Saturday, August 23, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Next For Obama
It's a horse race.
Recommendation: Confront McCain on his American beliefs.
For example, McCain thinks the market should solve social issues - let the strong survive.
But, America is a compassionate country, we believe in taking responsibility for all our people. We don't let the weak die from neglect.
That's why the Marines leave no one on the battlefield.
It's the American thing to do.
Recommendation: Confront McCain on his American beliefs.
For example, McCain thinks the market should solve social issues - let the strong survive.
But, America is a compassionate country, we believe in taking responsibility for all our people. We don't let the weak die from neglect.
That's why the Marines leave no one on the battlefield.
It's the American thing to do.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Cheney/Bush: Please Shut Up Now
You are lame ducks.
Sadly, some people may actually believe you. Then, other people will die.
Take a vacation from now until next March, in God's name.
Medvedev outlines six principles to normalize situation in Georgia
1449 GMT
MOSCOW. Aug 12 (Interfax) - The Russian and French presidents have adopted a joint statement calling on the parties to the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict not to use force and stop all military actions.
The statement outlines six principles to settle the conflict, and the two presidents urged the conflicting parties to follow them, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said at a press conference in Moscow.
"First, they must not resort to force. Second, they absolutely stop any military actions. Third, there must be free access to humanitarian aid. Fourth, the Georgian armed forces need to be returned to their permanent bases. Fifth, the Russian armed forces will be moved back to their positions before the military actions. Sixth, the beginning of international discussion of South Ossetia's and Abkhazia's future status and ways to ensure their stable security," Medvedev said.
Sadly, some people may actually believe you. Then, other people will die.
Take a vacation from now until next March, in God's name.
Medvedev outlines six principles to normalize situation in Georgia
1449 GMT
MOSCOW. Aug 12 (Interfax) - The Russian and French presidents have adopted a joint statement calling on the parties to the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict not to use force and stop all military actions.
The statement outlines six principles to settle the conflict, and the two presidents urged the conflicting parties to follow them, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said at a press conference in Moscow.
"First, they must not resort to force. Second, they absolutely stop any military actions. Third, there must be free access to humanitarian aid. Fourth, the Georgian armed forces need to be returned to their permanent bases. Fifth, the Russian armed forces will be moved back to their positions before the military actions. Sixth, the beginning of international discussion of South Ossetia's and Abkhazia's future status and ways to ensure their stable security," Medvedev said.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Advice to Obama: Attack - Don't Be Kerry
John Kerry focused on not losing because voters did not like Bush.
He did not attack.
Sound familiar? read this piece:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-chait31-2008jul31,0,6008771.story
He did not attack.
Sound familiar? read this piece:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-chait31-2008jul31,0,6008771.story
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
McCain Economic Advisor = Neocon
Same old, same old. Bush Redux.
McCain economics represents the classic management philosophy of failed companies: 'If it does not work, do more of it.'
Fresh Air from WHYY, July 24, 2008
Douglas Holtz-Eakin: The Man Behind McCain's Economic Plan
Douglas Holtz-Eakin has previously argued that keeping taxes low and health care costs down are instrumental to reviving the economy.
Economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin is the senior economic adviser for John McCain. Prior to working with the presidential candidate, Holtz-Eakin served as director of the Congressional Budget Office. He held positions on the President's Council of Economic Advisers during the administrations of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.
At present, Holtz-Eakin is a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. See at: http://www.iie.com/
McCain economics represents the classic management philosophy of failed companies: 'If it does not work, do more of it.'
Fresh Air from WHYY, July 24, 2008
Douglas Holtz-Eakin: The Man Behind McCain's Economic Plan
Douglas Holtz-Eakin has previously argued that keeping taxes low and health care costs down are instrumental to reviving the economy.
Economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin is the senior economic adviser for John McCain. Prior to working with the presidential candidate, Holtz-Eakin served as director of the Congressional Budget Office. He held positions on the President's Council of Economic Advisers during the administrations of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.
At present, Holtz-Eakin is a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. See at: http://www.iie.com/
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Two More Banks Fail
Is this the beginning of a deluge??
Let us hope not.
Let us ask the FED to do more.
Let us hope not.
Let us ask the FED to do more.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
900 Banks in Trouble
'Every day in every way, things are getting better and better", probably misquoted from Candide by Voltaire.
The Fed says that 90 banks are in trouble. Independent observers say that the correct total is closer to 900.
Another stink bomb from Phil Gramm.
To repeat the call:
The FED has to be more proactive in bank regulation.
Failure to do so now will damage the national security of the United States.
The Fed says that 90 banks are in trouble. Independent observers say that the correct total is closer to 900.
Another stink bomb from Phil Gramm.
To repeat the call:
The FED has to be more proactive in bank regulation.
Failure to do so now will damage the national security of the United States.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Gramm Gone - Huzzah!!
Gramm resigns.
That's the good news.
The troubling background is that there are many mini-Gramms lurking around the Republicans.
'The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.'
That's the good news.
The troubling background is that there are many mini-Gramms lurking around the Republicans.
'The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.'
Thursday, July 17, 2008
McCain = Gramm = Enron/Indy Mac
Just in case there was a doubt, Robert Scheer connects the dots in his column 'How about tough love for the bankers?' [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/16/EDEP11PPMN.DTL&hw=scheer&sn=002&sc=571]
Phil Gramm advises McCain on economic policy. Phil Gramm was the moving force behind the banking deregulation that gave us the housing melt down and the Enron debacle, so far.
With McCain in the Oval Office, we will see more Enron's and Indy Mac's.
BTW: recent reports suggest that more than 100 US banks are in trouble. As economists know, the banking system is a critical part of the domestic money supply and, by implication, the entire US and world economy.
It is time for the FED to get off its chair and act to secure our money supply from stupid and or crooked bankers.
It is in our national interest.
Phil Gramm advises McCain on economic policy. Phil Gramm was the moving force behind the banking deregulation that gave us the housing melt down and the Enron debacle, so far.
With McCain in the Oval Office, we will see more Enron's and Indy Mac's.
