Thoughts on Romney

This statement by President Obama today is exactly what I have been thinking on my own: "I can't speak to Governor Romney's motivations. What I can say is that he has signed up for positions, extreme positions, that are very consistent with positions that a number of House Republicans have taken. And whether he actually believes in those or not, I have no doubt that he would carry forward some of the things that he's talked about."

As for the claim that we are not better off economically than we were four years ago, that is quantifiably false.  When Obama took office we were in a negative economic slide of proportions the US had not seen since the Great Depression.  You can speculate whether his actions brought us out as quickly as we could have, although even here you have to reckon with a Republican controlled House that pretty much kept him from doing anything he wanted after Ted Kennedy died.

What you cannot do is say that we are worse than we were four years ago.  Four years ago we were going in a negative direction.  Right now we are going in a positive direction. The debt in itself is not the gauge but the trajectory.

Obama's Risky but Necessary Move

I think we all understand Obama's circumstances. He has to come out on the gay marriage issue, especially after Biden's comments earlier in the week. Most people think this has always been his position, just one he couldn't publicly espouse politically.

But what will be the consequences? Will African-Americans and Latinos still vote for him?  I think in the end they will, not least because he is coming off as reluctantly coming forward.  He's not coming across as a militant on the issue.

The bigger question is his evangelical support.  There are a number of evangelicals who have been able to reconcile his support of abortion with their vote. But will they be able to reconcile his position on gay marriage?  That is a good question.

I suspect in the end that they will because most people have already made up their mind who they are going to vote for in November.

Rush Limbaugh in Wall Street Journal

Here is Limbaugh on a tirade against the Fairness Act. Obama came out saying he did not favor the fairness act.

Of course after the attempt of the previous regime to suppress "anti-American" thought, it's not a little hypocritical to say such things now. I agree with Limbaugh's position, however. And he seemed a little more restrained than usual.

I should expect to hear an increasing number of conspiracy theories about what the Obama administration is doing beneath the surface. To some extent, "to the victor belong the spoils," as it certainly was for the Bush administration. So far, Obama seems to have resisted the temptation to let the liberals in his party exert the kind of revenge they did under Clinton and that Bush's people did.

But of course we'll see what happens in time.

P.S. No comment on the stimulus package. I simply don't know enough to have an opinion.

Warren and others

I don't really know most of the people Obama has appointed, but I am pretty pleased. More than anything, I'm pleased with his attitude. All the extremes are angry, which tells me he's doing the right thing. Bush said he was a uniter, but his administration turned out to be full of extremists.

Obama appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, reaching out to her constituencies. He has Rick Warren praying at inauguration, which has many liberals up in arms but shows a willingness to reach out to evangelicals (and it will be interesting if he makes some key decisions on stem cell research and stuff the same day! Smart move if so.)

I don't know what the Chicago education guy will be like, but I'm excited at the prospect of someone in office who recognizes that character is a much bigger problem in American schools than reading and writing. My impression is that Christian schools in America largely teach memorization, not the higher level Bloom's skills like analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Phonics to me is the poster child for what I believe to be the often inferior education of most Christian schools in America, when the behavior element is taken out of the equation. With the behavior element brought in, of course, many Christian schools become infinitely preferable and I have seriously considered them for my children as a result.

My hunch is, however, that Bush has had Christian school type philosophers running regular schools--the worst of both worlds, inability or myopia to deal with behavior issues, and an 1800's educational philosophy. I could easily be wrong. That's just how it's felt.

Finally, Obama has appointed real scientists rather than some of the quack people who have seemed to hold sway in Bush's regime. How refreshing to think that the scientific element in government might actually flow from people who use research as the basis for their advice rather than preconceived ideology. I'm sure there were some genuine scientists in the Bush administration. I just don't think they had any power or influence.

Perhaps these appointees will turn out to be duds. But so far they seem on trajectory to what Obama promised.

Obama picks Shinseki for Veteran's Affairs

Obama announced that he would be appointing retired Gen. Eric K. Shinseki as Secretary of the Office of Veteran's Affairs. The following lines from the article on msnbc.com stood out to me.

