Winning Iowa

What's the winning formula? Good question. I don't have a sure-fire answer, but I have some ideas.

As a volunteer, I have been a Hillary surrogate in two candidate forums with more scheduled in January.

People seem to like and respond with interest when policies and issues are treated in depth. It's not enough to say that she has a great health plan, people want to know what the health plan will do and what it will not do. Voters love to hear about her plan to reduce political corruption in DC. Just about everyone knows that she has taken money from Northrup.

Perhaps Hillary's speeches might be a little less off-the-cuff, broad brush and a little more formal presentation of a limited few policies.

Policies are her strength, so perhaps it is time to play up the strong points. Pick a few of the best policies for one speech, and then treat a few more policies the same way for another speech.

She appears to have established credentials as a tough negotiator and attacker. Maybe it's time to assume the electorate understands that and shift the discussion to her policies.

Then, when the rivals counter with their policies, they may be seen as 'me-tooing' it instead of serious candidates.

It might work.

Energy - Where Are We?

The recent energy bill is not good enough. Read Mark Morford on the bill here

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2007/12/19/notes121907.DTL

True Grit

As a certified old guy, I can talk about 1969 movies and how they relate to today - it's a privilege and I respect it.

The 1969 John Wayne movie was about the baddest sheriff around - the one with enough 'grit' to outgun the bad guys and save the little girl.

Here's a quote:

"Little girl Mattie Ross: Who's the best Marshall they have?

Sheriff: Bill Waters is the best tracker. The meanest one is Rooster Cogburn, a pitiless man, double tough, fear don't enter into his thinking."

Who has more grit - Hillary or Obama?

For me it's a no brainer: Hillary, hands down. She went after the health insurance industry and lost the first round. But she is still on their trail and will bring them to justice. You go girl.

Obama - Where's the track record of tough fights? Would you want him or Hillary representing you when the chips are down and the stakes are high? These questions are not replays from the 1990's, they are always with us. It's the President's job to handle them for us.

So far, he is a great preacher and orator, but can he cover our back?

That's the question.

What The Heck??

Edwards can attack Hillary directly and Obama can attack her obliquely with little or no comment but when Hillary attacks Obama - he whines and attacks her indirectly; then, he is called presidential for his efforts.

Something is screwy.

Was it a mistake to attack Obama? Emphatically not. Clumsily executed, perhaps, but overall good strategy.

Why?? Because it shows Obama's weak response when attacked. He retreats into a feel good, preacher like sermon that studiously avoides dealing with the issues.

C'mon Barack: stand up - when you are confronting people who really want you to lose, you have to fight them directly. You cannot retreat into a fantasy world of make believe where you control all the issues and can repeat your feel good mantras.

Debating or negotiating in that manner guarantees that you will lose, unless you have a superior force to back you up. That in turn will mean that if Obama becomes President, he stands a larger chance of creating a war as a result of a weak debating posture than a President who will stand up and argue face to face.

Here's an indirect attack: "If other folks want to engage in those kinds of small-time tactics then that's their prerogative, but that's not what we're going to focus on." Quoted by Perry Bacon here: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/05/clinton_campaign_volunteer_out.html

If you try either with a Giuliani, a Romney or any other Rep, they will eat you alive.

And, if you try it with a well connected defense contractor or a terrorist state, God help us.

Conclusion - don't let Obama get away with indirect attacks and /or retreat into his own LaLa land of feel good rhetoric. The country cannot afford it.

Iowa Dead Heat?

Iowa Dead Heat?

News accounts show a dead heat in Iowa between Obama, Clinton and Edwards.

Maybe it is time to test a negative attack strategy as a rehearsal for the national campaign. The overall strategy seems vaild at this point - still no doubt that Hillary will have the nomination [based on polls that show Dems give her best shot at the eventual Rep as seen in the Wall Street Journal

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hrAS9avYFvoccwNDiDFyW8E0_L1wD8TA1M4O0

A test could validate tactics with a small sample. Maybe poll a focus group in a controlled situation as they enter a room before a negative attack, then demonstrate some negative attacks.Then, poll again after the negative attack to calculate results.

Need at least 100 people and even then the probabilities will be hard to project, so maybe the idea is too lame. But maybe it is worth a shot.

Calling on the campaign gurus to look at it.

PPS: Seems that Obama is complaining about Hillary's negative campaigning in Iowa.

Good.

Reps Dissin'

Didn't watch the debate last night since there would be no real issues discussed.

Looking briefly at the transcript shows one overwhelming fact: the national campaign will be ugly and personal from the start.

Hillary needs to prepare to fight in the streets, point by point. Sadly, rising above the ugliness to talk about real issues may be seen as weakness by voters.

Here's a short excerpt of the transcript [http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/28/debate.transcript/] from Romney and Giuliani to make the point:


Governor Romney, was New York a sanctuary city?

Romney: Absolutely. It called itself a sanctuary city. And as a matter of fact, when the welfare reform act that President Clinton brought forward said that they were going to end the sanctuary policy of New York City, the mayor actually brought a suit to maintain its sanctuary city status.

And the idea that they reported any illegal alien that committed a crime -- how about the fact that the people who are here illegally have violated the law? They didn't report everybody they found that was here illegally.

