I wrote on Wednesday about two of McCain's new ads, thinking I'd seen the worst of it--that someone in his campaign would say, "Hey, why don't we talk about issues and why we're the right choice?"

No such luck.

So today, I'm back with two new ads to share.  The first, "The One" was sent today to McCain supporters.  I couldn't find it on YouTube, which leads me to speculate that on some level, this one actually embarrassed the folks over at McCain headquarters enough that they realized they should play it closer to the vest.

At any rate, the ad (which you can view by clicking above) mocks Obama by painting him as over-reaching and arrogant.  The title of the ad may refer to Oprah's saying quite some time ago, "He's the one" but she is never mentioned.  Instead, the ad cherry picks various speeches and interviews, trying to give an impression of an Obama who thinks too much of himself.

The ad falls short in a couple of ways.  First, there's a segment toward the end where Barack is saying, clearly tongue in cheek, that a young man will "see the light...and vote for Barack Obama."  Even a die-hard Republican can see that he was poking fun at himself.  So the segment is blunted.

Second, the ad ends with the announcer intoning, "Barack Obama.  He may be the One but is he ready to lead?"

What?  Even McCain thinks he may be the One?

And I suppose if he IS the One, we should be pretty sure he's ready to lead.

The next ad I'll mention is more disturbing.  Called, "Troops," the ad makes the false claim that Obama did not visit troops in Iraq because he was not allowed to take the press along on the visit. 

The trouble is that the claim about the troops was entirely false.  And there were other parts of the ad that, while literally true, were misleading. McCain is lying here and it is telling to me that he has not retracted the ad.  It's still on his website.

I believe eventually, this style of ad will grow tiresome with many folks.  McCain's ads focus on tearing down Obama but say nothing about McCain.  In a nutshell, that's the difference between the two candidates.  One inspires.  The other, tears down.  Old school.  New school.

I like Obama's response ad to this onslaught of negative ads.  It starts by saying McCain is playing "old politics."  But then it goes on to touch on what Obama's plans are for his presidency. 

I'd rather focus on policies...and intend to get back to Hal on his energy comments from yesterday...but ads are important because there are many voters who get their information more from ads than from research.  So debunking lies, calling McCain to hold to his promise to conduct a clean campaign...while minor in scope (and probably futile in the case of the latter) are worth a blog or two.

IMHO.

In and amongst various daily activities (gym, gardening, editing trip photos), I've had a bit of a political junkie's fest today.  (Picture a couch potato sitting amongst the detritus of a day spend with chips, popcorn, soda, candy...glasses askew.  Got it?  That's me only in a non-caloric sort of way.)

I started off by reading the next to last chapter in Barack Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope.  As sheer fate would have it, the topic of this chapter is "The World Beyond Our Borders" and in it, Obama articulates a nuanced, coherant view of the world we share with others and our nation's best strategies for going forward.  He touches on history, illustrates how the Cold War shaped our responses in the late 20th century, and develops a pragmatic approach to a drastically changed world.

(It's a must read, really.)

I continued my political-junkie-fest with three episodes of the weekend shows, catching up completely on Meet the Press and up to the July 4th weekend on This Week with George Stephanopolous.

In some ways, the shows were illuminating.  On Meet the Press, I enjoyed hearing from the governors of Wyoming and Colorado about their constituencies, local issues and the presidential race.  Arnold was in rare form as Tom Brokaw did his best to pin him down on California's weakening economy.  I suppose the high point of Stephanopolous's two shows was his interview of Ralph Nadar where he got the spoiler of 2000's election to admit that Obama would be better than McCain.

But here's where the empty calories started.  In each of the three shows, the talking heads argued vigorously about who is a bigger flip-flopper--McCain or Obama.  And given that one or the other of them was a flip-flopper, who would be most damaged by flipping this way on one issue or that way on another.

Since I've been reading Obama's book, my ears perked up when one of the accusations of him flip-flopping had to do with his approach to the Iraq war.  Some people have read his recent comments about consulting with commanders on the ground while formulating policy to be a reversal of his commitment to remove troops from Iraq asap.

