This is not really very hard. McClintock is a constant candidate that's just way too extreme. Garemendi has a good resume and is needed to counter a possible reelection of Schwarzenegger. (I'm not sure if will have candidate "bipartisan" Schwarzenegger or the "quit being economic girlie men" Schwarzenegger who we got when he wasn't facing election.)
Treasure, Sec. State, Attorney General, Controller, Insurance Commissioner: Bill Lockyear (he was a close second for me in terms of governor, but didn't run); Debra Bowen will be a leader in making sure our state is a leader in fair and audited elections, no question about this one; Jerry Brown has experience and is generally OK; Chiang for controller to replace Westly; Bustamante for IC--Poizner is a billionaire conservative Republican trying to buy himself into the governors mansion however he can. He'll be out of a job (which seems to be running for office after office) if prop. 89 gets passed since his money won't mean as much.

Propositions:

1A-E: It looks like Schwarzenegger may win. Since Schwarzenegger (and the Dem. legislature) don't know how to pay-as-you-go, this is the only way the state will pay for important infrastructure. I hate governing using credit cards but with Republican executives, that seems like the only way. I had to bite my tongue to vote yes--some of the stuff is needed--but I wouldn't be upset if people voted it down. It would force Schwarzenegger to make tough decisions--something the press seems unwilling to do, even though these decisions will have to be made sooner or later.
Prop 84: I think this is one of the least offensive measures on the ballot.
Prop. 85: I place more value on women's lives than for cells, I have no problem admitting that. This was on the ballot last year and lost--and for a reason. If you need the government to parent for you, then you probably shouldn't be parenting. This won't affect good parents, but will put young women and girls in abusive families in danger. Bad idea last year. Bad idea this year. Bad idea when they try again next year.
Prop. 86: I don't smoke, but I'd pay more for a bottle of wine if it went to treat alcoholism and it's affects. When big tobacco is the major source of funding for the anti-86 ads, it means we are probably onto something good. This is onto something good.
Prop. 89: Yes, yes, yes, and yes! This is greatly needed. Money in politics is a cancer on the system. Money prevents good candidates and public servants from running for office. I find that a shame. For me, this is much more about promoting candidates than removing special interests. The founders wanted to make our government accessible to everyone so we don't end up with an aristocracy running the country. Most Senators are millionaires and you have to be a millionaire just to be competetive. Governors races are becoming the same (The top three: Schwarzenegger, Westly, and Angelides are all wealthy.) Two years ago Steve Poizner spent over $7 million for a state assembly race. If that's what it takes, then we have an aristocracy. It's time to end this insanity.
Prop. 90: NO! This is horrible and goes way beyond answering Kelo. It's one of the worst props that have been on the ballot since I've been in california. Bad, bad, bad.
Props. 83, 87, 88: I don't advocate either way on these. Prop. 83 is great in concept, but probably too restrictive and poorly constructed--there are strong arguments for and against this. I also think 87 is poorly constructed, but good in concept. I'm generally against parcel taxes but for school funding so 88 is a tough one.

GOP: Grand Old Pieces-of-crap

2006-11-05T22:15:00.000-08:00

I normally like to keep a civil tone and not resort to ad hominems because I feel they aren't very productive. But the recent GOP "strategy" (or do they call it "tactics" this week?) is beyond cynical. It's a perversion of Democracy, and an embarassment to them and the country. First there are the disgusting phone scams the GOP has been peddling to suppress Democratic voters:

For the second straight day yesterday, Democratic field offices received dozens of phone calls and e-mails from frustrated voters upset about repeated automated phone calls they thought were coming from Democratic candidate Paul Hodes - though the calls were paid for by a Republican group instead.

The National Republican Congressional Committee spent nearly $20,000 on the calls last week. Depending on the rate, that could mean more than 300,000 automated phone calls into the Second Congressional District.

Incumbent Republican Congressman Charlie Bass denounced the calls yesterday and said he tried to get the NRCC to put a stop to them. But a spokesman for the NRCC said the automated phone calls would continue indefinitely.

"The calls will continue as planned," said Alex Burgos, a spokesman for the NRCC, the national group charged with electing Republicans to the House. "They are done independently of Charlie Bass's campaign. He has nothing to do with them."