BTW: recent reports suggest that more than 100 US banks are in trouble. As economists know, the banking system is a critical part of the domestic money supply and, by implication, the entire US and world economy.
It is time for the FED to get off its chair and act to secure our money supply from stupid and or crooked bankers.
It is in our national interest.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Oil Shock Inflation
Seems what we have is a classic cost-push inflation.
Trouble is that monetary policy does not work well to contain cost-push inflation.
Resolution is simple: the FED should let the oil shock work through the economy and not raise interest rates to control price increases.
Seems to me that the Fed is a tad overly concerned about inflation and a great deal under concerned about jobs. A little inflation can result in more jobs.
C'mon Ben, give us some jobs. Prices are going up anyway; at least with a job we can buy food.
Trouble is that monetary policy does not work well to contain cost-push inflation.
Resolution is simple: the FED should let the oil shock work through the economy and not raise interest rates to control price increases.
Seems to me that the Fed is a tad overly concerned about inflation and a great deal under concerned about jobs. A little inflation can result in more jobs.
C'mon Ben, give us some jobs. Prices are going up anyway; at least with a job we can buy food.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Mini-Bush McCain
McCain's recent hiring of Bush's campaign manager creates a need and an opportunity to tie him closely to Bush in the strongest language.
The need is because we can expect Bush-like campaign tactics and policies from McCain in the future - unethical, negative, untrue and perhaps effective.
It is an opportunity because a large part of the voting public really wants no more of Bush.
For example - McCain is a fine American and a genuine hero. But, he wants to win so badly that he has made a deal with the Bush/Rove campaign organization. We can expect more swiftboat tactics; and, a possible repeat against Obama of a similar accusation against McCain that he fathered a black child.
Because McCain is doing poorly in the polls he will probably seek the most divisive form of campaigning possible. He will also studiously disavow any questionable tactics while directing and approving them.
Part of his deal will probably be a sell out to corporate interests. So, with a president McCain we will get more of the Enron/Halliburton forces who have ruined the country.
Instead of peace, with a president McCain we will get more torture and more death - all in the name of national security.
Instead of cooperation with nations we will see our country continue to be the international pariah instead of the beacon of hope that it can be.
We will see more free trade agreements that have killed millions of American jobs and created vast overseas slums where people work on starvation wages.
We will continue reliance on oil as our primary energy source. And, we will continue to send US armed forces to act as handmaidens for the oil companies wherever there may be oil reserves.
The list is endless. But, Obama's campaign must make the links explicit and direct. The voting public has a limited attention span - they need to be reminded every day of the disaster that awaits a Bush/McCain presidency.
For example: 'There is a mortgage crisis and people are hurting. A McCain administration will make it worse because he will sell out to the banking interests instead of helping homeowners.'
It would be wonderful to take the high road, but McCain has chosen the low road by his choice of staff.
Reminds me of a misquote that may have some application: 'Yea, though I walk through the shadow of the Valley of Death, I have no fear because I am the meanest SOB in the valley.'
The need is because we can expect Bush-like campaign tactics and policies from McCain in the future - unethical, negative, untrue and perhaps effective.
It is an opportunity because a large part of the voting public really wants no more of Bush.
For example - McCain is a fine American and a genuine hero. But, he wants to win so badly that he has made a deal with the Bush/Rove campaign organization. We can expect more swiftboat tactics; and, a possible repeat against Obama of a similar accusation against McCain that he fathered a black child.
Because McCain is doing poorly in the polls he will probably seek the most divisive form of campaigning possible. He will also studiously disavow any questionable tactics while directing and approving them.
Part of his deal will probably be a sell out to corporate interests. So, with a president McCain we will get more of the Enron/Halliburton forces who have ruined the country.
Instead of peace, with a president McCain we will get more torture and more death - all in the name of national security.
Instead of cooperation with nations we will see our country continue to be the international pariah instead of the beacon of hope that it can be.
We will see more free trade agreements that have killed millions of American jobs and created vast overseas slums where people work on starvation wages.
We will continue reliance on oil as our primary energy source. And, we will continue to send US armed forces to act as handmaidens for the oil companies wherever there may be oil reserves.
The list is endless. But, Obama's campaign must make the links explicit and direct. The voting public has a limited attention span - they need to be reminded every day of the disaster that awaits a Bush/McCain presidency.
For example: 'There is a mortgage crisis and people are hurting. A McCain administration will make it worse because he will sell out to the banking interests instead of helping homeowners.'
It would be wonderful to take the high road, but McCain has chosen the low road by his choice of staff.
Reminds me of a misquote that may have some application: 'Yea, though I walk through the shadow of the Valley of Death, I have no fear because I am the meanest SOB in the valley.'
Monday, June 16, 2008
Obama Anti-Business?
There is a fear - with some justification - among the business community that an Obama presidency with a Democratic Congress will result in more regulation and anti-business laws.
Business interests should ABSOLUTELY NOT be concerned about Obama's business stance.
Here's why: Businesses create jobs and we need more jobs in our country. That means that we need businesses to do well.
In order for businesses to do well markets must function effectively and fairly. To function effectively, markets require stability, transparency and fairness. And, to get better levels of those qualities, markets require effective regulation.
It is no secret that the past eight years has seen a tilting of markets in favor of established interests, away from effective regulation and toward harming the less powerful.
The USA needs to restore a more fair balance of interests in markets. After all, if consumers and investors do not trust businesses - and the polls show that is the case today - then businesses will do less well.
Bottom line is this: businesses need consumers who can afford to buy products.
Business interests should applaud and support any Obama initiatives which level the playing field and provide more stable market environments. It is in their self-interest to do so.
Business interests should ABSOLUTELY NOT be concerned about Obama's business stance.
Here's why: Businesses create jobs and we need more jobs in our country. That means that we need businesses to do well.
In order for businesses to do well markets must function effectively and fairly. To function effectively, markets require stability, transparency and fairness. And, to get better levels of those qualities, markets require effective regulation.
It is no secret that the past eight years has seen a tilting of markets in favor of established interests, away from effective regulation and toward harming the less powerful.
