I am a recently retired college economics teacher who has had the honor to act as a Hillary surrogate some 14 times.
Our country is at a crossroads where our fundamental values are under attack by some wrong headed Republicans.
The times are similar to the 1930's or the 1860's. Our next President will determine the future of the country.
Obama has raised doubts about his competence to govern at this critical time.
For example, he said in the Texas debate that universal health care is his goal; and yet acknowledged that his health care plan will not cover everyone and will require fines for parents who fail to insure their children.
This disconnect between goals and policies seems careless at best and incompetent at worst.
One more example: In that debate Obama also said that he believes in free markets and that he would make sure that our children did not have to play with toys that had lead filled paint on them.
Those positions are mutually inconsistent. And, if he doesn't know that, it raises concerns.
If he favors free markets, he favors business interests over children. That sounds just like the Bush policies he says he wants to change. But, if he favors children over business, he will be called a big government Democrat and lose business support.
His job is to 'parse' those positions and create a policy statement that will gain support from both groups. Until he can do that, he is not ready for prime time and McCain will eat his lunch.
I think you take my point by now.
The United States of America requires a President equal to the tasks we face.
Hillary is the only candidate equal to the tasks.
If Obama is elected he will require extensive hands on guidance from professional and competent advisors throughout his administration.
I hope that you will insist on that.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Open Letter to Senator Obama
Dear Senator Obama:
After Wisconsin, the math seems insurmountable for Hillary.
I think that is a disappointment for the country since she is the best candidate in the race. I am hoping for a miracle.
But, as an old man I have seen many things and I don't believe in much, except this: we make our own future.
Somehow Hillary made her own future and now you will make yours.
I pray you do a good job.
I recall hearing a college commencement speech from years ago in which the speaker told the fresh faced grads this, more or less: "You know how you worked really hard on that big semester project. You stayed up late and asked your friends for help. You rewrote it several times and finally it was done. You felt good that you had completed the biggest job of your life and that it was the hardest you had ever worked.
Well, in the real world it is like that every day."
Welcome to the real world Senator. You worked real hard to win lots of delegates and your chances of winning the nomination are good. The real world starts when you face McCain.
Senator McCain is a better man than you are, Senator. As a politician, he prety much torpedoed Romney on a debate and it was over.
Read McCain's speech from yesterday to see what I mean. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/us/politics/19text-mccain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
He has a clear vision for the country and has demonstrated the personal integrity and gravitas the country needs to lead us.
But, he has many weaknesses as well, most of which come from his Republican beliefs and baggage.
The country will be better served with you as a Democrat as President. But, that will happen only when you become a better man.
I think you can become that better man and we all hope fervently that you become one real soon.
Here's how to become one.
I am not asking that you suffer a great personal tragedy as an adult such as the loss of a child or a divorce. Either of those can temper a man.
But the country needs some things from you that I have not seen yet.
First, it needs the recognition that a President stands in the shoes of Washinton, Jefferson, both Adams, both Roosevelts, Truman, Clinton and both Bushes. That requires a little humility. Constant calls for change diminish the memory of our heritage. Sure, that heritage includes some bad stuff, but it has a lot of good in it. You need to acknowledge the good.
Start by wearing the flag on your lapel; take it back from the Reps.
Second, it needs a clear and consistent positive vision for the future. Where is that?
So far, your consistent vision is that you are black and you hope for change.
Well, maybe that gets you the nomination; but it won't get you the election.
The country is in an unusual place. Bush has created a machinery of repression and class warfare that has voters in an uproar. That's why a call for change resonates. But with Bush becoming quieter as his term closes, the calls for change will be yesterday's news very soon.
You need a positive vision. You don't have one yet. And a lot of that vision will center around economics, which is my field.
Here's an example of how you raise concerns: Yesterday you said that you believe in free markets and that you would make sure that our children did not have to play with toys that had lead filled paint on them.
Well, Senator, those positions are mutually inconsistent. And, if you don't know that, it raises concerns.
If you favor free markets, you favor business interests over children. That sounds just like the Bush policies you say you want to change. But, if you favor children over business, you become a big government Democrat and lose business support.
Your job is to 'parse' those position and create a policy statement that will gain you support from both groups. Until you can do that, you are not ready for prime time and McCain will eat your lunch.