And this happens to be a difference between Mayor Giuliani and myself and probably others on this stage as well, which is we're going to have to recognize in this country that we welcome people here legally.

But the mayor said -- and I quote almost verbatim -- which is if you happen to be in this country in an undocumented status -- and that means you're here illegally -- then we welcome you here. We want you here. We'll protect you here.

That's the wrong attitude. Instead, we should say if you're here illegally, you should not be here. We're not going to give you benefits, other than those required by the law, like health care and education, and that's the course we're going to have to pursue.

Cooper: Mayor Giuliani?

Giuliani: It's unfortunate, but Mitt generally criticizes people in a situation in which he's had far the -- worst record.

For example, in his case, there were six sanctuary cities. He did nothing about them.

There was even a sanctuary mansion. At his own home, illegal immigrants were being employed, not being turned into anybody or by anyone. And then when he deputized the police, he did it two weeks before he was going to leave office, and they never even seemed to catch the illegal immigrants that were working at his mansion. So I would say he had sanctuary mansion, not just sanctuary city.

Cooper: All right. I have to allow Governor Romney to respond...

Romney: Mayor, you know better than that.

(Laughter)

Giuliani: No ...

Romney: OK, then listen. All right? Then listen. First of all ...

Giuliani: You did have illegal immigrants working at your mansion, didn't you?

Romney: No, I did not, so let's just talk about that. Are you suggesting, Mr. Mayor -- because I think it is really kind of offensive actually to suggest, to say look, you know what, if you are a homeowner and you hire a company to come provide a service at your home -- paint the home, put on the roof. If you hear someone that is working out there, not that you have employed, but that the company has.

If you hear someone with a funny accent, you, as a homeowner, are supposed to go out there and say, "I want to see your papers."

Is that what you're suggesting?

Giuliani: What I'm suggesting is, if you ...

(Crosstalk)

Giuliani: If you're going to take this holier than thou attitude, that your whole approach to immigration...

Romney: I'm sorry, immigration is not holier than thou, Mayor. It's the law.

Giuliani: If you're going to take this holier than thou attitude that you are perfect on immigration...

Romney: I'm not perfect.

Giuliani: ... it just happens you have a special immigration problem that nobody else up here has. You were employing illegal immigrants. That is a pretty serious thing. They were under your nose.

(Applause}

Blatant Appeal for Money

Money is the mother's milk of politics and Hillary needs your contributions now for the primary season.

Contribute online here:
https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/form.html?sc=ac0&rc=XB45

Thank you.

Mother Clinton and the Boys

I remember the commercials - not even the product, just the commercials.

Remember the ad: a sweet, very feminine and motherly woman reacts to an affront with a certain, decisive act and says: "Remember, it's not nice to fool with Mother Nature."

So, in case Barack and John missed the commerercials, remember: it's not nice to fool with Mother Clinton.

Huntington Clark - Reply

Mr.Clark:

Thank you for your comment and your identification.

My reasons for choosing Senator Clinton are enumerated in the earliest posts on this blog. It is my judgment that she offers the best combination of policies which will protect the country and electability.

Democrats and the country are fortunate to have several qualified candidates.

Any Dem in the race is better than any Rep.

Glassbooth

Glassbooth

Interesting website that lets you vote on a list of issues, then matches you with the candidates that most closely match your preferences based on the candidate's published positions.

Very interesting, with two caveats:

1. Makes no mention of electability or competence, and,

2. Issue list is very limited.

Regardless, I came out matched most closely with Kucinich with an 86% match while I matched Hillary with 73%.

Hillary is still the best bet for the country.

The Full Rudy

'The Full Rudy', an article in The Nation by Jack Newfield, is one place that provides a balanced assessment of Giuliani.

At this writing it seems possible that he will become the Rep nominee.

In the writer's opinion, it will be a disaster for the United States if Rudy takes the presidency whether the win is legitimate or not.

In the event Rudy is the Rep nominee then the Dems need to do a full swiftboat on him - he should be buried so far that he has zero possibility of recovering. He has publicly appealed to the same anti-American, base instincts in the electorate that propel the Bush administration toward dictatorship. His record in New York is one of incompetence and vitriol.

Conventional wisdom is that negative campaigning works. If Rudy is the nominee, the Dems need to swallow their distaste for negativity and smear Rudy as hard as they can, IMHO.

God Help Us

Listened to Dr.Peter Phillips, Director of the Project Censored program of Sonoma State University last night.

Following are some impressions of his talk - the impressions are mine alone, so complain to me if they are not correct.

Based on exit polls, the most reliable poll possible according to polling experts, Kerry lost 10 million votes in 13 states in the 04 election. Bush's offical margin was 3 million votes. The election was stolen.

Phillips reinforced strongly the idea that Bush has created in the United States
the infrastructure for a police state similar to Stalinist Russia or Pinochet's Chile.

The right of habeus corpus is now suspended. The President can name any person, citizen or not, as a terrorist and have them arrested and held without trail or bail.

If you interefere with the business or profits of any animal oriented business such as conducting a boycott or strike against a grocery store, you can be named as a terrorist and arrested without trial or bail.