"Shinseki’s tenure as Army chief of staff from 1999 to 2003 was marked by constant tensions with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, which boiled over in 2003 when Shinseki testified to Congress that it might take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to control Iraq after the invasion.

"Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, belittled the estimate as “wildly off the mark,” and the army general was forced out within months. But Shinseki’s words proved prophetic after President George W. Bush in early 2007 announced a “surge” of additional troops to Iraq after miscalculating the numbers needed to stem sectarian violence."

:-)

Saturday Night Live strikes again...

Obviously anyone with a brain will not let either of these clips affect the way they vote... but they sure are funny:



Here's one of the McCain/Obama debate. It's obviously lopsided against McCain:

First Presidential Debate

Watched the majority of the debate. It's hard for me to be objective but I'll try.

I think that both the base of the Republican and the base of the Democratic party will be happy with their candidate's performance. The most rabid Republicans and Democrats will think that their man absolutely trounced the other. McCain supporters will see him "giving Obama a lesson in foreign policy (as Guliani's spin was--interestingly Palin declined appearing next to Biden :-) . Obama supporters will see him as hitting the nail on the head issue after issue.

So what will the swing voters think, people like me who hate the party system and the way it pushes candidates to play to their base rather than say what they really think?

First, my hunch is that most younger voters will not react favorable to McCain's snide and condescending remarks and name calling. On several occasions Obama complimented McCain. By contrast, McCain generally responded with dismissive or denigrating responses. I heard Guliani's summary and it's hard for me to see most middle ground people under 40 seeing it as anything other than the despicable spin they have grown to detest and associate with people like Karl Rove. Guliani infuriated me--McCain and Obama did not.

It's really hard for me to imagine how a "Reagan democrat" would respond. I'm not sure. They might like what I perceived to be McCain's "trust me I have experience and he doesn't" approach. On the other hand, Obama's responses sounded intelligent. He didn't come off as inexperienced, even when McCain responded with, "Son, put your pacifier back in because I've actually been to South Ocetia."

Again, it's hard for me to see myself, but I thought McCain repeated himself and often just gave lines that could just as well have been memorized. I thought Obama came off more composed and, in general, more presidential. It will be interesting to see which one America thought won the debate.

Rick Warren hosts Obama, McCain

I caught most of the interviews last night between Rick Warren of Saddleback and Obama and McCain. I think how you respond to the debate depends a lot on your age and, obviously, your political positions.

But let me suggest broadly how people would respond based on their age, trying to remove the political positions part from the equation. In this case, I think how you respond breaks around 40-45 years old.

Those older than 40-45, like Pat Buchanan afterwards, see McCain as a hands down winner. (Of course Buchanan has become a spin meister too.) McCain had clear cut answers, which this crowd sees as leadership. He decisively jumped in even before Warren could get the questions out. He was confident, unlike Obama, who hemmed and hawed and, in Buchanan's mind, surprisingly didn't seem to know Theology 101.

Those younger than 40 might see it differently. McCain wouldn't have even needed to show up because his answers were so scripted to the party line, especially the sterotyped evangelical party line, that anyone could have given them for him. He had the answers memorized like an old time school boy who can hardly wait to get the question right. Oo, oo, can I tell you the right answer to that question too, now, or do I have to wait.

Obama, on the other hand, gave his real answers in the face of a hostile audience. He tried to find common ground with an opposing position. He was authentic, not canned. He gave realistic answers rather than the kinds of dreamy idealistic ones that got us into the Iraq War (you defeat evil--yeah, that's worked for us, hasn't it).

For Keith--the Hullaballoo over Obama and Campaign Finance

This one is for Keith.

I caught the beginning of Meet the Press this morning before church. Moment of silence for Tim Russert. Shocking that he's gone. He was the classic nerd--man did he like politics. He was constantly giddy like a school boy, just a little too excited about his white board. But I really did think he was one of the most neutral people around. He loved the game for the game, regardless of who the players were. To this day I don't know what his personal positions were.

So Meet the Press was debating Obama's decision to opt out of the government campaign money. McCain's camp is all up in arms about him flip flopping.