(More here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

Then, the psuedo-racist ad in Tennessee seems to have influenced that senate race:

Also, a much-discussed Republican ad suggesting that Ford, who is black, dated white women had some impact, the poll showed. Among the third who admitted they were impacted by the ad, they broke for Corker over Ford by a 2-1 margin.

We all know that the GOP doesn't really have a problem with collecting money from pornographers.

Oh, and don't foget the voting machine absurdities:

Poll workers are to remind every voter to look out for the 13th Congressional District race on the electronic ballot after at least four people complained that their initial votes for Democrat Christine Jennings weren't recorded.

...The voters who complained say they picked Jennings, but the 13th Congressional District had no vote registered for either Jennings or Republican Vern Buchanan when a screen reviewing their votes came up.

Shame on perpetrators of these scams and shame on those who vote to support them. This is Karl Rove's "genius" at work. He's done this in 2000, 2002, 2004 and now. He and the GOP cheat to win. That's the only way they can.

CA-11 and NM-01

2006-11-05T10:27:00.000-08:00

I'm off to go make sure that McNerney wins! Things are looking better in this race. Also, an Albquerque Journal Poll has Patsy Madrid up by 4 two days before the election. I'd prefer Madrid to be up by twice that, but the Journal seems to be a bit slanted to the GOP by a few points. In '04, Wilson, the GOPer, was up a few points a couple days before the election. Early voting seems to give an edge to Democrats and unlike last time, I expect more "undecideds" to break for Madrid than Wilson. Hopefully their GOTV effort in NM-1 remains strong. (And I wish I were there right now. Sigh.)

Nostalgia

2006-11-03T21:59:00.000-08:00

In the mid to late 90s, I was young and optimistic. Almost everyone agreed the country was headed in the right direction. The economy was great. More people were going to college. For the first time, minorities were actually increasing their net worth. Poverty was beginning to decline. The hatred and vitriol of today's politics hadn't completely infected and perverted civil discourse. Friends weren't having to go to war. People were happy. Other countries liked the U.S. Yeah, good times. Especially for a young person trying to find himself in Seattle.

I'm a dork, I know. But listening to Shakira's earlier stuff (particularly, from her early album) always makes me nostalgic. So, here ya go. One of my favorites and kinda makes me long for the political innoncence I once had. Sigh.

For some reason, George Allen isn't so popular these days...

2006-11-03T10:31:00.000-08:00

I'm Not The Only One

2006-11-02T20:39:00.000-08:00

Who's predicting Dems will win 32 seats:

Three political scientists, Joseph Bafumi, Robert Erikson and Christopher Wlezien, have recently released a paper that forecasts the level of seat shifts from the generic congressional vote question, using model-based computer simulations of the 435 individual House contests.

The gruesome methodological details may be found in the paper, but the bottom line is that their simulations predict a 32 seat pickup for the Democrats. As we shall see when we get to the race by race data, this is not such a crazy prediction.

Update:It looks like Jonathan Singer at MyDD has updated his prediction to exactly what I predicted: 32 House seats and 6 Senate seats.

Fantasy World

2006-10-29T21:59:00.000-08:00

I find Matt Stoller nauseating in the same way I find David Sirota nauseating. Both seem to go overboard trying to pick fights with Democrats for reasons real or manufactured. Today, Stoller was on a roll, including this beautiful diatribe:

They know that Democratic Senators are moral lepers, weaklings, and that is the only reason we aren't further ahead when the Republicans screw everything up. The Democratic Senate leaders will sell us out at every opportunity, be it torture, Iraq, Alito, Lieberman, the Bankruptcy Bill, or stopping war with Iran. They aren't poll-driven, they aren't fear-driven, and they aren't driven by strategic differences. They are simply driven to beat us down, their voters, by any means necessary. That's why they cheered Joe.

I find Chris Bowers and Jerome Armstrong to be very informative and useful. Stoller seems to suffer from the same victim pathology of the right wingers like Ann Coulter who rant and rave because they want their place in the limelight or a bigger piece of the pie. Give it a break. You're an insider already! And Bill Clinton has been a loyal Democrat longer than you've been alive.

Angelides' Forsight

2006-10-29T17:26:00.000-08:00

I had a long post on the CA budget and California's long-term prospects under our borrow-and-spend governor. Of course blogger problems ended up nixing that. (See California Budget Projects discussion for some info.)