The reality part is this: you face the same problem on ALL the issues that face our country.
Here's a partial list of those problems:
Election fraud
Military/industrial/oil complex
Political corruption
Deficits and Taxes
Trade policy
National Security
I think you know the rest of the list.
In closing Senator, I hope that you will recognize the spirit in which these criticisms are offered and will take from them what you find useful. If so, I will be honored if you wish to continue the discussion in a form you find useful.
Regards,
Mike P.McKeever
PPS - Acording to KPFA radio February 20 on Flashpoints, your campaign finance chair is Penny Pritzger who is directly involved in the bank which originated the sub prime mortgage bonds which are directly responsible for the mortgage meltdown.
Additionally, her bank received favorable treatment from the FDIC so that her family benefitted before the depositors in her failed bank.
It would seem that this, if true, might require a comment from you, especially since you are rightfully proud of your large number of contributors. But, a very wealthy, perhaps ethically challenged finance chair is not in the spirit of your 'new' politics.
After Wisconsin, the math seems insurmountable for Hillary.
I think that is a disappointment for the country since she is the best candidate in the race. I am hoping for a miracle.
But, as an old man I have seen many things and I don't believe in much, except this: we make our own future.
Somehow Hillary made her own future and now you will make yours.
I pray you do a good job.
I recall hearing a college commencement speech from years ago in which the speaker told the fresh faced grads this, more or less: "You know how you worked really hard on that big semester project. You stayed up late and asked your friends for help. You rewrote it several times and finally it was done. You felt good that you had completed the biggest job of your life and that it was the hardest you had ever worked.
Well, in the real world it is like that every day."
Welcome to the real world Senator. You worked real hard to win lots of delegates and your chances of winning the nomination are good. The real world starts when you face McCain.
Senator McCain is a better man than you are, Senator. As a politician, he prety much torpedoed Romney on a debate and it was over.
Read McCain's speech from yesterday to see what I mean. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/us/politics/19text-mccain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
He has a clear vision for the country and has demonstrated the personal integrity and gravitas the country needs to lead us.
But, he has many weaknesses as well, most of which come from his Republican beliefs and baggage.
The country will be better served with you as a Democrat as President. But, that will happen only when you become a better man.
I think you can become that better man and we all hope fervently that you become one real soon.
Here's how to become one.
I am not asking that you suffer a great personal tragedy as an adult such as the loss of a child or a divorce. Either of those can temper a man.
But the country needs some things from you that I have not seen yet.
First, it needs the recognition that a President stands in the shoes of Washinton, Jefferson, both Adams, both Roosevelts, Truman, Clinton and both Bushes. That requires a little humility. Constant calls for change diminish the memory of our heritage. Sure, that heritage includes some bad stuff, but it has a lot of good in it. You need to acknowledge the good.
Start by wearing the flag on your lapel; take it back from the Reps.
Second, it needs a clear and consistent positive vision for the future. Where is that?
So far, your consistent vision is that you are black and you hope for change.
Well, maybe that gets you the nomination; but it won't get you the election.
The country is in an unusual place. Bush has created a machinery of repression and class warfare that has voters in an uproar. That's why a call for change resonates. But with Bush becoming quieter as his term closes, the calls for change will be yesterday's news very soon.
You need a positive vision. You don't have one yet. And a lot of that vision will center around economics, which is my field.
Here's an example of how you raise concerns: Yesterday you said that you believe in free markets and that you would make sure that our children did not have to play with toys that had lead filled paint on them.
Well, Senator, those positions are mutually inconsistent. And, if you don't know that, it raises concerns.
If you favor free markets, you favor business interests over children. That sounds just like the Bush policies you say you want to change. But, if you favor children over business, you become a big government Democrat and lose business support.
Your job is to 'parse' those position and create a policy statement that will gain you support from both groups. Until you can do that, you are not ready for prime time and McCain will eat your lunch.
The reality part is this: you face the same problem on ALL the issues that face our country.
Here's a partial list of those problems:
Election fraud
Military/industrial/oil complex
Political corruption
Deficits and Taxes
Trade policy
National Security
I think you know the rest of the list.
In closing Senator, I hope that you will recognize the spirit in which these criticisms are offered and will take from them what you find useful. If so, I will be honored if you wish to continue the discussion in a form you find useful.