GOOD GRIEF! How many times has McCain changed his positions this election!!!! The most recent I know of was his reversal on off shore drilling. I'm not sure what I think about this, but good grief McCain has changed positions from 2000 so many times he's the last person who has room to talk.

Of course Obama shouldn't try to pretend he's not taking money because the system is broke. Come on, the grass roots people like him, there's no shame in that. On the other hand, he is quite right to point out that doing this is not going back on his claim about special interest groups. The common person has been his money bag... and the common person will elect him.

I'm not saying what kind of president he will be, except that he'll be different.

Enough of the Pastor Stuff on Both Sides...

I've had enough of the "death by association" pastor stuff. McCain obviously doesn't agree with Hagee on everything and Hagee doesn't agree with McCain on everything. I pronounce anyone "dumber than a door knob" who thinks that the gyrations of an obscure pastor hammin' it up for a crowd that wants to see him perform must obviously be exactly what Senator Obama thinks.

This is the height of illogic, it's not even worthy to be called the ad hominem fallacy because it's attacking Obama through the back door. I guess you would call it the circumstantial fallacy, attacking the circumstances of the person to smear the person's ideas? Let's come up with a new name, "Smearing someone by finding anything even loosely associated with them that we don't like" fallacy.

I once had liver. You don't like liver. Ah, logically, then, you must not like me.

Come on--are we really this stupid in America??? Obama wasn't there. Obama didn't say these things. How many people agree with everything their pastor says? How many people go to church because of the preaching?

Good grief. If the American people and the media (especially FOX news) are this stupid and unable to reason like homo sapiens, then there's no hope for our future. We're no better thinkers than your garden variety slug.

We will no doubt be taken over in the next 100 years by some other nation smarter than we are.

Bitter Americans

"It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Ok, is it just me or is Obama getting a lot of flack for saying something that's true? And is it me or is Hillary Clinton the biggest hypocrite in the world... since she and Bill no doubt say the same thing to each other in private (assuming they actually talk)--except they aren't empathizing but calling smalltown USA stupid?

This is Sociology 101.

Actress in Clinton Commercial is Obama Supporter!

HA!

Example of Karl Rove at Work? MSNBC's Dan Abrams

Conspiracy theories are, by their very nature, less likely to be true than not. Nevertheless, something very fishy seems afoot below in Alabama.

Parts of this administration (especially Rove) have seemed so crooked to me, and my recent disliking to Clinton is my fear that she will only be more of the same on the other side. I just don't get that impression from the Obama campaign. My fear of McCain is that it would just be business as has become usual.

Admittedly, I thought Bush had a good heart when he took office. I continue to want to think the same thing, although I find it so difficult. So out of good will I have him in the "well intentioned but misguided" category. Rove I put in the "Machiavellianly misguided, but good intentioned by a warped and twisted standard" box.

Kerry on Obama's Experience--MSNBC Interview

Can't Teach a New Dog Old Tricks

Apparently Bill Clinton's stump speeches for his wife failed in South Carolina. The press of course had a hand in it, for they were discussing his antics out where everyone could see them. The result apparently was to push the South Carolina primary even more in Obama's direction that it would have been.

Now, mind you, my political eyes in 1992 and 1996 were a little different than they are now. But I have never thought of Bill Clinton as an ideological purist. I do think of Hilary more in those terms (no disrespect intended by the first name, but the fact it is what comes out first says something about America's conception of her).

To me, Bill Clinton has always been a slick talker, someone who confuses most people with a barrage of figures and sentimental stories that impresses the average individual but may in fact mean absolutely nothing. John Edwards has his flavor to me this election.

But it seems to me that we're into a new generation. The Boomers don't seem to get hypocrisy the way the Millennials do. (We GenXers never made a difference because we were sitting in front of the TV with our 2 liters not paying attention). I saw a microcosm of this at a church I was at where everyone in that generation seemed to coo and oo and ah a certain pastor that to me was obviously faking it. He was later found in a hotel room with one of the church members.

So go on Clinton if you want, try the same old same old with the Boomers. Maybe you'll convince enough of them to vote for your wife. But for me, if I were to vote for your wife, I would have to block you out of my mind. For me, you're making me think--"Who's running for office anyway?" and "Isn't she big enough to run for herself?" and "You're a fake."