Recently, under Attorney General Gonzalez, 9,000 state and local police were federalized in three sweeps and arrests of 30,000 people were conducted under Federal control.

There has been no accounting of the fate of those arrested nor release of names and/or charges filed.

The Posse Comitas act, which has prevented federal troops from conducting police operations since the Civil War, is suspended.

Halliburton Corp, was given a contract to build a series of detention centers across the country that are able to hold thousands of people.

Writing and publishing this piece probably qualifies me as a terrorist and may make me a target for arrest. As an American, it is my duty to speak out when the government acts against the Constitution. I have in the past taken an oath to defend the Constitution and I am doing so now. If I am arrested, so be it.

A Democratic Presidential administration seems to be the only remaining hope to prevent the United States of America from becoming a military dictatorship.

It is time for Hillary and the others to declare that they will reverse this dangerous course of American domestic policy.

Driving Mr. Edwards

Watched the debate the other night and the Edwards commercial that replayed Hillary's answers to the question of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.

Maybe the mistake was trying to have an answer to every question all the time. Being a responsible leader means taking the time to think through a question and it was obvious she had not done so for this question. The American people will understand that she cannot shoot from the hip on serious questions.

Maybe this would have worked:

"You know Chris, this is a serious question and frankly I have not been able to think through all the implications here. I think the American people want a responsible leader who will take the time to give serious, responsible thought to difficult national issues. I will do that for this issue and get back to you in a week.

As you know I am called on to answer literally hundreds of questions about national and local policy every day. My goal is to give serious answers to serious questions instead of shooting from the hip or making flip, overly simplified responses on the spur of the moment.

While some may see that as 'parsing', the fact of the matter is that national policy questions demand thorough analysis before coming to a conclusion.

Illegal immigration is a serious national policy question that Bush and the Republican congress have failed to answer. In the meantime, illegal immigrants will drive cars illegally and somehow we need to control that.

So, it's a big question and I will get back to you."

ABC News Poll - Good News?

Here'e what the poll says:

"On Iraq, 63 percent of Americans continue to say the war was not worth
fighting. And at home, nearly two-thirds rate the economy negatively, with nearly seven in 10 seeing some likelihood of a recession in the year
ahead."

Here's what the possible problem is:

The Fed always supports the incumbents so there will probably be good economic news in 2008. Election years always see good numbers.

SO: Don't count our chickens - keep up the pressure.

Republicans - Love that Torture

News reports are that all the Reps except McCain support torture - even more than Bush.

Perfect campaign material:

If you like torture vote Republican.

If you like freedom and dignity vote for Hillary.

[OK,in case you missed the memo:

Torture hurts American national security:

1.It is illegal under US law

2. It is against American values.

3. Tortured people will say whatever they think the torturer wants to hear to make the pain stop, so the information is false

4. The military may act on false information and waste time and lives

5. It gives our enemies license to torture our troops.]

Halloween Dem Debate

On the Dem debate from Philly last night, Hillary was clearly the front runner. She handled some softball challenges from Obama and Edwards pretty well.

Interesting that she was clearly the leader and the target - seemed to have the most air time by far. The others were a supporting cast.

If Obama was on the attack, it was hard to tell. Pre-debate buzz was that he had to come out swinging against Hillary. If he tried, he did not show much.

Dodd was good on energy, Richardson was good on diplomacy, Biden was good on Giulani - we need all these guys on the team in 2009.

What about Gore?

Back from the kids', physically anyway.

Had a vision/dream while away. Maybe you did too.

Here's the dream: Al Gore agrees to be Hillary's VP.

Helps Hillary get elected, gives Al official platform to promote cures for global warming.

Win/win.

But, just a dream so far.

Republican Economics

Missed the Rep debate on the economy, so downloaded the whole thing from the NY Times website. Since it's about the economy, maybe I could apply a grade to each candidate.

How amusing.

It was all about scoring points and not about the country or the issues.

A few times some serious issues were raised - by Paul, Tancredo and Romney - issues about middle class, unions, job loss from free trade, etc.

But, the only solutions were the usual Rep bromides: lower taxes, free trade and worship of the 'market' as the answer to all problems temporal or spiritual.

Perhaps the 'market' will devalue the old bromides and install change next year.

Grunt Work

Raising money is tedious work with not much to report.

Will take a break to visit grandchildren, play old man baseball between Oct 14 and 31.

ciao

Show Me the Money

Attended a couple of Hillary events - a street rally in Oakland and a private fund raiser in wealthy Tiburon.

Most people in Oakland were white, although she made some points by getting Oakland's mayor to endorse her over Obama. Many waited in line two hours to catch just a glimpse.

Also, she raised $27 mill for the quarter.

Preliminary reactions: biggest cheers come from women who cheer her as the probable first woman president. Hillary, however, does not make a big issue of that.

Second biggest cheers are anti-Bush.

But, there is a core of Hillary haters who will probably stoop to unconscionable extremes in the coming months. Pity.

Hillary

Sorry for the delay.

I have been thinking about all the candidates and have decided to enter the battle. This election is too important to just watch and I have some time.

Conclusion: I will try to raise money for Hillary.