Regards,
Mike P.McKeever
PPS - Acording to KPFA radio February 20 on Flashpoints, your campaign finance chair is Penny Pritzger who is directly involved in the bank which originated the sub prime mortgage bonds which are directly responsible for the mortgage meltdown.
Additionally, her bank received favorable treatment from the FDIC so that her family benefitted before the depositors in her failed bank.
It would seem that this, if true, might require a comment from you, especially since you are rightfully proud of your large number of contributors. But, a very wealthy, perhaps ethically challenged finance chair is not in the spirit of your 'new' politics.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Demagogues and Primaries
Lots of primaries and many Obama wins. He seems to have momentum.
I have been trying to figure out why and the word demagogue keeps coming to mind. I tried to look it up but I couldn't spell it, so I used spell check to learn. Finally found it.
Webster defines a demagogue as 'leader championing the cause of the common people...' and ' a leader who makes use of common prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.' Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1984.
Pretty much every claim I have heard him make seems patently false and obviously appeals to common prejudices. For example, his claim that he was against the Iraq war seems to rest on one speech in 2002. But,it was not followed up with votes.
This is very disappointing since his policy positions are pretty sound.
So, why do the media and many voters accept his claims at face value?
Probably because no one challenges him on his statements. Seems an unchallenged statement is accepted.
Here we have a leading Democrat presidential candidate who is unchallenged on his claims.
Remarkable.
I do not think it will continue. Either Hillary will go after him as he has begun to do to her, or he will win the nomination and the Reps will tear him up.
Either way is bad for the country, but the least unfavorable alternative is for Hillary to school him. Hopefully the schooling will gain her the nomination, but, if not, then he will get practice for McCain at least.
What will happen?
Hillary must do very well in the Texas/Ohio/Pennsylvania races to be in the running. Then they will be neck and neck.
But, the country cannot afford to give McCain a three month headstart while Hillary and Obama are feuding.
So I think Howard Dean is right, the Dems must broker a deal in April and not wait until August for a nominee..
Two possible deals:
1. One agrees to bow out.
2. They both agree to refrain from attacking each other and double team McCain.
While number 2 may be easier to negotiate, self interest will probably doom it in 30 days.
Logical choice is number 1.
Here's a method: Choose leader on popular votes plus delegates including Florida and Michigan. The other bows and retires or agrees to VP or some other consolation prize.
What a mess.
I have been trying to figure out why and the word demagogue keeps coming to mind. I tried to look it up but I couldn't spell it, so I used spell check to learn. Finally found it.
Webster defines a demagogue as 'leader championing the cause of the common people...' and ' a leader who makes use of common prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.' Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1984.
Pretty much every claim I have heard him make seems patently false and obviously appeals to common prejudices. For example, his claim that he was against the Iraq war seems to rest on one speech in 2002. But,it was not followed up with votes.
This is very disappointing since his policy positions are pretty sound.
So, why do the media and many voters accept his claims at face value?
Probably because no one challenges him on his statements. Seems an unchallenged statement is accepted.
Here we have a leading Democrat presidential candidate who is unchallenged on his claims.
Remarkable.
I do not think it will continue. Either Hillary will go after him as he has begun to do to her, or he will win the nomination and the Reps will tear him up.
Either way is bad for the country, but the least unfavorable alternative is for Hillary to school him. Hopefully the schooling will gain her the nomination, but, if not, then he will get practice for McCain at least.
What will happen?
Hillary must do very well in the Texas/Ohio/Pennsylvania races to be in the running. Then they will be neck and neck.
But, the country cannot afford to give McCain a three month headstart while Hillary and Obama are feuding.
So I think Howard Dean is right, the Dems must broker a deal in April and not wait until August for a nominee..
Two possible deals:
1. One agrees to bow out.
2. They both agree to refrain from attacking each other and double team McCain.
While number 2 may be easier to negotiate, self interest will probably doom it in 30 days.
Logical choice is number 1.
Here's a method: Choose leader on popular votes plus delegates including Florida and Michigan. The other bows and retires or agrees to VP or some other consolation prize.
What a mess.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Super Tuesday
As the race tightens and Obama makes some headway, it is easy to lose sight of the ball: Hillary will win.