The USA needs to restore a more fair balance of interests in markets. After all, if consumers and investors do not trust businesses - and the polls show that is the case today - then businesses will do less well.
Bottom line is this: businesses need consumers who can afford to buy products.
Business interests should applaud and support any Obama initiatives which level the playing field and provide more stable market environments. It is in their self-interest to do so.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Economic Claptrap from McCain
McCain says he does not understand economics.
When you're right, you're right................
Here is a political response to Cainomics.
The McCain campaign fills the air with pretentious nonsense about economics and they do so very aggressively. Obama's best response is to be even more aggressive, but with logic and compassion.
Here are some examples:
1. Cainomics suggests that businesses need more profits to create more jobs. So, taxes on business must be cut or we will lose jobs.
Response: Confusing claptrap. Businesses hire more people only when they expect more sales. If profits go up with no expectation of sales increases, business owners take a vacation or buy a boat. Cutting taxes on business encourages more consumption by business owners - it does not create jobs.
What it really does is to transfer wealth from working people to business owners.
2. Cainomics states that business tax rates are about the highest in the world.
Response: That's true, but only if you consider corporations. If you consider small, unincorporated businesses, US tax rates are about average.
Also, since most jobs come from small businesses, the corporate tax rate has little or nothing to do with job creation.
Here's a proposal - let's cut the corporate, federal tax rate by 5% [to 30%] but in exchange, corporations agree to give up tax treatment that encourages job outsourcing and transferring assets to shell corporation in the Cayman Islands and Vanuatu.
3. Cainomics states that Obama will raise taxes on all people.
Response: This is a flat lie and an embarrassment from a national hero. Come on John - you're better than that.
4. Cainomics states that the economy is fine and that the Bush policies of tax cuts for the rich are working.
Response: They are working to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The average family is in trouble and Bush tax cuts are making them worse off, not better.
75 million people in this country have no health insurance or inadequate health insurance. They don't dare get sick - they are an illness away from financial disaster. That's 42% of the population between the ages of 30 and 65.
5. Cainomics states that regulating business is a failed policy that we have tried before and that did not work.
Response: Wrong.
Fact: Most high growth economies, including the USA, have extensive business regulation.
Fact: Unregulated markets were tried until 1932 when the lack of regulation created the Great Depression. Since then, every country, including the USA, has regulated markets extensively.
Fact: Unregulated free markets always create monopolies and greater income disparities - the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
6. Cainomics states that since savings creates the pool of capital businesses need to invest, any tax increase will reduce savings and reduce job creation.
Response: Pure claptrap.
Fact: Most capital creation occurs in corporations today, not from individual savings.
Fact: The capital pool is growing and readily available to sound business expansion.
Fact: Businesses get capital from a world wide pool of banks, venture capitalists, and wealthy individuals. Changing laws in the USA does not affect the world's capital markets significantly.
When you're right, you're right................
Here is a political response to Cainomics.
The McCain campaign fills the air with pretentious nonsense about economics and they do so very aggressively. Obama's best response is to be even more aggressive, but with logic and compassion.
Here are some examples:
1. Cainomics suggests that businesses need more profits to create more jobs. So, taxes on business must be cut or we will lose jobs.
Response: Confusing claptrap. Businesses hire more people only when they expect more sales. If profits go up with no expectation of sales increases, business owners take a vacation or buy a boat. Cutting taxes on business encourages more consumption by business owners - it does not create jobs.
What it really does is to transfer wealth from working people to business owners.
2. Cainomics states that business tax rates are about the highest in the world.
Response: That's true, but only if you consider corporations. If you consider small, unincorporated businesses, US tax rates are about average.
Also, since most jobs come from small businesses, the corporate tax rate has little or nothing to do with job creation.
Here's a proposal - let's cut the corporate, federal tax rate by 5% [to 30%] but in exchange, corporations agree to give up tax treatment that encourages job outsourcing and transferring assets to shell corporation in the Cayman Islands and Vanuatu.
3. Cainomics states that Obama will raise taxes on all people.
Response: This is a flat lie and an embarrassment from a national hero. Come on John - you're better than that.
4. Cainomics states that the economy is fine and that the Bush policies of tax cuts for the rich are working.
Response: They are working to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The average family is in trouble and Bush tax cuts are making them worse off, not better.
75 million people in this country have no health insurance or inadequate health insurance. They don't dare get sick - they are an illness away from financial disaster. That's 42% of the population between the ages of 30 and 65.
5. Cainomics states that regulating business is a failed policy that we have tried before and that did not work.
Response: Wrong.
Fact: Most high growth economies, including the USA, have extensive business regulation.
Fact: Unregulated markets were tried until 1932 when the lack of regulation created the Great Depression. Since then, every country, including the USA, has regulated markets extensively.
Fact: Unregulated free markets always create monopolies and greater income disparities - the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
6. Cainomics states that since savings creates the pool of capital businesses need to invest, any tax increase will reduce savings and reduce job creation.
Response: Pure claptrap.
Fact: Most capital creation occurs in corporations today, not from individual savings.
Fact: The capital pool is growing and readily available to sound business expansion.
Fact: Businesses get capital from a world wide pool of banks, venture capitalists, and wealthy individuals. Changing laws in the USA does not affect the world's capital markets significantly.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Class Act
I wanted you to be one of the first to know: on Saturday, I will hold an event in Washington D.C. to thank everyone who has supported my campaign. Over the course of the last 16 months, I have been privileged and touched to witness the incredible dedication and sacrifice of so many people working for our campaign. Every minute you put into helping us win, every dollar you gave to keep up the fight meant more to me than I can ever possibly tell you.
On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.
I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.
When I decided to run for president, I knew exactly why I was getting into this race: to work hard every day for the millions of Americans who need a voice in the White House.
I made you -- and everyone who supported me -- a promise: to stand up for our shared values and to never back down. I'm going to keep that promise today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life.
I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise.
I know as I continue my lifelong work for a stronger America and a better world, I will turn to you for the support, the strength, and the commitment that you have shown me in the past 16 months. And I will always keep faith with the issues and causes that are important to you.