Reasons:

1. All the Reps are dangerous for the future of the country.

2. Conventional wisdom is that the next pres will be a Dem.

3. Barack is good, but he needs more experience and some time for the country to accept a black man.

4. Hillary is likely winner because she is ahead and none of the other Dems show any real promise at this point.

5. Hillary is fundamentally sound - although not perfect - and she has made very few mistakes so far.

more to follow.................

National Security

This is THE critical subject for the next president - if he or she doesn't get it right our grandchildren will live in a much worse world.

I think our national security is defined as living without fear of violence from home or abroad where families can go about their daily business in peace.

It is job one of the national government.

Part of national security is having and maintaining a military force strong enough to counter armed threats from abroad or terror from home or abroad.

Critical to that strength is an economy strong enough to pay for the required military.

But, military and economic strength alone is not enough to guarantee that security.

Here's why: DARPA estimates that the USA spends one million dollars for every dollar the enemy spends in Iraq. Since Al Queda seems to have a zero cost, inexhaustible supply of suicide bombers willing to blow themselves up with $1.95 worth of explosives, the only true national security for the USA is to reduce or eliminate the supply of potential martyrs.

Clearly it will not take too many more potential martyrs attacking the USA to bankrupt the country at a spending ratio of one million to one.

[Tongue in cheek here] This, of course, is the market solution to the problem of having a world where many very poor people hate a large, rich country like the USA. The market says let suicide bombers blow themselves up until equilibrium is reached where the spending of the rich country to protect itself nearly bankrupts the rich country and the cost of securing martyrs rises to meet the spending of the rich country.

This is economics gone mad, but it seems to be where we are heading.

A sensible national security policy for the USA will be to try to reduce the supply of martyrs and thus raise their cost. Blowing up training camps will be helpful in that effort, but the true solution lies in reducing the numbers of potential martyrs who want to be trained.

That has to be a many faceted effort. More jobs in poor Muslim countries. Better economic growth in all countries. Also, the USA should reach out to influential Muslims to find the common ground of beliefs and nurture relationships with those people. Then perhaps we can encourage some Muslims to make the act of martyrdom less attractive.

Further, we should stop doing things which are against our ideals and are likely to make people hate us even more - things like torture and bombing civilians, for example.

The Reps are particularly handicapped when dealing with this problem for several reasons.

First, much of their campaign funds come from the military/industrial/oil complex which has vested interests in continuing a war-like society. Rep presidents are likely to continue with a warlike policy to appease their base.

Second, Reps share a common belief that markets will solve any problem and that any government interference in markets is a bad thing. But, these issues require a sensible government interference to avoid a disaster.

Third, most Rep candidates simply do not address or think about these issues and are unprepared to deal with them. When faced with the real world, they are likely to panic and retreat into a single policy response of force.

Fourth, many Reps and their conservative base don't like to think about or have contact with people who are different than they are: black people, Muslims, French, whatever. But the real world will continue to force itself into our awareness whether we like it or not.

Thus, a Rep candidate if elected will likely reduce the national security of the United States.

As far as the Dems go, seems like some Dems are thinking about the problem and I'd like to see someone who has thought about these questions in the White House in 2008.

ciao.

mckeever

Iraq

Had the chance to watch General Petraeus testify before the House last week.

Clearly he is an impressive salesman, although I have no historical context to judge whether his numbers are correct and must leave judgment to others.

Then watched Bush discuss the General's information.

Normally most of us would like the President to digest information and make decisions. But, Bush has lost any credibility by failing to acknowledge any options.

While teaching university students to present ideas or programs I asked them to be sure to present at least two sides of each issue because presenting only one side makes the presenter foolish.

So, here is a request: Mr. President, please be quiet. We have to make decisions and you just confuse the issues by acting a fool. Your employees are much better at your job than you are, so please keep out of their way.

Thank you Mr. President.

Vacation Break

The blog will be on vacation til September 15. Will attempt to deal with National Security and Rep vs Dems on return.

Thanks for your interest.

Ciao,

McKeever

Bush and The Prince

Machiavelli is always relevant but seems especially so in the USA today.

The Prince by Nicolo Machiavelli

CHAPTER IX

Concerning A Civil Principality

BUT coming to the other point — where a leading citizen becomes the prince [for prince, read Bush] of his country, not by wickedness or any intolerable violence, but by the favour of his fellow citizens — this may be called a civil principality: nor is genius or fortune altogether necessary to attain to it, but rather a happy shrewdness. I say then that such a principality is obtained either by the favour of the people or by the favour of the nobles. Because in all cities these two distinct parties are found, and from this it arises that the people do not wish to be ruled nor oppressed by the nobles [For nobles, read the Military/Industrial/Oil Complex], and the nobles wish to rule and oppress the people; and from these two opposite desires there arises in cities one of three results, either a principality, self-government, or anarchy.

A principality is created either by the people or by the nobles, accordingly as one or other of them has the opportunity; for the nobles, seeing they cannot withstand the people, begin to cry up the reputation of one of themselves, and they make him a prince, so that under his shadow they can give vent to their ambitions. The people, finding they cannot resist the nobles, also cry up the reputation of one of themselves, and make him a prince so as to be defended by his authority. He who obtains sovereignty by the assistance of the nobles maintains himself with more difficulty than he who comes to it by the aid of the people, because the former finds himself with many around him who consider themselves his equals, and because of this he can neither rule nor manage them to his liking. But he who reaches sovereignty by popular favour finds himself alone, and has none around him, or few, who are not prepared to obey him.