Here's why:
1. Demographics. Obama won South Carolina by getting some 70% of the black voters and about 25% of the white voters. Among the white voters, he gained a lot of voters under 30. But the state is 50% black. A CNN analyst projected the South Carolina numbers nationally and found that Hillary has the edge from her winning a majority of white voters and about 25% of black voters.
2. Issues: When adults look seriously at Obama's issues, the issues' shallowness is apparent. See below. He has created a share of the population who really don't like on a visceral level to listen to him.
3. Momentum: He has some now because Hillary is giving him a pass on negative ads. It's time to bring up some troubling issues about him to slow his momentum. This time the issues should be from Hillary and not from The Bill.
[The following needs serious fact checking before going live.]
a. Iraq: "I voted for the senate resolution because I judged that it was the best thing for the United States of America based on the facts I had at the time. Most other senators agreed with me because it passed xx to xx.
Senator Obama made a speech condemning the war in 2002. I congratulate him for that speech. But, it is not enough to be right. Just being right doesn't help our great country if it is not followed by action. Senator Obama did not act on his conviction by voting against the bill. In fact he voted present/didn't show up. Then, he later voted in favor of two bills supporting the war. I ask you, do we want a man in the Oval Office who doesn't stand up for what he believes. I think we do not."
b. Old vs. New: Senator Obama has made a public pronouncement that it is time to throw out the old and install the new. What does that mean?
Does it mean that we need to forcibly retire older people? If so, how old does the senator think a person is when he or she is no longer useful? Is it 65? 75? 85? When does a person lose his or her right to contribute to America Senator?
Or maybe it means that our political process is too old and needs changing. Is that it Senator? Does our constitution need to be scrapped? Does our system of checks and balances that has served us well since 1789 need to be thrown out. What about it Senator Obama? What should we install to replace our Constitution?
c. Baby Boomer Issues: Senator Obama has said that it is time to stop fighting baby boomer issues and move on to something else. The last time I looked, Senator Obama at the age of 46 is in fact a baby boomer. OK, we will let him renounce his generation. I don't know why he wants to do that, but I suppose he can if he wants. Maybe he wants to be younger. Gee, Senator, I would like to be 30 again, but it is not going to happen.
So what are the 'Baby Boomer' issues he is tired of fighting? Is it the Vietnam War? Are you tired of dealing with Vietnam veterans issues Senator?
It is true; a lot of veterans from that war have serious problems. But, I for one do not think that we should turn our backs on them. To borrow a phrase from Governor Huckabee, we are a better nation that that, Senator.
Or maybe he is tired of dealing with Social Security and Medicare. Is that it, Senator? Would you prefer to not bother with those issues?
Well, Senator, the President does not get to choose the issues which challenge the country. She has to represent all the people in the country and deal with all the issues affecting the country. It is a hard job, Senator, as Bush found out. If you are having second thoughts about it, just let me know.
d. Washington DC: The Senator has said that the system in Washington is broken and needs to be fixed. We actually agree here and I have made several specific proposals on how to fix the system which you can read on my website www.hillaryclinton.com
But, Senator, there are hundreds of thousands of patriotic Americans in Washington DC who have devoted their lives to making our country better by working within the political system. You disrespect them by saying that the entire system is broken and needs to be scrapped. I don't agree with many of the people in Washington, but I respect their patriotism and work with them to solve our country's issues every day.
Here's a question for you Senator: How can you bring our country together if you start by insulting the people you have to work with to change our country?
The only way that could work is if they recognize that your insults are just political rhetoric and do not hold it against you. So, how about it Senator, are your insults to people in DC just empty rhetoric?
e. Politics of Division: Senator Obama has said that his is a new politics of inclusiveness that rejects the old politics of personal attacks and divisiveness.
But, senator Obama, you have personally attacked me very frequently and you take great pains to set yourself apart from the existing system. Seems it seems to me that you are actively practicing the politics of division at the same time you are saying that you are not. I am confused Senator. Which is it?
f. Change: Senator Obama has argued that he is the best person to bring about change in government.
HELLO! I'm a WOMAN. I'll fire all of George Bush's political hacks and hire real, knowledgeble regulators to protect the American people first and corporations second. I'll implement my ten point plan to fight corruption within 90 days. I'll send normal American people to meet with foreign governments and restore our reputation in the world. And that's just a start; go to my website for my multi-faceted plan for change.