In the past few days, you have shown that support once again with hundreds of thousands of messages to the campaign, and again, I am touched by your thoughtfulness and kindness.
I can never possibly express my gratitude, so let me say simply, thank you.
Sincerely,
Hillary Clinton
On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.
I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.
When I decided to run for president, I knew exactly why I was getting into this race: to work hard every day for the millions of Americans who need a voice in the White House.
I made you -- and everyone who supported me -- a promise: to stand up for our shared values and to never back down. I'm going to keep that promise today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life.
I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise.
I know as I continue my lifelong work for a stronger America and a better world, I will turn to you for the support, the strength, and the commitment that you have shown me in the past 16 months. And I will always keep faith with the issues and causes that are important to you.
In the past few days, you have shown that support once again with hundreds of thousands of messages to the campaign, and again, I am touched by your thoughtfulness and kindness.
I can never possibly express my gratitude, so let me say simply, thank you.
Sincerely,
Hillary Clinton
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
What Should Hillary Do?
Hillary asks: What should I do?
OK, I am game - here goes.
1. The country needs a Dem as President and it will be Obama.
2. McCain will not be easy - Obama needs all the help you can give.
3. Yes, you received 18 million votes, but they were for the country more than for you.
4. Do NOT cause a floor fight in Denver.
5. DO - get a say in policy - the country needs that from you.
6. VP - not VP - makes no difference - serve your country by vetting ALL Obama's policies.
7. Do - bring your core to the party: older voters, hispanics, working whites, etc. Make Obama's case to them and win the election. Obama cannot do it without you.
8. May God save the United States of America.
OK, I am game - here goes.
1. The country needs a Dem as President and it will be Obama.
2. McCain will not be easy - Obama needs all the help you can give.
3. Yes, you received 18 million votes, but they were for the country more than for you.
4. Do NOT cause a floor fight in Denver.
5. DO - get a say in policy - the country needs that from you.
6. VP - not VP - makes no difference - serve your country by vetting ALL Obama's policies.
7. Do - bring your core to the party: older voters, hispanics, working whites, etc. Make Obama's case to them and win the election. Obama cannot do it without you.
8. May God save the United States of America.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Let's All Be Adequate
What do we all need?
After election - and perhaps as part of the general election campaign - the country needs competence in government.
The Bush legacy is incompetent cronies who systematically encourage law evasion.
The new administration really needs to restore simple competence in governing. As a citizen and taxpayer. I expect at least that from my government.
Let's have a holiday from new laws and just get everything working again.
Markets do a lot of things well, but markets require effective regulation to function best.
The mortgage meltdown is a regulation/Bush failure and not a market malfunction.
Let's fix the problems.
After election - and perhaps as part of the general election campaign - the country needs competence in government.
The Bush legacy is incompetent cronies who systematically encourage law evasion.
The new administration really needs to restore simple competence in governing. As a citizen and taxpayer. I expect at least that from my government.
Let's have a holiday from new laws and just get everything working again.
Markets do a lot of things well, but markets require effective regulation to function best.
The mortgage meltdown is a regulation/Bush failure and not a market malfunction.
Let's fix the problems.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Hillary: Policy Attorney
Assuming Obama's nomination, what's best for the country?
We need a tighter campaign from Obama. He needs to go after Hispanics, women, working whites and the Ozarks aggressively and he needs all our help. He should not write them off, or many may vote for McCain.
Second, he needs some guidance on policy matters. He has demonstrated a tendency to shoot from the hip on critical questions.
If he is elected, then the policy guidance will be central to our country's future.
Hillary is great in policy questions.
Here's an idea: make Hillary Clinton the policy attorney in an Obama campaign and administration. Maybe V.P., maybe not.
Good entrepreneurs never ask an attorney what to do, but they do ask an attorney to make sure that their actions are mostly legal.
Don't know about you, but I would sleep better with that in place.
We need a tighter campaign from Obama. He needs to go after Hispanics, women, working whites and the Ozarks aggressively and he needs all our help. He should not write them off, or many may vote for McCain.
Second, he needs some guidance on policy matters. He has demonstrated a tendency to shoot from the hip on critical questions.
If he is elected, then the policy guidance will be central to our country's future.
Hillary is great in policy questions.
Here's an idea: make Hillary Clinton the policy attorney in an Obama campaign and administration. Maybe V.P., maybe not.
Good entrepreneurs never ask an attorney what to do, but they do ask an attorney to make sure that their actions are mostly legal.
Don't know about you, but I would sleep better with that in place.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Takin' It To The Streets
In North Carolina the senator gives a speech that connects with most Americans. He reaches beyond his base to go after McCain.
See transcript here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/06/AR2008050603099.html
Please keep it up.
See transcript here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/06/AR2008050603099.html
Please keep it up.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
The (W)Right Race
With friends like these, who needs enemies??
Here is the problem for us all: McCain is a political idiot who will carry forward the Shrub's policy disasters. This is despite his strong personal integrity.
To Obama: you are probably the Dem nominee, but you have a fatal flaw: you seem unable to connect with most real Americans. Race, elite education, apparent discomfort around average people - whatever the cause, you need to correct the impression so McCain does not win.
Here's how: you are a constitutional scholar, so talk about how great the Constitution is, what geniuses were the framers. Piece of cake.
Talk about how you love the country - at every forum. Swallow the criticisms for a time and kiss the Statue of Liberty metaphorically.
Treat your reverend like a deep pile of sewage - there may be something at the bottom, but you don't want to find out.
Play one-on-one with a Chicago Bull. Laugh while you lose your shorts.
Go to Cubs games, sit in the bleachers and drink a beer. Boo the umpires.
Enjoy the perks, for God's sake.
Talk about who is better: Jefferson/Adams/Washington or Lincoln/FDR/Teddy R.
Talk about the American idea and what it means to you - just like a friggin' middle school essay. Won't kill you.
You can NOT rely on policy to get you out of this.
We all need you to get this, or we are in deep.