Besides this, one cannot by fair dealing, and without injury to others, satisfy the nobles, but you can satisfy the people, for their object is more righteous than that of the nobles, the latter wishing to oppress, whilst the former only desire not to be oppressed. It is to be added also that a prince can never secure himself against a hostile people, because of their being too many, whilst from the nobles he can secure himself, as they are few in number. The worst that a prince may expect from a hostile people is to be abandoned by them; but from hostile nobles he has not only to fear abandonment, but also that they will rise against him; for they, being in these affairs more far-seeing and astute, always come forward in time to save themselves, and to obtain favours from him whom they expect to prevail. Further, the prince is compelled to live always with the same people, but he can do well without the same nobles, being able to make and unmake them daily, and to give or take away authority when it pleases him.

Mike Huckabee

Here's how Mike Huckabee's [http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.Home] issue positions compare to the nine critical points. Lots of verbiage about conservative hot buttons, very little about the country.

1.Political Corruption: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

2. Military/Industrial Complex: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

3. Energy: Score 1

Actually has thought about alternatives and wants energy independence.

4. Unions - Labor and Consumer: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

5. Income and Wealth Disparity: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

6. Elections: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

7. Judicial Independence: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

8. Trade deficits: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

9. Usury Law: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

Huckabee scores 1 of 9 for a .110 average, Trade bait only, do not play

MIC

Had the pleasure to watch the Dem debate from the AFL/CIO last night and was impressed by all the candidates' passion and grasp of the issues. Was not able to see the Repub debate, but will try to catch the next one.

Kudos to Keith Olberman for holding the Dems feet to the fire on many of the real issues.

Hillary made a point of saying that she would continue to accept lobbyist donations but had proven her ability to stand up to the corporate interests in her past fights with the pharma and insurance industries - she claimed that donations would not influence her policies.

So here's a question: Can she stand up to the MIC? This is the acid test.

Here's a suggestion on one way to do it: list all the officers who have served in the DC area in either high level positions or in the procurement function for more than ten years. Then, transfer them to Iraq, retirement or Europe so they can't interact with the contractors any more. Last, install competitive bidding on all contracts over one million.

This might reduce the MIC's influence if successful. I would predict resistance to the idea, so if the next president chooses this option, it should be treated with caution and secrecy.

Fred Thompson - Comment

Thanks for the comment, Jeff.

But, my approach is straightforward: I compare the web site published comments of each candidate to nine specific problems we face as a country.

It is, I think, the responsibility of each serious candidate for President to clearly and succinctly establish his positions so that they are accessible to the electorate. A candidate who fails to do that can be accused of dissembling, obfuscation and a longer list of adjectives.

Thompson has not provided access to his positions.

My comment stands.

mckeever

Fred Thompson

Fred Thompson is running, excuse me - 'testing the waters', but he has said NOTHING about ANY issue [https://www.imwithfred.com]. He is a total 'pig-in-a-poke'. Yet he shows as the number two candidate in some Republican polls.

Perhaps some enterprising person can list his donors to see where he would lead the country.

Score Zero on everything. Do not let him into the stadium, even as an usher.

Newt Gingrich

Here's how Newt Gingrich's [http://www.draftnewt.org/on_the_issues/index.php] issue positions compare to the nine critical points.

Newt is not yet running, but a supporter group has reproduced his stands on many issues. He seems to be an extreme supporter of Classical economics who believes the market can solve all issues. I think Gingrich would simply continue the present administrations's policies.

1.Political Corruption: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

2. Military/Industrial Complex: Score 0

Strong supporter of MIC - wish I had negative scores.

3. Energy: Score 1

Actually has thought about alternatives and wants to support research.

4. Unions - Labor and Consumer: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

5. Income and Wealth Disparity: Score 0

Expresses concern about Social Security's future effects on working people - add 0.5, but his solution is to privatize it - subtract 0.5

6. Elections: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

7. Judicial Independence: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

8. Trade deficits: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

9. Usury Law: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

Gingrich scores 1 of 9 for a .110 average, Trade bait only, do not play

Chris Dodd

Here's Chris Dodd according to his 2008 web site: [http://www.chrisdodd.com/].


1.Political Corruption: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

2. Military/Industrial Complex: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

3. Energy: Score 1

Has a plan for energy security

4. Unions - Labor and Consumer: Score 1

In favor

5. Income and Wealth Disparity: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

6. Elections: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

7. Judicial Independence: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

8. Trade deficits: Score 0.5

By implication

9. Usury Law: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

Dodd scores 2.5 of 9 for a .278 average, needs seasoning in the minors.

Joe Biden

Here's Joe Biden according to his 2008 web site: [http://www.joebiden.com/issues/].

But, his focus is different and he scores poorly, similarly to Republicans.