Here's why:
1. Demographics. Obama won South Carolina by getting some 70% of the black voters and about 25% of the white voters. Among the white voters, he gained a lot of voters under 30. But the state is 50% black. A CNN analyst projected the South Carolina numbers nationally and found that Hillary has the edge from her winning a majority of white voters and about 25% of black voters.
2. Issues: When adults look seriously at Obama's issues, the issues' shallowness is apparent. See below. He has created a share of the population who really don't like on a visceral level to listen to him.
3. Momentum: He has some now because Hillary is giving him a pass on negative ads. It's time to bring up some troubling issues about him to slow his momentum. This time the issues should be from Hillary and not from The Bill.
[The following needs serious fact checking before going live.]
a. Iraq: "I voted for the senate resolution because I judged that it was the best thing for the United States of America based on the facts I had at the time. Most other senators agreed with me because it passed xx to xx.
Senator Obama made a speech condemning the war in 2002. I congratulate him for that speech. But, it is not enough to be right. Just being right doesn't help our great country if it is not followed by action. Senator Obama did not act on his conviction by voting against the bill. In fact he voted present/didn't show up. Then, he later voted in favor of two bills supporting the war. I ask you, do we want a man in the Oval Office who doesn't stand up for what he believes. I think we do not."
b. Old vs. New: Senator Obama has made a public pronouncement that it is time to throw out the old and install the new. What does that mean?
Does it mean that we need to forcibly retire older people? If so, how old does the senator think a person is when he or she is no longer useful? Is it 65? 75? 85? When does a person lose his or her right to contribute to America Senator?
Or maybe it means that our political process is too old and needs changing. Is that it Senator? Does our constitution need to be scrapped? Does our system of checks and balances that has served us well since 1789 need to be thrown out. What about it Senator Obama? What should we install to replace our Constitution?
c. Baby Boomer Issues: Senator Obama has said that it is time to stop fighting baby boomer issues and move on to something else. The last time I looked, Senator Obama at the age of 46 is in fact a baby boomer. OK, we will let him renounce his generation. I don't know why he wants to do that, but I suppose he can if he wants. Maybe he wants to be younger. Gee, Senator, I would like to be 30 again, but it is not going to happen.
So what are the 'Baby Boomer' issues he is tired of fighting? Is it the Vietnam War? Are you tired of dealing with Vietnam veterans issues Senator?
It is true; a lot of veterans from that war have serious problems. But, I for one do not think that we should turn our backs on them. To borrow a phrase from Governor Huckabee, we are a better nation that that, Senator.
Or maybe he is tired of dealing with Social Security and Medicare. Is that it, Senator? Would you prefer to not bother with those issues?
Well, Senator, the President does not get to choose the issues which challenge the country. She has to represent all the people in the country and deal with all the issues affecting the country. It is a hard job, Senator, as Bush found out. If you are having second thoughts about it, just let me know.
d. Washington DC: The Senator has said that the system in Washington is broken and needs to be fixed. We actually agree here and I have made several specific proposals on how to fix the system which you can read on my website www.hillaryclinton.com
But, Senator, there are hundreds of thousands of patriotic Americans in Washington DC who have devoted their lives to making our country better by working within the political system. You disrespect them by saying that the entire system is broken and needs to be scrapped. I don't agree with many of the people in Washington, but I respect their patriotism and work with them to solve our country's issues every day.
Here's a question for you Senator: How can you bring our country together if you start by insulting the people you have to work with to change our country?
The only way that could work is if they recognize that your insults are just political rhetoric and do not hold it against you. So, how about it Senator, are your insults to people in DC just empty rhetoric?
e. Politics of Division: Senator Obama has said that his is a new politics of inclusiveness that rejects the old politics of personal attacks and divisiveness.
But, senator Obama, you have personally attacked me very frequently and you take great pains to set yourself apart from the existing system. Seems it seems to me that you are actively practicing the politics of division at the same time you are saying that you are not. I am confused Senator. Which is it?
f. Change: Senator Obama has argued that he is the best person to bring about change in government.