Here is the problem for us all: McCain is a political idiot who will carry forward the Shrub's policy disasters. This is despite his strong personal integrity.
To Obama: you are probably the Dem nominee, but you have a fatal flaw: you seem unable to connect with most real Americans. Race, elite education, apparent discomfort around average people - whatever the cause, you need to correct the impression so McCain does not win.
Here's how: you are a constitutional scholar, so talk about how great the Constitution is, what geniuses were the framers. Piece of cake.
Talk about how you love the country - at every forum. Swallow the criticisms for a time and kiss the Statue of Liberty metaphorically.
Treat your reverend like a deep pile of sewage - there may be something at the bottom, but you don't want to find out.
Play one-on-one with a Chicago Bull. Laugh while you lose your shorts.
Go to Cubs games, sit in the bleachers and drink a beer. Boo the umpires.
Enjoy the perks, for God's sake.
Talk about who is better: Jefferson/Adams/Washington or Lincoln/FDR/Teddy R.
Talk about the American idea and what it means to you - just like a friggin' middle school essay. Won't kill you.
You can NOT rely on policy to get you out of this.
We all need you to get this, or we are in deep.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Pennsylvania
At this writing Hillary is declared the winner by somewhere between 5% and 10% and the baby wild bunny we call Baby is outside in a gentle rain shower, confused that his favorite spot is wet.
Good for Hillary, but what will the Supers do?
So far Obama can't deliver the win. He outspent her at least 2 to 1 and lost. Hillary has won all the big states we need to take the White House.
He seems unable to connect with the rank and file and older women and he will have to do that to beat McCain. Hillary already does both. But, it looks like he will be the nominee.
Let us hope that Dem chiefs figure out how to tighten up the Obama campaign before Mccain wins.
How do we make him appeal to the Dem base??
Anyone...................
Good for Hillary, but what will the Supers do?
So far Obama can't deliver the win. He outspent her at least 2 to 1 and lost. Hillary has won all the big states we need to take the White House.
He seems unable to connect with the rank and file and older women and he will have to do that to beat McCain. Hillary already does both. But, it looks like he will be the nominee.
Let us hope that Dem chiefs figure out how to tighten up the Obama campaign before Mccain wins.
How do we make him appeal to the Dem base??
Anyone...................
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Democratic Convention
Last Sunday I ran for election as a delegate to the national Democratic convention.
I lost, but was truly impressed with all the candidates. There were 25 or 26 people vying for 3 spots. Any of them will do a great job.
It's good news.
I lost, but was truly impressed with all the candidates. There were 25 or 26 people vying for 3 spots. Any of them will do a great job.
It's good news.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Fixing NAFTA
Trade has raised its lovely head. So, what is the fuss all about anyway, you ask??
An objective observer who looks at trade deals will see some obvious things.
First, while some merchants who can take advantage of foreign markets are making a fortune, many of us are losing jobs to foreign companies which can make things cheaper than we can.
Second, our standard of living is going down as the costs of everything go up while our wages stay the same or go down.
Third, the same thing is happening everywhere, not just here.
Fourth, our politicians seem to be so completely mesmerized by the potential positive effects of foreign trade that they ignore what is happening to us every day.
What should we do about it?
We should ask our politicians to look out for us first. If an agreement will help the world's markets but will hurt workers in our country, then it is a bad deal and should be rejected.
It is that simple.
Look at NAFTA this way, then decide whether to keep it, change it or scrap it based on the net positive job gain to the US.
For any new trade agreements, the trade agreement proponents should be asked to calculate how many jobs will be lost and gained in the home economy from the new trade deal. If there is a positive job gain, then it's a good deal.
Can we put labor standards and environmental safeguards into trade deals so we won't be hurt?
No, we can't.
If an agreement hurts workers in our country, then it is a bad deal.
What about consumers who are able to buy cheaper goods from foreign countries than they can buy from our own companies? Won't they be hurt?
In the short run prices will go up a little. But in the not so distant future, we will all be better off because we will have more jobs and be able to afford more things.
Besides, prices are going up anyway because of the world oil crisis. Protecting jobs at home will hardly be noticed.
This is especially true in the USA because trade is still a small part of our economy. Despite what we think, products from China are only about 2% of our economy.
Why is it that so many politicians sell these deals so hard if there will be negative effects on our economy?
To fully understand the trade debate about NAFTA and the other trade agreements, we need to look at two things: Economic theory and economic reality, or the dollars lost and gained by vested interests.
Looking directly at the bottom line of economic theory we see some theories about markets and trade. These theories provide the base rationalizations for the Free Trade Agreements the US and other nations enter.
The first theory we see is called Comparative Advantage. This theory was written in about 1776 by David Ricardo. Basically it says that merchants in any country can make a profit from trading with merchants in other countries even if their costs are higher in the home country. Home country merchants will buy products made in the home country which are comparatively cheaper than other products made in the home country even though these products are more expensive than world prices; then the merchants will sell the home country products at world prices taking a loss and use the money to buy world products at world prices which they can sell in the home country at a huge profit.
So, the reasoning goes, all the merchants in the home country will specialize in making products which have the relative, comparative advantage in the home market and sell those products in world markets.
When every country's merchants do this, the consumers in all countries will be better off because the merchants in all countries who specialize will create more goods in total.
This is a really wonderful idea even if it doesn't work. It is such a wonderful idea, and also so difficult to understand, that merchants who benefit from trade use this idea to argue against any interference with their trading rights. After all, any taxes on trade (which are called tariffs) will interfere with specialization and reduce the total amount of goods and services produced in the world.
Here is an argument which promises the best of all possible worlds for everyone and is very hard to understand. Is it any wonder that people who gain from agreements based on this idea will defend them tooth and nail?
Second, the twin ideas of Free Markets and Free Trade sound so very good, they must be essentially American. Who can argue with the idea that a free market economy with free trade will bring us the best possible world? And indeed, it has already, hasn't it?
In fact, the USA does not actually have Free Markets or Free Trade. Most markets are regulated very highly today. Most of our complaints about markets happens when government regulators do a bad job, not when a market fails.