1.Political Corruption: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

2. Military/Industrial Complex: Score 0

No Mention - surprise

3. Energy: Score 1

Has a plan for energy security

4. Unions - Labor and Consumer: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

5. Income and Wealth Disparity: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

6. Elections: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

7. Judicial Independence: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

8. Trade deficits: Score 0.5

By implication

9. Usury Law: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

Biden scores 1.5 of 9 for a .167 average, needs seasoning in the minors.

Ralph Nader

Here's how Ralph Nader measures up according to his 2008 web site: [http://www.votenader.org/issues].

Mr. Nader has run as an Independent and as a Green.

1.Political Corruption: Score 1

Discusses publicly finance election under media concentration

2. Military/Industrial Complex: Score 0

No Mention - surprise

3. Energy: Score 0

No Mention - surprise

4. Unions - Labor and Consumer: Score 1

Strong on consumer and labor proetection

5. Income and Wealth Disparity: Score 0

No Mention - surprise

6. Elections: Score 1

Several specific statements about electoral rfeform

7. Judicial Independence: Score 0

No Mention - surprise

8. Trade deficits: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

9. Usury Law: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

Nader scores 3 of 9 for a .333, bat him after Bill Richardson

Where are the Republicans?

I have been trying figure out why there are no Repoublicans on my roster. I did not set out to be partisan on purpose.

As a student of economics, here's my best guess: Republicans are committed to the form of classical economics now known as the Neo-Liberal or Washington Consensus. Consistent with that belief is the conviction that the market will solve all problems for all people and that any government intervention is bad for people.

My nine points all require a strong government intervention into affairs to avoid a disaster for the American idea.

Regardless of the fact that the Neo-Liberal Consensus is dramatically disproven as an effective framework for national economic policies [see for example: IDEAS, POLICIES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE AMERICAS, Esteban Perez Caldentey and Matias Vernengo, editors, Routledge, 2007 New York; ISBN10 0-415-77055-6 [hbk]], Republicans seem to hold to this concept. Therefore, they are likely to oppose any government action which affects any market.

Until that changes, any Republican administration is likely to threaten the American idea, or at least my personal understanding of it.

Dennis Kucinich

Here's how Dennis Kucinich measures up according to his 2008 web site: [http://kucinich.us/issues].

Kucinich is actively running and has made numerous speeches and pronouncements on and around the issues covered in this blog. Ths scores are based on a quick perusal of his site and perhaps are incomplete.

1.Political Corruption: Score 1

Recognizes the problem and has a specific plan.

2. Military/Industrial Complex: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

3. Energy: Score 1

Recognizes the problem and has a specific plan.

4. Unions - Labor and Consumer: Score 1

Wants to let workers organize

5. Income and Wealth Disparity: Score 1

Recognizes the problem and has a specific plan.

6. Elections: Score 0.5

Covered by implication

7. Judicial Independence: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

8. Trade deficits: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

9. Usury Law: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

Kucinich scores 4.5 of 9 for an even .500, right up there with Clinton but behind Obama.

Earns a spot on the roster.

Home Team

America is facing some big challenges. It's personal, but: Who do I want batting for the home team of the major candidates so far??

Here's my list:

1. Barack Obama: Beats Clinton with 5 of 9 for a .560 average.

2. Hillary Clinton: a pretty good batting average: 4.5 of 9 for a .500 average.

3. Wes Clark scores 4 out of 9 for a batting average of .444.

4. Bill Richardson scores 3.5 out of 9 for a batting average of .390.


I really don't want any hitters with less than a .300 average trying to protect me and my family. Maybe one of the struggling candidates can take some coaching and improve their game, just in case they come up to bat:

5. John Edwards scores 2 out of 9 for a batting average of .220.

6. Mitt Romney: Total 1 of 9 for a batting average of .110.

7. John McCain scores 1 of 9 for a batting average of 110.

If one of the three above gets a plate appearance, we all need to pray a lot.

One candidate should be permanently benched and used only as trade bail: Rudy Giuliani. Sorry, Rudy. You are not my go to guy.

Wes Clark - Revised

Here's how Wes Clark measures up according to a web site labelled 2004. See the site for details: [http://www.clark04.com/issues/].

Although he is apparently not running, the 04 site has many detailed policy papers, some of which address the nine issues by implication rather than directly.

1.Political Corruption: Score 0.5

Wants open government, will reduce corruption to the extent that corruption requires secrecy

2. Military/Industrial Complex: Score 0

Committed to strong military - apparently does not recognize the MIC as a danger

3. Energy: Score 0

Can find no mention of energy alternatives

4. Unions - Labor and Consumer: Score 1

Wants to let workers organize

5. Income and Wealth Disparity: Score 1

Has a tax plan to relieve pressure on the middle class.

6. Elections: Score 0.5

Wants to secure voting for DC citizens, by implication seems to support clean elections

7. Judicial Independence: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

8. Trade deficits: Score 1

Wants to address the job exporting issue; good start, even though he seems not to metion trade deficit specifically

9. Usury Law: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

Wes Clark scores 4 out of 9 for a batting average of .444.

Keep him in the game, try to talk him off the DL.

Wes Clark - comment

Clark is not yet a candidate for office.... until he is, you could refer to http://www.clark04.com/issues/

Fred Thompson

Fred Thompson isn't running and does not yet have any published position papers.