Here's where good fortune stepped in.  Yesterday, Obama gave a lengthy speech outlining his strategy for a far-reaching security policy for the United States going into the 21st Century.  Having read the chapter (written two years ago) and listened to the speech, I can tell you that the bones of Obama's philosophy have not changed. 

On this issue, at least, he has neither flipped, nor flopped, but refined.

And isn't that what we want?  What we even need?  More to the point, if a leader is wrong about a policy or a decision to, say, go to war with a country--don't we want a leader who can change his mind, adjust his stance, respond to the current realities?  Haven't we had enough of a presidency where once decisions are made they are proof against new information?

McCain's supporters fell all over themselves to accuse Obama of wavering and to claim that their guy doesn't waver, is committed to victory.  Unfortunately for them, it left me asking the question--do we want a guy who's idea of victory is informed by the Cold War policies that led to Vietnam?  Or do we want a guy who sees the path to the future?

I've heard from a number of folks who think McCain's the ticket because he's "more experienced."  I think it's time for fresh thinking in our leadership.

And time for me to get off the political junk food!

I first felt the urge to write you when your name was just beginning to be floated as a candidate for President.  At the time, my gut instinct was that you would likely win the Democratic nomination and, by doing so, awaken the virulent anti-Clintonism that dominated Republicans in the 80's--thus assuring us of at least another four years with a Republican in the White House.

I didn't see a time where bone-deep antipathies would be set aside on a national level.  So my letter would have urged you to consider which would be the better legacy:  To continue to serve as Senator from New York--shaping policy, building a body of laws that defend the middle class and the poor, becoming a shining example of a powerful, capable woman?  Or to run for the Presidency--opening old wounds, reminding us of the unsavory aspects of Clinton-ite paranoia and power-mongering, denying America the change of direction so desperately needed because you cannot, will not win the office with so many bloodthirsty detractors lying in wait.

I held back from writing then.  Others convinced me the hatred had waned.  Your own impressive record as Senator convinced me that you had the chops to run.  And anyone who wants to run for President can run in this free country of ours.  Who was I, with my gut instinct, to say no?

But now.

After yesterday's divisive DNC hearing, I have another nagging feeling in my gut.  You will not win the nomination.  It's mathematically impossible at this point.  But you still have the power to hand the White House to John McCain (Bush III)...and if you continue on your current path, you will do so.

The states of Florida and Michigan held their primaries earlier than DNC rules allow.  They did so knowing their votes would not count and their delegates would not be seated.  Several of your key advisers wrote these rules.

Now, grasping at false hope, you forced the rules panel to come up with a Solomon-like splitting of delegates.  In Michigan, where no one else's name was on the ballot, you asked for all the delegates you'd "won" in what Michigan's own Democratic chairman, Mark Brewer, called an "incomplete ballot."  40% of the voters there voted uncommitted.  You wanted none of them to go to Obama. 

Brewer's proposal that some of the uncommitted go to Obama, some go to you was fair and balanced.  But Clinton supporters hooted and howled.

In the case of Florida, where only 1.7 million Democrats voted, you again wanted all the candy.  Forget the rules, forget the statements you made earlier in the campaign that these votes would not be counted--you wanted Florida to be seated at the convention with full delegate votes.  Again, the DNC rules committee acted wisely by halving the votes and allowing some representation along with some censure for the early primary.  More howling.

And now I read that many of your supporters are saying they cannot vote for Obama in November.  They are angry.  They feel disenfranchised. 

I submit to you that they are just following your lead.  You are angry and disappointed to have come so far and not succeeded.  It's understandable.

It's also exactly the opposite of how we need you to behave.  You are not a loser.  You are a winner.  The first viable female Presidential candidate in U.S. history.  You have it within your power to heal the divide in our party by simply accepting defeat with grace, dignity and self-assurance. 

That's what leaders do.