HELLO! I'm a WOMAN. I'll fire all of George Bush's political hacks and hire real, knowledgeble regulators to protect the American people first and corporations second. I'll implement my ten point plan to fight corruption within 90 days. I'll send normal American people to meet with foreign governments and restore our reputation in the world. And that's just a start; go to my website for my multi-faceted plan for change.
Friday, February 1, 2008
L.A. Debate
Question: "Who won?"
Answer: it wasn't about winning - it was about the base.
Hillary didn't offend her base and offered specific, competent policy proposals that will help our country.
Obama appealed to his base with vaguely threatening and opaque appeals to throw out the older people, bring in hope and trust him to give you whatever you want.
We'll see.
Answer: it wasn't about winning - it was about the base.
Hillary didn't offend her base and offered specific, competent policy proposals that will help our country.
Obama appealed to his base with vaguely threatening and opaque appeals to throw out the older people, bring in hope and trust him to give you whatever you want.
We'll see.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Florida
Big win for Hillary in Florida. Let's get the convention to accept the delegates from Florida and Michigan.
Good momentum for Super-Dooper Tuesday.
It's possible that Obama will get the nod - if Obama is the nominee I will volunteer to work hard for him by highlighting his apparent shortcomings so he may become a stronger candidate- any Dem is better than any Rep. Of course, he may very well suggest that when he wants my opinion he will give it to me. Que sera, que sera.
Obama creates a very negative impression among some voters that is not about his race. It seems to be about his oratorical style. It turns off many people. No idea about numbers or percentages - this is just an anecdotal impression.
Good momentum for Super-Dooper Tuesday.
It's possible that Obama will get the nod - if Obama is the nominee I will volunteer to work hard for him by highlighting his apparent shortcomings so he may become a stronger candidate- any Dem is better than any Rep. Of course, he may very well suggest that when he wants my opinion he will give it to me. Que sera, que sera.
Obama creates a very negative impression among some voters that is not about his race. It seems to be about his oratorical style. It turns off many people. No idea about numbers or percentages - this is just an anecdotal impression.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
South Carolina
Obama won a victory in South Carolina he needed and expected.
But, I have to confess that his passive aggresive attacks on Hillary are annoying - conducting business as usual while condemning business as usual.
For example, from his victory speech [see at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/26/obama.transcript/?iref=hpmostpop]:
"......And in nine days, in nine short days, nearly half the nation will have the chance to join us in saying that we are tired of business as usual in Washington. We are hungry for change and we are ready to believe again.....
...It's a status quo that extends beyond any particular party and right now that status quo is fighting back with everything it's got, with the same old tactics that divide and distract us from solving the problems people face, whether those problems are health care that folks can't afford or a mortgage they cannot pay....
...So this will not be easy. Make no mistake about what we're up against. We're up against the belief that it's all right for lobbyists to dominate our government, that they are just part of the system in Washington...."
Neat trick. Here's hoping voters will see through the denial.
My wife is Russian and his speech reminded her of a communist rally exhorting the troops to attack something.
It's a long campaign and it is not over.
But, I have to confess that his passive aggresive attacks on Hillary are annoying - conducting business as usual while condemning business as usual.
For example, from his victory speech [see at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/26/obama.transcript/?iref=hpmostpop]:
"......And in nine days, in nine short days, nearly half the nation will have the chance to join us in saying that we are tired of business as usual in Washington. We are hungry for change and we are ready to believe again.....
...It's a status quo that extends beyond any particular party and right now that status quo is fighting back with everything it's got, with the same old tactics that divide and distract us from solving the problems people face, whether those problems are health care that folks can't afford or a mortgage they cannot pay....
...So this will not be easy. Make no mistake about what we're up against. We're up against the belief that it's all right for lobbyists to dominate our government, that they are just part of the system in Washington...."
Neat trick. Here's hoping voters will see through the denial.
My wife is Russian and his speech reminded her of a communist rally exhorting the troops to attack something.
It's a long campaign and it is not over.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Questions, Questions
Voters are taking this very seriously. As an occasional surrogate I hear the questions.
Questions are dead on the issues and very thoughtful.
The Bill [C] is right - people don't ask about the pundit BS. That's just on TV and in the newspapers.
I don't get it - how did such a thoughtful and skeptical nation stand for eight years of BushCo.
Maybe we'll never know; maybe Lincoln was right: 'You can fool all of the people some of the time....'.
But, eight years. C'mon Abe, enough already.