John Edwards

Here's how John Edawrds measures up. See

[http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/] his web site for details. I was expecting a more complete issue coverage, but as of today - 07.08.07 - the coverage is thin.

1.Political Corruption: Score 0

No Mention - a surprise

2. Military/Industrial Complex: Score 0

Could not find any mention, shame.

3. Energy: Score 1

Has an idea about energy alternatives and wants to use less oil

4. Unions - Labor and Consumer: Score 0

No Mention - a surprise

5. Income and Wealth Disparity: Score 1

Mentions a worry about the middle class

6. Elections: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

7. Judicial Independence: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

8. Trade deficits: Score 0

No mention

9. Usury Law: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

John scores 2 out of 9 for a batting average of .220.

Send him to the minors to work on his game.

Bill Richardson

Here's how Bill Richardson measures up. See his web site
[http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/] for details.

1.Political Corruption: Score 0

No Mention - a surprise

2. Military/Industrial Complex: Score 0

Could not find any mention, shame.

3. Energy: Score 1

Has an idea about energy alternatives and wants to use less oil

4. Unions - Labor and Consumer: Score 1

Looks kindly on labor

5. Income and Wealth Disparity: Score 1

Wants to close tax loopholes

6. Elections: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

7. Judicial Independence: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

8. Trade deficits: Score 0.5

He is for free trade as long as it offers protection for labor.

9. Usury Law: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

Bill scores 3.5 out of 9 for a batting average of .390.

Put him in the lineup - maybe as a Veep

Wes Clark

I'd like to discuss Wes Clark but his issue positions on the website [http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/3] are vague and spotty. Perhaps I have not found the correct web page or perhaps General Clark has not addressed the issues yet.

General Clark: Please develop and publish some position papers.

Mitt Romney

Here's how Mitt Romney measures up. See [http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/index] his web site for details.

1.Political Corruption: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

2. Military/Industrial Complex: Score 0

Could not find any mention, shame.

3. Energy: Score 1

Has an idea about energy alternatives and wants to use less oil

4. Unions - Labor and Consumer: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

5. Income and Wealth Disparity: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

6. Elections: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise

7. Judicial Independence: Score 0

Too bad I can't use a negative score - Mitt wants judges to enforce his anti gay marriage agenda

8. Trade deficits: Score 0

Need a negative - he buys yesterday's news that free trade is the only answer to prosperity.

9. Usury Law: Score 0

No Mention - no surprise


Total 1.0 of 9 for a batting average of .110.

Studiously avoids important issues. Let him watch from the bench until he grows up.

Mike Bloomberg

Here's how Mike Bloomberg measures up. See [http://www.mikebloomberg.com/en/issues] for lots of information, but not in critical areas. Maybe he will flesh out his stances as time goes by.

1.Political Corruption: Score 0
No Mention - no surprise

2. Military/Industrial Complex: Score 0
Could not find any mention, shame.

3. Energy: Score 0.5
Has an idea about energy alternatives - at least it's a start

4. Unions - Labor and Consumer: Score 0
No Mention - no surprise

5. Income and Wealth Disparity: Score 0.5
Actually recognizes poverty, but doesn't address the bigger issues

6. Elections: Score 0
No Mention - no surprise

7. Judicial Independence: Score 0
No mention - no surprise

8. Trade deficits: Score 0
No Mention - no surprise

9. Usury Law: Score 0
No Mention - no surprise

Total 1.0 of 9 for a batting average of .110.

On McCain's level now, Let Bloomberg watch from the bench until he grows up.

Rudy Giuliani

Here's how Rudy Giuliani measures up - pretty much a strict Republican who ignores the critical issues and focuses on just getting in power . He is a danger to the American idea.[http://www.joinrudy2008.com/index.php]

1.Political Corruption: Score 0
No Mention - no surprise

2. Military/Industrial Complex: Score 0
Could not find any mention, shame.

3. Energy: Score 0
No Mention - no surprise

4. Unions - Labor and Consumer: Score 0
No Mention - no surprise

5. Income and Wealth Disparity: Score 0
No Mention - no surprise

6. Elections: Score 0
No Mention - no surprise

7. Judicial Independence: Score 0
Too bad I can't use a negative score - Rudy specifically wants more
political judges

8. Trade deficits: Score 0
No Mention - no surprise

9. Usury Law: Score 0
No Mention - no surprise

Perfect zeros - Rudy is a danger to the American idea and should be barred from the stadium.

Complete Candidate List

Need a complete list of presidential candidates??

See

http://wilderside.wordpress.com/prez-08/

Barack Obama

Here's my analysis of how Barack Obama matches up to the nine critical
questions, based on his website today
[http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/]

1.Political Corruption: Score 1
Demonstrated chops - I like it

2. Military/Industrial Complex: Score 0
Could not find any mention, shame.

3. Energy: Score 1
Working the problem

4. Unions - Labor and Consumer: Score 1
Specific mention of unions rights to organize. Also, a plan to help poor people up the ladder

5. Income and Wealth Disparity: Score 1
Explicitly discussed in the poverty section.

6. Elections: Score 1
Specifics proposed in voting section

7. Judicial Independence: Score 0
No mention, shame.

8. Trade deficits: Score 0
No mention

9. Usury Law: Score 0
Are we afraid of the banks??

Beats Clinton with 5 of 9 for a .560 average.