I've been on the fence between you and Obama for a long time, believing either of you would make a formidable President and put us on the path toward substantive, necessary change.  It is telling to me that in your campaign's death throes you have chosen to manipulate the rules, to whip up charges of misogyny, to cry foul.  Your behavior has finally convinced me that Obama is the leader we need.

You are faced with a critical choice now.  Fight on to September and take the party down with you?  Or withdraw and continue to grow your legacy in a positive direction?

I hope you will take the courageous path.  But I fear you will fight to the very, bitter end.

 

As promised (and re-promised...apt for a political blog, eh?), my topic today is the economic plan proposed by Barack Obama.  As with Ms. Clinton, I got most of the information about Obama's plan from his website and by reviewing one speech.

There was an immediate, palpable difference between the two websites that, in some ways, seems to reflect a key difference between the candidates.  As I mentioned, Clinton's plan is scattered in pieces throughout her website--interested parties have to glean her intentions from press releases, sub-categories of issue lists, and by sheer guesswork. 

Obama's plan is found under the heading of "Economy" on his site (How simple!).  There's a bullet point overview followed by details and then (for those who are interested) a link to an extremely detailed plan called, "Keeping America's Promise--Strengthening the Middle Class."

I realize the candidates don't design their own websites, so to some extent, it's not really fair or accurate to judge them by the structure of their sits.  Still, it bears noting that the difference between the sites does seem to be reflected in their plans as well.  Obama's plan is comprehensive, global and visionary.  Clinton's plan is piecemeal, localized and tactical.

So here's the quick and dirty on Obama's 8-point plan:

1.  A middle-class tax cut aimed at 150 million American workers, paid for in part by repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy 1%-ers.  Obama would also simplify the tax code, eliminate taxes on retirees earning less than $50,000 per year, and create a new tax credit that would essentially eliminate taxes for the poorest 10 million Americans.

2.  Obama pledges to review and revamp NAFTA and to enforce fair trade requirements in order to level the playing field for American workers.

3.  The most detailed portion of Obama's plan is job creation through focus on innovation, new technologies and renewable/clean energy investments.  As with Clinton, Obama sees the future growth of this country's job market springing from the soil of cradle-to-cradle enviromental technologies.

4.  Focus on labor including strengthening unions and increasing the minimum wage.

5.  Protecting home owners from predatory lending practices, helping some avoid foreclosure and cracking down on the industry with more (and better) regulation.

6.  Curtailing predatory credit card practices (this is unique to Obama's plan).

7.  Reforming Bankruptcy laws to help families in crisis and aide individuals rather than financial institutions.

8.  Under what Obama calls "Work/Family Balance," are a number of proposals to expand family leave, encourage flexible work schedules and to expand the child tax credit.

There are a number of similarities, not surprisingly, between the Democratic candidates' approach to the economy.  Both have a middle-class tax cut, repealing the Bush tax cuts and investment in green energy technology as cornerstones of their plans.

Obama's plan is more expensive than Clinton's--perhaps because it is more expansive than hers...more encompassing.  Both have the advantage over McCain's non-plan of making the Bush cuts permanent.  (As Jon Stewart summarizes that idea--"Are you suggesting we take the policies that got us into this mess in the first place and render them irrevocable?!")

In short, I give the Dems a thumbs up on this issue over McCain.  And between the two Dems, I give Obama the edge for the comprehensive nature of his plan. 

I promised to tackle the question of which candidate would be least likely to waste Darrell's money today...so here goes!

Hal suggested that the answer is Ron Paul--and indeed, Paul is against taxes.  But beyond saying that he's against taxes, I don't see much on his website to support that other than the fact he's also agains the Iraq war and would call for an immediate pullout.

There are big holes in Paul's plan for tax cuts.  The primary hole is what programs he would plan to cut in order to fund the tax cuts.  The other major concern is how he would reduce waste in government spending.  His plan seems to be a version of the "starve the beast" approach to reducing government's size rather than a comprehensive plan.

In terms of the three major candidates, McCain is the one with the most detailed plan (and the most consistent record) for stopping what's called "pork barrel" spending.  He would highlight wasteful proposals publicly.