But since Schwarzenegger seems to have the same governing philosophy as Bush, I figured the GAO chief's warnings applied equally to the state and national government:

If the United States government conducts business as usual over the next few decades, a national debt that is already $8.5 trillion could reach $46 trillion or more, adjusted for inflation. That's almost as much as the total net worth of every person in America — Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and those Google guys included.

As they point out, politicians are all avoiding the issue.

What they don't talk about is a dirty little secret everyone in Washington knows, or at least should. The vast majority of economists and budget analysts agree: The ship of state is on a disastrous course, and will founder on the reefs of economic disaster if nothing is done to correct it.

There's a good reason politicians don't like to talk about the nation's long-term fiscal prospects. The subject is short on political theatrics and long on complicated economics, scary graphs and very big numbers. It reveals serious problems and offers no easy solutions. Anybody who wanted to deal with it seriously would have to talk about raising taxes and cutting benefits, nasty nostrums that might doom any candidate who prescribed them.

This is what irked me most about Steve Westly, whom I believed knew better. Right now our government is being run by older people who are not going to have to deal with the reprecussions of this dangerous governing philosophy. As young people, we need to seriously think about our future and how actions--or non actions--today will greatly impact us in the future.

Schwarzenegger got lucky in that CA is getting higher than expected revenues, but these revenues will do little, if anything, to the long term structural deficits the state faces. Angelides, though he probably won't win, was the only candidate with the forsight and the courage to attemp to fix California's real problems. For me, not only is my vote for Angelides about the best candidate for California right now, it's also a vote for my future. And Angelides is the only one who seems to care. In fifteen to twenty years, Californians--whether they want to or not--will have to deal with the effects of Schwarzenegger's borrow and spend philosophy--and our generation is going to be the ones who pay the biggest price.

Sixty Seats

2006-10-29T17:22:00.000-08:00

The DCCC now has about sixty seats they are investing in. Tuesday is the last day that contributions will be useful. The DCCC is having a 3-to-1 matching. Donate now.

Rush Limbaugh Vs. Michael J. Fox

2006-10-27T14:51:00.000-07:00

I don't even know what to say about Rush Limbaugh mocking Michael J. Fox's Parkinsons Disease (a clip from Countdown is here:

Fight The Power

2006-10-26T18:51:00.000-07:00

I think I find this a fitting song for this election year and for those of us going to campaign for Jerry McNerney this weekend:

Now that Bush and the GOP are cutting and running from what they were saying last week, it's time to step up the pressure even more.

The Limbaugh Pathology

2006-10-26T13:23:00.000-07:00

Ray Seilie's op-ed in today's Daily is satire, right? I mean, our campus is a little above the whole Rush Limbaugh, blame the liberals (and Democrats) and make up some s--- to sound smart pathology. Right?

Not So High Standards

2006-10-24T12:21:00.000-07:00

I've joked once about the media's lowered expectations for Bush and the GOP and came across another nugget today:

Wouldn't it be nice if there was a headline reading something like, "Tuition Down Again"?

With real median wages pretty stagnate, the average college student's family has to pay more without earning more. Too bad we don't have anyone in California trying to change that. Oh wait, we do. Phil Angelides wants to roll back Schwarzenegger's tuition increases. Funny how an increase in tuition isn't considered a tax to the Governor, isn't it? Too bad Californians are bombarded by a Schwarzenegger media lovefest instead of talking about important issues like increased tuition rates. It's also too bad that many Californians--even informed ones--don't really know about all the great ideas Angelides has. I do have to admit, though, Schwarzenegger is very photogenic.

I Missed the Obamawagon

2006-10-23T23:18:00.000-07:00

OK, I don't think I was ever on the Obama '08 bandwagon (I've been on the Clark bandwagon since October '03). I hear what he says--and mostly like it--but I don't know what he really stands for policy wise. I've been to enough speeches and have talked to enough state and federal leaders (and candidates) to become immune to political rhetoric. It may make some tingly inside, but I am much more interested in the nuts-and-bolts of policy. At this point, no matter how exciting Obama is, I don't have any real basis on which to judge him policy wise.

Until I have a way in which to evaluate him on something more than speeches, he is by far in the back of the pack on my list of presidential candidates. That doesn't mean he couldn't easily move up, he just has an enormous amount of ground to cover.