Bat him cleanup.

John McCain

Here's John McCain

1. Political Corruption: Score 1
Big Talk, give him the benefit of the doubt.

2. Military Industrial Complex: Score 0
His approach is to make the military bigger and buy more weapons. Too bad I didn't include a negative score.

3. Energy: Score 0
Not a word.

4. Unions: Score 0
Not a word or a surprise

5. Income/Wealth Disparity: Score 0
Not a word

6. Elections: Score 0
Not a word

7. Judges: Score 0
Not a word

8. Trade balance: Score 0
In favor of free trade and cash outflows; too bad I don't have a negative score

9. Usury: Score 0
Not a word.

John,.......John

You score 1 of 9 for a batting average of .110.

Bench him.

Hillary Clinton

Here's my analysis of how Hillary Clinton matches up to the nine critical questions posed below, based on her website today [http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/]

1.Political Corruption: Score 1
A pretty good ten point plan here - go Hilary

2. Military/Industrial Complex: Score 0
Could not find any mention, shame.

3. Energy: Score 1
Specifically addressed and with the Demos in Congress, she has a clue about alternatives,

4. Unions - Labor and Consumer: Score 0.5
Nothing explicit, but can be read betwen the lines in helping the middle class - are we afraid of upsetting the corps by calling a spade a spade??

5. Income and Wealth Disparity: Score 1
Explicitly discussed in the middle class section.

6. Elections: Score 1
Specifics proposed in good government section

7. Judicial Independence: Score 0
No mention, shame.

8. Trade deficits: Score 0
No mention

9. Usury Law: Score 0
Are we afraid of the banks??

Overall, a pretty good batting average: 4.5 of 9 for a .500 average for Hilary.

Nine Questions

The 2008 Presidential election offers a great chance to see where the country is headed.

This writer thinks there are nine [9] areas where the American idea is actively under attack.

First, I'll list and explain each of the nine areas.

Then, I'll make a comparison of the campaign platform of many of the major presidential candidates to the nine areas. The comparison will be based on the candidate's published positions of each website.

Perhaps some candidates will change their platforms as a result. Who knows?
Here is the list of nine areas:

1. Political corruption - the government of the USA is corrupt. The legislative system require that candidates raise money from rich interests to be elected; then the elected legislators grant favors to their campaign contributors. [You can track corruption and fix it here: http://www.cleanupwashington.org]
The American idea suffers when only money interests receive favorable laws.

2. Military/Indistrial Complex - Contractors receive money from providing products and services to the armed forces. With that money they influence policy to encourage wars. [Track corruption at Soldiers For The Truth: http://www.sftt.org.......fix it here at the National Legal and Policy Center: http://www.nlpc.org]
Our military is corrupted when wars are started or encouraged by companies who profit from a war - that is not an American idea.

3. Energy - Oil interests damage the national security by promoting our dependence on oil.
A new bill was proposed recently in the House of Representatives to fund searches for oil alternatives. This is a good idea.
Here's another: let's treat oil like a public utility. After all, everyone needs it, just like water and electricity. So let's create a national oil commission that will plan for energy alternatives and regulate the price of oil so that oil companies can earn a reasonable rate of return but not any excessive profits.
Failure to deal with our energy problem will damage our future.

4. Labor and Consumer Unions - Corruption favors business interests over workers and consumers. It is time to restore a more equal balance between labor and business and consumers. [Track efforts against unions: http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/antiunionnetwork/.........track consumer problems here: http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Consumer_Safety.shtml..........Fix with new laws here: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/mlrhome.htm]
Continued weakening of labor and consumer power will damage the working family, the backbone of America.

5. Income and wealth Disparity - we are becoming a two tier country; the middle class is becoming weaker.
Our idea has been that Americans are mostly middle class. That idea is in trouble.
Track and fix here: http://www.workertimes.com/news/disparity.html

6. Elections - The foundation of the American idea is that voters can change the government if it is unresponsive. But, if the voting process is manipulated for partisan purposes, the American ideal is gone.
Track computer Fraud here: http://www.votefraud.org/............General voting problems: http://www.commondreams.org/newswire.htm........Volunteer here: http://www.onebrick.org

7. Judicial Indepedence - Judges must be above politics to protect our values.
Track pressures on judges: http://www.afj.org.........Solutions here: http://www.legislationline.org

8. Trade Deficits - trade deficts reflect an economic imbalance that will eventually damage the American way of life.
Track: http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/indicators_intlpict_archive..........Solution: http://www.mkeever.com/essay.html

9. Usury - Banks contribute to destroying the middls class with usurious interest rates. We need a national law.
Compare credit cards here: http://www.indexcreditcards.com....and here http://www.bankrate.com....... track usury in your state here: http://www.usurylaw.com/

That's the list.

Do It Yourself

Legislators and bureaucrats respond to pressure; pressure is just people showing up to voice concerns. So, find a few friends who share your concerns and then show up in DC or your state capital and apply pressure for the right things. Don't leave it to the professionals because they work for the highest bidder.