The reason for the mortgage crisis we are in now is that we loosened banking regulation on commercial banks and did not regulate the mortgage markets at all. Our crisis today is a failure of regulation, not a failure of markets.
Is there a way out of this mess?
Yes, there is. The federal government needs to manage trade so the harmful effects of trade agreements are minimized. To see how to do that, go to my essay on Balanced Trade here: http://www.mkeever.com/essay.html
For further background see: GLOBAL TRADE AND CONFLICTING NATIONAL INTEREST, Ralph E. Gomory and William J. Baumol, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 2000 ISBN -10: 0-262-07209-2
Copyright, 2008 by Mike P. McKeever, Santa Rosa, CA. This text can be posted in any electronic forum or quoted with attribution in any printed media. For publication in printed form please request permission from the author: email: mpmckeever@earthlink.net.
An objective observer who looks at trade deals will see some obvious things.
First, while some merchants who can take advantage of foreign markets are making a fortune, many of us are losing jobs to foreign companies which can make things cheaper than we can.
Second, our standard of living is going down as the costs of everything go up while our wages stay the same or go down.
Third, the same thing is happening everywhere, not just here.
Fourth, our politicians seem to be so completely mesmerized by the potential positive effects of foreign trade that they ignore what is happening to us every day.
What should we do about it?
We should ask our politicians to look out for us first. If an agreement will help the world's markets but will hurt workers in our country, then it is a bad deal and should be rejected.
It is that simple.
Look at NAFTA this way, then decide whether to keep it, change it or scrap it based on the net positive job gain to the US.
For any new trade agreements, the trade agreement proponents should be asked to calculate how many jobs will be lost and gained in the home economy from the new trade deal. If there is a positive job gain, then it's a good deal.
Can we put labor standards and environmental safeguards into trade deals so we won't be hurt?
No, we can't.
If an agreement hurts workers in our country, then it is a bad deal.
What about consumers who are able to buy cheaper goods from foreign countries than they can buy from our own companies? Won't they be hurt?
In the short run prices will go up a little. But in the not so distant future, we will all be better off because we will have more jobs and be able to afford more things.
Besides, prices are going up anyway because of the world oil crisis. Protecting jobs at home will hardly be noticed.
This is especially true in the USA because trade is still a small part of our economy. Despite what we think, products from China are only about 2% of our economy.
Why is it that so many politicians sell these deals so hard if there will be negative effects on our economy?
To fully understand the trade debate about NAFTA and the other trade agreements, we need to look at two things: Economic theory and economic reality, or the dollars lost and gained by vested interests.
Looking directly at the bottom line of economic theory we see some theories about markets and trade. These theories provide the base rationalizations for the Free Trade Agreements the US and other nations enter.
The first theory we see is called Comparative Advantage. This theory was written in about 1776 by David Ricardo. Basically it says that merchants in any country can make a profit from trading with merchants in other countries even if their costs are higher in the home country. Home country merchants will buy products made in the home country which are comparatively cheaper than other products made in the home country even though these products are more expensive than world prices; then the merchants will sell the home country products at world prices taking a loss and use the money to buy world products at world prices which they can sell in the home country at a huge profit.
So, the reasoning goes, all the merchants in the home country will specialize in making products which have the relative, comparative advantage in the home market and sell those products in world markets.
When every country's merchants do this, the consumers in all countries will be better off because the merchants in all countries who specialize will create more goods in total.
This is a really wonderful idea even if it doesn't work. It is such a wonderful idea, and also so difficult to understand, that merchants who benefit from trade use this idea to argue against any interference with their trading rights. After all, any taxes on trade (which are called tariffs) will interfere with specialization and reduce the total amount of goods and services produced in the world.
Here is an argument which promises the best of all possible worlds for everyone and is very hard to understand. Is it any wonder that people who gain from agreements based on this idea will defend them tooth and nail?
Second, the twin ideas of Free Markets and Free Trade sound so very good, they must be essentially American. Who can argue with the idea that a free market economy with free trade will bring us the best possible world? And indeed, it has already, hasn't it?
In fact, the USA does not actually have Free Markets or Free Trade. Most markets are regulated very highly today. Most of our complaints about markets happens when government regulators do a bad job, not when a market fails.
The reason for the mortgage crisis we are in now is that we loosened banking regulation on commercial banks and did not regulate the mortgage markets at all. Our crisis today is a failure of regulation, not a failure of markets.
Is there a way out of this mess?
Yes, there is. The federal government needs to manage trade so the harmful effects of trade agreements are minimized. To see how to do that, go to my essay on Balanced Trade here: http://www.mkeever.com/essay.html
For further background see: GLOBAL TRADE AND CONFLICTING NATIONAL INTEREST, Ralph E. Gomory and William J. Baumol, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 2000 ISBN -10: 0-262-07209-2
Copyright, 2008 by Mike P. McKeever, Santa Rosa, CA. This text can be posted in any electronic forum or quoted with attribution in any printed media. For publication in printed form please request permission from the author: email: mpmckeever@earthlink.net.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Pelosi: Vote Your Conscience
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the superdelegates who may ultimately decide the Democratic party's presidential nominee have a right to vote as they wish.
See article on link above
See article on link above
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Obama's Iraq Plan
Senator Obama obliges us with a speech March 19 about the war. Read the prepared transcript at the link above.
Sadly, I am underwhelmed and concerned for the future of the country.
Are there any experienced adults who vet the speeches at all?
Some of the material is just embarrassing.
Do you really want to send foreign service officers and USAID staffers to posts where they may be killed?
Has NATO consulted with you about their positions before you chastised them for inadequate action?
Memo the the Senator: We get that you opposed the war in a 2002 speech; you do not have to make an issue of it every time you address the war.
What do we do now?
Sadly, I am underwhelmed and concerned for the future of the country.
Are there any experienced adults who vet the speeches at all?
Some of the material is just embarrassing.
Do you really want to send foreign service officers and USAID staffers to posts where they may be killed?