Unfortunately, the biggest wasteful proposal for our money right now is the Iraq war.  To the tune of $508 billion so far (and counting).  So while McCain might be able to slow down spending in Washington with his plan, the war debt would far outweigh any savings he came up with--especially if, as he proposes, we're there for decades or centuries.

Between Clinton and Obama, it's a close call on who would "waste" least.  Both are in favor of a rapid drawdown of troops in Iraq, with Obama having a slightly more aggressive timeline.  Both have pricey proposals for "universal" health care, but Obama's is slightly less costly.  So on those two counts, Obama has a slight edge.

Being that they're both democrats, they are likely to reverse some or all of Bush's tax cuts (which shouldn't impact most people too much...just the top 5% of taxpayers in the U.S.) and that should help alleviate some of our national debt burden.

However, there is a telling difference in the candidate's websites regarding how they approach the idea of "government reform" (Hillary) or "restoring fiscal discipline" (Obama).  Just from the titles, you can guess that Hillary's plan has less to do with balancing the budget and cutting excess spending and more to do with reigning in lobbyists. 

Obama concentrates on returning the the PAYGO system of budgeting (paying for new programs with cuts to existing programs) and specifically addresses pork barrel spending --although less creatively than McCain.  (I sort of wonder why Hillary's website didn't point out that the last time we had a surplus and a balanced budget, a Clinton was in the White House...maybe because it was Bill?)  At any rate, Obama addresses the issue more thoroughly and thus gets my nod.

I realize that part of the reason I don't believe McCain would waste less money is definitional.  Some folks may view continuing the war in Iraq as absolutely necessary for our future security.  In that case, the money he would spend to stay there (albeit horrendous in scope) would not be a "waste."  Such folks should vote for McCain.

If you think that the war is a waste, then it's a close call--but Obama seems to be more inclined to specificty and to general change of the status quo.

For those of you looking for a succinct comparison as to where the three remaining viable candidates stand on taxes, take a look at Newsweek's "By the Numbers" Periscope entry from the March 10th issue.  It's a little easier to read in the magazine format but for those who prefer online research, here's the link.

Probably the position I'm most comofrtable with is Obama's.  He, like Hillary Clinton, would let the Bush tax cuts for high earners lapse (something I've been arguing for ever since the cuts went through 6 1/2 years ago). 

The real difference between Obama and Clinton is on the spending side of the equation.  Obama is more moderate in all of his spending areas than Clinton except for energy spending--especially when it comes to health care.  His plan, which provides more limited coverage than Clinton's, is about 3/5ths of the cost.

Most of McCain's spending will go, predictably, to defense spending.

Nice to have the numbers crunched for you a little bit, eh?

On the personal front, it's been a great couple of days of physical activity after two weeks of sinus-infection related downtime.  Yesterday I had a tough "welcome back" strength training with Calin, my slightly sadistic trainer.  I worked almost all of the arm and chest muscles to failure and I feel it today.

Today, it was nine holes of golf and then gardened this afternoon.  I'm dog-tired, but happy to be moving around instead of being stuck on the couch.

We're off this weekend to visit our friend in prison.  So no blog until late Saturday or early Sunday.  At least they've reinstated Friday visits so we should have a nice, long chat tomorrow.

Speaking of prison, a short aside to yesterday's blog.  Are you aware that we're currently shipping a significant proportion of our prison population to other states?  Yet another reason not to jail illegal aliens, imho.

Happy Leap Year Day!

Don't know what happened to yesterday's blog.  It was here yesterday and is gone today.  Must be the leap year.  At any rate, I wrote a bit about the research I'd done on John McCain to date.  I'm starting with him and then moving on to the Dems since my brother, Dale, asked me my opinions...and I realized I didn't know enough to respond.

Yesterday's research centered on McCain's biographical information.  His history as a war veteran, politician and family man are well known.  I was interested to learn that he had an affair with wife #2 while married to wife #1.  (Apparently, it wasn't his first extra-marital foray, either.)