Questions are dead on the issues and very thoughtful.
The Bill [C] is right - people don't ask about the pundit BS. That's just on TV and in the newspapers.
I don't get it - how did such a thoughtful and skeptical nation stand for eight years of BushCo.
Maybe we'll never know; maybe Lincoln was right: 'You can fool all of the people some of the time....'.
But, eight years. C'mon Abe, enough already.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Las Vegas:
Watched the whole debate last night where all three were super polite.
Hillary nailed the policy discussions - no contest.
Obama is his own worst enemy in policy. So, steer discussion to policy and let him flounder.
Hillary's core supporters already get that he is weak in many areas and Obama's supporters don't want to hear any crticism, so further attacks on Obama will probably not convince anyone to change vote.
Best bet, focus on core support and get out vote.
Hillary nailed the policy discussions - no contest.
Obama is his own worst enemy in policy. So, steer discussion to policy and let him flounder.
Hillary's core supporters already get that he is weak in many areas and Obama's supporters don't want to hear any crticism, so further attacks on Obama will probably not convince anyone to change vote.
Best bet, focus on core support and get out vote.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Get In The Game
After New Hampshire:
EVERY VOTE COUNTS!!!!
GET IN THE GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A cliche, but very true on February 5.
This is the most important presidential election in 50 years. We need to be sure the winner is a democrat and that Hillary is that democrat.
From first hand experience - this is a real horse race. Lots of interest, lots of passion.
Hillary will need every vote she can get. And, your effort will make the difference. If you help we get Hillary. If you don't help we get Edwards or Obama. Pretty much that simple.
EVERY VOTE COUNTS!!!!
GET IN THE GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A cliche, but very true on February 5.
This is the most important presidential election in 50 years. We need to be sure the winner is a democrat and that Hillary is that democrat.
From first hand experience - this is a real horse race. Lots of interest, lots of passion.
Hillary will need every vote she can get. And, your effort will make the difference. If you help we get Hillary. If you don't help we get Edwards or Obama. Pretty much that simple.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
New Hampshire??
At this writing the polls say that Hillary is second to Obama.
Where from here??
Re-position as
1. Positive and inclusive vision for future based on asking for help from all the people in policy strength areas. For example, "With your help, we will pass a health plan that will make sure that every American child has the best health care! I will need your help to call your congressmen and pass the health care law."
2. Appeal to proven, existing Democrat base as the responsible, adult alternative to Bush. Show Bush as implusive, naive which results in many disasters. By implication only as opposed to direct attacks, paint Obama and Edwards as also impulsive and naive and likely to end in a similar place.
Remember the delegate count: the nominee is chosen at the convention. Stay in the race until the delegates are counted.
Front runners may change. Only the shadow knows!!!!!!!!!!
Where from here??
Re-position as
1. Positive and inclusive vision for future based on asking for help from all the people in policy strength areas. For example, "With your help, we will pass a health plan that will make sure that every American child has the best health care! I will need your help to call your congressmen and pass the health care law."
2. Appeal to proven, existing Democrat base as the responsible, adult alternative to Bush. Show Bush as implusive, naive which results in many disasters. By implication only as opposed to direct attacks, paint Obama and Edwards as also impulsive and naive and likely to end in a similar place.
Remember the delegate count: the nominee is chosen at the convention. Stay in the race until the delegates are counted.
Front runners may change. Only the shadow knows!!!!!!!!!!
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Iowa Lessons - 2
Good Washington Post article on campaign strategy here
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010404002.html
Hillary needs to go after the independents and younger voters as well as the core of older women.
What to do: my answer is the same as before.
1. Admit learning from Iowa that the country wants CHANGE. Very strongly.
"I know you voters need to hear that your candidate will make changes. Maybe I was not clear enough in Iowa. Make no mistake: I will deliver real change in Washington, not just promises. That's what this campaign has always been about. Republicans have taken our country in the wrong direction and I will put it back in the right direction."
2. Question Obama's ability to DELIVER change while acknowledging his oratorical ability to beg for it:
"Remember, folks, that the devil is in the details. I know from experience that it's easy to call for change with an inspiring speech. But, to use a mechanic's metaphor, it is entirely different to break out the wrenches, take off the valve covers and head gaskets and see which valves are burnt. That's hard work.