Has NATO consulted with you about their positions before you chastised them for inadequate action?
Memo the the Senator: We get that you opposed the war in a 2002 speech; you do not have to make an issue of it every time you address the war.
What do we do now?
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Reflections about Race
So, it's good that Obama talks about race.
But, IMHO, the real question is class.
He missed a great opportunity to talk about race and class.
He chose to talk about race only.
Too bad for the USA.
But, IMHO, the real question is class.
He missed a great opportunity to talk about race and class.
He chose to talk about race only.
Too bad for the USA.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Snake Oil
Some may ask: what is the problem with Obama anyway?
Good question. Especially in the light of the race issue raised recently. As an old white guy, I am really afraid to even mention the issue. I don't say that lightly.
Watching Chris Matthews' Hard Ball discussion of Obama the other night, I was disheartened to hear the following statement from Chris, to the best of my memory:"If you don't like Obama you are racially prejudiced." I turned off the show at that point.
Here's my problem: his campaign is run at the lowest common denominator of politics. His web site asks you to believe in him on its home page. Then his campaign, very cynically in my view, promises people that he will solve all their problems without mentioning any specifics. It's a religion, not a political campaign.
Reminds me of the frontier years: 'This oil is made from genuine snake skins and is available only today - it will cure your colds, fix your cancer, stop the gout and plow the back 40. You have my personal guarantee. Only one measly dollar a bottle. Who will be the first among you?'
Senator Obama: as a nation we are at a crossroads. Either we will go down the road of increasing divisions between the government and the people or we will reverse the trends and move toward restoring the American Dream.
But, we can't move in the right direction based on hope and trust. We are Americans. We deserve answers, not platitudes.
Senator Obama: I don't care if you are black or purple with yellow stripes. I do care that you insult my intelligence and patriotism with vague promises.
Show us your concrete plans and talk about them. Your website has lots of policy proposals. Now is the time to flesh them out and name some people who will accomplish the specific tasks we need accomplished in a competent fashion.
Good question. Especially in the light of the race issue raised recently. As an old white guy, I am really afraid to even mention the issue. I don't say that lightly.
Watching Chris Matthews' Hard Ball discussion of Obama the other night, I was disheartened to hear the following statement from Chris, to the best of my memory:"If you don't like Obama you are racially prejudiced." I turned off the show at that point.
Here's my problem: his campaign is run at the lowest common denominator of politics. His web site asks you to believe in him on its home page. Then his campaign, very cynically in my view, promises people that he will solve all their problems without mentioning any specifics. It's a religion, not a political campaign.
Reminds me of the frontier years: 'This oil is made from genuine snake skins and is available only today - it will cure your colds, fix your cancer, stop the gout and plow the back 40. You have my personal guarantee. Only one measly dollar a bottle. Who will be the first among you?'
Senator Obama: as a nation we are at a crossroads. Either we will go down the road of increasing divisions between the government and the people or we will reverse the trends and move toward restoring the American Dream.
But, we can't move in the right direction based on hope and trust. We are Americans. We deserve answers, not platitudes.
Senator Obama: I don't care if you are black or purple with yellow stripes. I do care that you insult my intelligence and patriotism with vague promises.
Show us your concrete plans and talk about them. Your website has lots of policy proposals. Now is the time to flesh them out and name some people who will accomplish the specific tasks we need accomplished in a competent fashion.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Veeps Away
Here's the Dem problem: Hillary and Obama have voting blocs of about the same size, even though the blocs are very different.
To drastically oversimplify: Hillary's bloc is based on white women, blue collar and Latino voters while Obama's is based on blacks, upper middle class and younger voters.
The burning question is what will each candidate's bloc do when the candidate loses?
Hillary has made it clear - she will encourage Obama's bloc to vote democratic even if he loses. She has done that by offering him the Veepship. This is a move to unite the party.
But, Obama has not made a similar move to Hillary. Absent a similar move, he seems to prefer splitting the party and jeopardizing the general election to uniting the party.
Memo to Senator Obama: It's time to grow up. You cannot win the nomination without the superdelegates, just like Hillary. It is time to act like a politician instead of a preacher.
If politics is the art of the possible instead of the art of the pure, then Hillary is demonstrating politics at its highest.
To date, Senator Obama has responded only that he is not running for the Veepship.
He is absent from the discussion so far, seeming to prefer preaching to his choir.
To drastically oversimplify: Hillary's bloc is based on white women, blue collar and Latino voters while Obama's is based on blacks, upper middle class and younger voters.
The burning question is what will each candidate's bloc do when the candidate loses?
Hillary has made it clear - she will encourage Obama's bloc to vote democratic even if he loses. She has done that by offering him the Veepship. This is a move to unite the party.
But, Obama has not made a similar move to Hillary. Absent a similar move, he seems to prefer splitting the party and jeopardizing the general election to uniting the party.
Memo to Senator Obama: It's time to grow up. You cannot win the nomination without the superdelegates, just like Hillary. It is time to act like a politician instead of a preacher.
If politics is the art of the possible instead of the art of the pure, then Hillary is demonstrating politics at its highest.
To date, Senator Obama has responded only that he is not running for the Veepship.
He is absent from the discussion so far, seeming to prefer preaching to his choir.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Meet The Press: Rendell on why Hillary
GOV. RENDELL: Well, sure, Tim, because, number one, Hillary Clinton has won states with about 260 electoral votes. Barack Obama has won states with about 190. And we decide the presidency not by a popular vote, we decide it by the electoral vote. And the traditional role of the superdelegates is to determine who's going to be our strongest candidate. Tim, you and I have been doing this for a long time, as Tom has, and we know the big four in any presidential election recently are Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and Michigan. And in all four of those states--Pennsylvania hasn't voted yet, but I assume we're going to do real well--Hillary Clinton will have taken those states, if it--she takes Pennsylvania, and will have taken them by significant majorities. She's clearly the strongest candidate in the states that Democrats must win to have a chance. Look, it's great that Barack Obama is doing wonderfully well in Wyoming and Utah and, and places like that, but there's no chance we're going to carry those states. Whether he gets 44 percent as opposed to 39 percent doesn't matter, but we're not going to carry those states. We do have a chance to carry the big four. We've got to in three of the big four. Hillary Clinton's the strongest candidate to do that. That's been proven by the voters in the--those states and hopefully by Pennsylvania as well.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
"..love is always a question of the ...lighting."