Did I mention that Ted Kennedy is endorsing Obama today?

Iowa Caucus Night

I'm ready to predict who will be the next President of the United States. It will be Barack Obama. His speech was the best of all the speeches, the freshest, the most statesmanlike, and the one that most speaks for change.

The second best was Mike Huckabee's. I don't know if he will be the Republican candidate. Frankly I think it will be either him or John McCain. Guliani won't go the distance, I don't think. Romney is a fake pretty boy and won't fly.

Huckabee's a better speaker than McCain, but man the media don't like him (both FOX and MSNBC's commentators clearly don't take him seriously). Neither are attractive enough to capture America's superficial imagination. For Huckabee, the teeth just look too much like, well, exactly what you would expect a Huckabee to look like.

Hillary Clinton's speech was a disappointment. She just doesn't have the juice. Edwards went on and on. All right man, you were doing good for the first four minutes. I didn't hear Romney because he chose to go on at the same time as Huckabee.

From what I can tell, FOX chose to show him rather than Huckabee, even though he was the loser. HA! Good political move for Romney, since his people likely watch Fox.

I don't know if Obama has the wisdom to make the changes that I do believe America needs across the board--education, economy, foreign policy, energy, climate change. But I'm predicting tonight that he will not only be the Democratic candidate, but the next President.

What Dan Rather and John Gibson Have in Common

We all remember when Dan Rather didn't do his homework on Bush just before the election. He was then still anchor at CBS and irresponsibly aired a story about Bush being AWOL during the Vietnam War. They toasted him for it, and eventually he had to leave off being anchor.

Well, we have the first instance of it in this election. First Steve Doocy of Fox News reported that Baruch Obama had spent the first decade of his life raised by a Muslim father. This itself was a garbled version of the original article in Insight, claiming that Hilary Clinton's camp had found out that Obama had attended a madrassa or fundamentalist Muslim school during the time his mother and step-father lived in Indonesia in the 60's. Double whammy--get Clinton and Obama in one swoop.

Then Gibson repeated it on his program, still without doing his homework.

It turns out that Doocy, Insight, and Gibson were skewed on several points. Obama had only met his father once in his life, and he was an atheist. CNN actually did their homework and contacted the school, which apparently was no different from any other "public" school in Indonesia at the time.

But in the end, none of this matters in the slightest. Obama had a conversion experience in his 20's. He was only 6 at the time he was in Indonesia.

Gibson has not apologized for getting his facts wrong. Doocy at least made some correction.

I am quite comfortable with my sense of bias among the media. Fox clearly leans to the right. Even here, I respect some more than others. O'Reilly, bless his soul, is arrogant and clearly has a right inclination, but I do believe he is honest. I can't think of anyone at Fox who leans to the "liberal."

There are clearly those who lean left at CNN and MSNBC. Keith Olbermann immediately focuses on the negative of any speech Bush makes. He is a kind of left version of O'Reilly. He's honest, but clearly has a "liberal" inclination. But frankly, I can't think of anyone at MSNBC who is as skewed liberal as, say, Anne Colter or Rush Lindbaugh is to the right. And I don't see how anyone sane can really consider Joe Scarborough a liberal. He regularly features Pat Buchanan and vigorously supported the Iraq War.

My favorite media people are those that really seem to try to listen to both sides--and who really seem to listen. I can't think of any of the main reporters for NPR who wouldn't fit in this category, although clearly some of the side program hosts are liberal. I consider Chris Matthews of this sort. His brother holds local Republican office and I honestly couldn't figure out during the election whether he was Republican or Democrat.

And certainly Tim Russert is so fascinated as an observer that I have no idea what his views are. I mean this as a compliment--he is so nerdily fascinated to watch the politics that who knows what he thinks!

Is David Greggory a liberal, like Snow and Fox have accused? I don't know if he is, but there is a point where the data is so clear that a person would have to be skewed even to give time to some possibilities. When the MSNBC correspondant says that the manner of Saddam's death has caused a big PR among Iraqis, isn't it possible that there is no bias here? What if it is so obvious to someone on the ground in Iraq that it would be skewed to pretend the other is even a possibility?