He's admitted to the affair and accepted full responsibility for the break-up of the marriage...so I guess that partly negates his questionable judgement and lack of integrity at the time.  He and his current wife, Cindy, have been married about 8 months longer than Dan and I.  So that longevity says something too.  All of which leads me to a neutral rating for McCain on the whole (relatively minor) divorce issue.

Today's research was on McCain's position on taxes.  He seems to be typically Republican in his approach.  Specifically, he wants to cut taxes on the middle class by eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax. (And replacing it with nothing.)  He wants to keep the Bush "Tax Relief for the Wealthy" plan in place (meaning he wants to keep the lower capital gains and dividends taxes in place, along with other Bush cuts).  And he's for lowering business tax rates by 10% across the board.

The one proposal he had that made sense to me was a tax credit for businesses who invest an equivalent of 10% of their wage budget in Research and Development.  I'd support that instead of the across the board cut in a heartbeat.

So how's he going to afford these cuts given that we're in a huge deficit and spending away like mad on a war he'd like to stay in? 

He's playing on his reputation as a reformer to say that he'd balance the budget by reforming government.  More on that next McCain instalment.  There's digging to be done to see if that's air or has some potential to offset the cuts he's selling.

So far on taxes?  I'd give him a -1 on a scale of -5 to +5.  He seems happy to cut taxes (and retain tax cuts skewed toward the wealthy) at a time where more tax cuts just increases the bleeding.

As you've no doubt read by now, Mitt Romeny called it quits yesterday in a speech before the Conservative Political Action Conference (the same group that later booed McCain when he mentioned immigration reform).  I'll be interested to see what his exit does to McCain's positioning for the balance of his nomination run.

Romney positioned his leaving as necessary both for party unity (read: a Republican win in November brought about by McCain's ability to immediately start pounding the Dem's instead of his brother conservatives) and to ensure that we stay in the "war on terror."

To quote:  "Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaing be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."  Translation: A vote for either Democratic candidate is a vote for terrorists.

Sheesh.  If McCain latches onto this line of thinking rather than addressing substantive issues for the balance of his campaign, then I won't need to read any further on his positions.  Such brainless pandering and fear mongering is worthy of our current (P)resident.  I'd hate to see it continue with the next President.

On another political note, Congress passed a bill aimed at nipping the fast-approaching recession in the bud.  Unfortunately, the bill relies on tax rebates and business tax incentives to stimulate the economy.  Why unfortunate?  Because even the Congressional Budget Office agrees that the best way (fastest and most return for investment) to stimulate the economy is to provide more and longer lasting benefits to those at the bottom of the economic run.  If you increase food stamps, they'll be spent immediately.  If you extend unemployment benefits, that money will immediately go back into the economy.

If you give tax breaks to businesses, it takes a long time to kick in and produces a much smaller return (27 cents worth of growth for dollar spent) than unemployment benefits ($1.64 per dollar spent). 

Too bad politics and the need for a quick fix trumped economics.  The Dem's may hold congress but they don't have enough votes to force the issue.

Last, but not at all least, a website to share with you that I got through my friend, Bob Clarke.  Sometimes the news we don't hear is the news we most need to hear.  Check it out here.

I thought I'd take a potpourri approach to today's entry.  Instead of writing about the day (which has gone swimmingly--thanks for asking), I want to touch on four issues.

1.  Send in the clones.  The FDA (those wonderful people who gave the nod to Vioxx) have given their two thumbs up to meat and milk from cloned animals.  My knee jerk reaction is "eww."  But then I read the article instead of just the headline.  (In my spare time, I might get around to reading the study...but don't hold your breath.)

In the LA Times article, it becomes pretty clear that what will eventually hit the food chain will be the offspring of clones rather than cloned animals themselves.  That's a little more, ahem, palatable.  Especially when you consider that the study shows there to be no difference on any level (biological, nutritional, toxicological) between cloned meat and milk and the real McCoy.

Still, it's a bit worrisome that there won't be any labeling required by the FDA to identify cloned meats or milks.  Eww.