I am not here because I want to do the easy things. I am here because I want to do the hard things."
Also question Edward's abilities similarly:
"And, it's easy to complain about corporations and demand that they be stopped, but it's another thing entirely to fight them head on and win the battle."
3. Choose major themes of change and give a detailed, five minute breakdown on at least three at each speech.
"Here's some things that are broken in health care and how I will fix them:
Here are some things that are broken in the law making process and how I will fix them:
Here are some things that are broken in environmental regulation and how I will fix them:
Here are some things that are broken in the weapons procurement program and how I will fix them:"
4. Stem winding close:
"If you want empty promises of a bright. shiny future, I am not your woman. But, if you want real change that will make your daily life better.....if you want real change that will make your family healthier, if you want real change that will take power away from Halliburton and the oil companies, if you want real change that will GIVE OUR COUNTRY BACK TO US. Then I....AM....YOUR....WOMAN"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010404002.html
Hillary needs to go after the independents and younger voters as well as the core of older women.
What to do: my answer is the same as before.
1. Admit learning from Iowa that the country wants CHANGE. Very strongly.
"I know you voters need to hear that your candidate will make changes. Maybe I was not clear enough in Iowa. Make no mistake: I will deliver real change in Washington, not just promises. That's what this campaign has always been about. Republicans have taken our country in the wrong direction and I will put it back in the right direction."
2. Question Obama's ability to DELIVER change while acknowledging his oratorical ability to beg for it:
"Remember, folks, that the devil is in the details. I know from experience that it's easy to call for change with an inspiring speech. But, to use a mechanic's metaphor, it is entirely different to break out the wrenches, take off the valve covers and head gaskets and see which valves are burnt. That's hard work.
I am not here because I want to do the easy things. I am here because I want to do the hard things."
Also question Edward's abilities similarly:
"And, it's easy to complain about corporations and demand that they be stopped, but it's another thing entirely to fight them head on and win the battle."
3. Choose major themes of change and give a detailed, five minute breakdown on at least three at each speech.
"Here's some things that are broken in health care and how I will fix them:
Here are some things that are broken in the law making process and how I will fix them:
Here are some things that are broken in environmental regulation and how I will fix them:
Here are some things that are broken in the weapons procurement program and how I will fix them:"
4. Stem winding close:
"If you want empty promises of a bright. shiny future, I am not your woman. But, if you want real change that will make your daily life better.....if you want real change that will make your family healthier, if you want real change that will take power away from Halliburton and the oil companies, if you want real change that will GIVE OUR COUNTRY BACK TO US. Then I....AM....YOUR....WOMAN"
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Iowa Lessons
Watched Iowa on MSNBC in a room with about 40 other Dems of varying loyalties.
My take on the results: Obama and Edwards tap into the need for an about face from BushCo.
Wrongly, Hillary may be seen as status quo.
So, explicitly acknowledge Iowa lessons of need for new direction for country.
Then, state a message of campaign refocus of existing themes to identify the new direction clearly.
Last, list the changes that will be coming:
Health care for all
Enforce environmental regs
Clean up elections
Competitive bidding for all contracts.
etc., etc.,
...................It ain't over.
My take on the results: Obama and Edwards tap into the need for an about face from BushCo.
Wrongly, Hillary may be seen as status quo.
So, explicitly acknowledge Iowa lessons of need for new direction for country.
Then, state a message of campaign refocus of existing themes to identify the new direction clearly.
Last, list the changes that will be coming:
Health care for all
Enforce environmental regs
Clean up elections
Competitive bidding for all contracts.
etc., etc.,
...................It ain't over.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
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
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2007/12/19/notes121907.DTL
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, December 3, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
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}
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}
Saturday, November 24, 2007
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.
Contribute online here:
https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/form.html?sc=ac0&rc=XB45
Thank you.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
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."
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."
Monday, November 5, 2007
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.
"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.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
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.]
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.]
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
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.
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.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
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
Will take a break to visit grandchildren, play old man baseball between Oct 14 and 31.
ciao
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
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.................
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.................
Saturday, September 15, 2007
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
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
Friday, September 14, 2007
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.
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.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
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
Thanks for your interest.
Ciao,
McKeever
Monday, August 13, 2007
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.
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.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
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
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
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