2.  Rock the Vote.  I have a new button on the side of my blog-->  See it there?  I've done my bit.  I've pundicated on presidential candidates (see below for more), reviewed issues and propositions, made recommendations.

Now it's your turn.  If you're not registered to vote, click here.  And do your part.

3. Theocracy anyone?  Oh that Huckabee.  What a kidder!  Do you know he actually said we should "amend the constitution to fit God's standards."  What?  He wasn't kidding?

Seriously.  Which standards are we talking about?  Do we stop (if one agrees with Huckabee) with saying marriage is only between Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve; with saying that women do not have the right to abortion?  Or do we go the whole schmear?  Stone adulterers.  Quit eating pork.  Make women cover their heads with scarves.

I think they're trying out theocracy in parts of the Muslim world.  Why don't we stick with democracy in America.

4.  How much is that doggie in the window?  Meet Charlie.  Hal offered Charlie to me as a crow deterrent.  I said no.  Now I'm reconsidering.

Who's a good boy, huh?

Hey...maybe if we clone Charlie?  Nah.

Strange day.  I overslept (meaning that I didn't arise when I normally do these days--sometime around 7 a.m.) and didn't get up until 8:30 a.m.  Then Dan and I braved the Target crowds in order to buy stocking stuffers for our various Christmas celebrations this year.  After a few more errands, I settled into writing and got 1,200 words done in about an hour and a half.  It would have been more, but I ran into some technical details and had to do a bit o' research.

It's amazing how much easier it is than when I first began the novel.  I've read 24 books on the topic of Japan, Japanese Americans, the Internment of Japanese Americans and the general time period.  But now, when I get stuck I tend to hop on the internet instead of going to my copious stack of index cards.

Nanowrimo put me behind in terms of political blog content, so it's time to turn to a brief snippet on one of the Republican Presidential Candidates.  First up is Mike Huckabee.  Mike caught my attention because of the hoopla surrounding his recent ad in Iowa.  Entitled "Believe" the ad defines Huckabee, using voice overs, sound bites and headlines, as a "CHRISTIAN LEADER" and an "Authentic Conservative."  (All caps in the first one is his emphasis, not mine.)

You can click on the clip below to play it, rather than having me describe it blow by blow. 

I appreciate Huckabee's being forthright about what he believes (this straight from the hip style continues on his website).  With that said, the ad bothers me to a significant degree.  The two things that stand out (among too many for a blog) are:

1.  The implications of his saying "I don't have to wake up everyday wondering 'what do I need to believe?' "  There's an underlying assumption that people who don't share his faith are in a constant state of quandry about their beliefs.  I've not found that to be true in my experience of people of varying faiths and no faith.  There's also an assumption (on my part) that the very fact that Huckabee doesn't wake up wondering about his response to our pluralistic society signals a tenedency toward an inflexible, dogmatic approach.  That's the last thing I'd want in a president.

2.  Over a video clip of his appearance at the "Values Voter Summit," Huckabee talks about not sacrificing principals for "anybody's politics."  Then the screen flashes to him with kids and headlines reveal that he supports the "Federal Life Amendment" and, as governor, "passed the Marriage Amendment."

Code, in my book, for anti-gay.  Interestingly, there is no "Federal Life Amendment" on the internet, so I assume he's talking about the Human Life Amendment.  Also, to quibble, Governor's don't pass any laws.  They may support them, but they don't write them and vote for them.

A brief review of his website reveals what one would expect in terms of positions from a former Baptist Minister who wears his Christianity like a suit of armor.  He's against abortion, embryonic stem cell research, taxes outside of sales tax, any kind of working solution for illegal immigrants in the country and any kind of gun control.  He's for the Iraq war, covenant marriage (scary that) and farm subsidies.

He has some interesting ideas on taxes and health care, certainly worth a look for folks from both political persuasions.  He won't get my vote but if you're an ultra-conservative voter feeling at a loss with Bush exiting the White House, Huckabee's probably your man.