See what Germans think:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,539607,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,539607,00.html
Pissing War
Let's use our time of mutual disrespect to go after McCain.
OK, we get that both candidates need to attack each other. But, they can attack McCain as well. How about allocating half of the piss time to McCain??
There are lots of real issues out there besides Hillary's tax returns and Obama's unpreparedness for combat.
For example, Ahmadinejad recently announced that he would be happy to take over Iraq and the Iraq powers seemed happy to hear it.
What a great opportunity. Cut a deal where we get unlimited access to Iran's nuclear program and some control over Iraq operations, then let Iran take over and we can go home.
Maybe it works, maybe not. Sure is better to piss on McCain about his lack of creativity than it is to piss on each other.
How about it guys??
OK, we get that both candidates need to attack each other. But, they can attack McCain as well. How about allocating half of the piss time to McCain??
There are lots of real issues out there besides Hillary's tax returns and Obama's unpreparedness for combat.
For example, Ahmadinejad recently announced that he would be happy to take over Iraq and the Iraq powers seemed happy to hear it.
What a great opportunity. Cut a deal where we get unlimited access to Iran's nuclear program and some control over Iraq operations, then let Iran take over and we can go home.
Maybe it works, maybe not. Sure is better to piss on McCain about his lack of creativity than it is to piss on each other.
How about it guys??
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Hillary Joke
Not sure of source, possible: John Walker
Subject: Fw: FBI ASSASSIN
FBI ASSASSIN
The FBI had an opening for an assassin. After all the background checks, interviews and testing were done, there were 3 finalists. Two men and a woman.
For the final test, the FBI agents took one of the men to a large metal door and handed him a gun. "We must know that you will follow your instructions no matter what the circumstances. Inside the room you will find your wife sitting in a chair.. Kill Her!!"
The man said, "You can't be serious. I could never shoot my wife." The agent said, "Then you're not the right man for this job. Take your wife and go home."
The second man was given the same instructions. He took the gun and went into the room. All was quiet for about 5 minutes. The man came out with tears in his eyes, " I tried, but I can't kill my wife. The agent said, "You don't have what it takes. Take your wife and go home."
Finally, it was the woman's turn. She was given the same instruction, to kill her husband. She took the gun and went into the room. Shots were heard, one after another. They heard screaming, crashing, banging on the walls. After a few minutes, all was quiet. The door opened slowly and there stood the woman, wiping the sweat from her brow. "The gun is loaded with blanks" she said. "I had to beat him to death with the chair."
Moral:
Women are evil.
Don't mess with them
Subject: Fw: FBI ASSASSIN
FBI ASSASSIN
The FBI had an opening for an assassin. After all the background checks, interviews and testing were done, there were 3 finalists. Two men and a woman.
For the final test, the FBI agents took one of the men to a large metal door and handed him a gun. "We must know that you will follow your instructions no matter what the circumstances. Inside the room you will find your wife sitting in a chair.. Kill Her!!"
The man said, "You can't be serious. I could never shoot my wife." The agent said, "Then you're not the right man for this job. Take your wife and go home."
The second man was given the same instructions. He took the gun and went into the room. All was quiet for about 5 minutes. The man came out with tears in his eyes, " I tried, but I can't kill my wife. The agent said, "You don't have what it takes. Take your wife and go home."
Finally, it was the woman's turn. She was given the same instruction, to kill her husband. She took the gun and went into the room. Shots were heard, one after another. They heard screaming, crashing, banging on the walls. After a few minutes, all was quiet. The door opened slowly and there stood the woman, wiping the sweat from her brow. "The gun is loaded with blanks" she said. "I had to beat him to death with the chair."
Moral:
Women are evil.
Don't mess with them
Long Train Running
So, super delegates, here's the question: what are YOU going to do?
The nomination is up to you. It will be a statistical dead heat, regardless of who has a tenth of a percent more pledged delegates in August. That person, Hillary or Obama, cannot claim a victory with a statistical dead heat result. Otherwise, Gore would be President.
Should it run 'til August?
Best for the country is a Dem president.
So, who will be the best president? And, when is the best time to decide?
It's your call.
Run the process until August? Or, re-run Florida and Michigan? Or, count FL and MI as they lie? Or, ignore and punish them? Let McCain piss on us until August? Run it until Pennsylvania, then call it?
Come on guys, show us something.
The nomination is up to you. It will be a statistical dead heat, regardless of who has a tenth of a percent more pledged delegates in August. That person, Hillary or Obama, cannot claim a victory with a statistical dead heat result. Otherwise, Gore would be President.
Should it run 'til August?
Best for the country is a Dem president.
So, who will be the best president? And, when is the best time to decide?
It's your call.
Run the process until August? Or, re-run Florida and Michigan? Or, count FL and MI as they lie? Or, ignore and punish them? Let McCain piss on us until August? Run it until Pennsylvania, then call it?
Come on guys, show us something.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
It Ain't Over
Look at the math.
1. It is almost impossible to be sure of totals. Pundit BS aside, it is confusing.
2. Per demconwatch.blogspot.com HRC has 1274 committed including 241 supers, to BO's 1371 incl 183 supers.
3. Add 55% of Texas and Ohio to HRC/45% to BO changes totals to 1458 HRC and 1521 BO - Texas/Ohio no doubt critical here.
4. Add 50% of uncommitted supers AND Florida and Michigan totals to each brings totals to 1798 HRC to 1740 BO with some 677 delegates to come.
Conclusion: there is no clear winner here if HRC polls 55% in Texas and Ohio and Florida and Michigan are added; there are 677 more to come from PA/RI/WY/MS/GUAM/INDIANA/NC/WVA/KY/SoD/ AND PR.
Even reversing the math to give BO 55% of TX and OH and 45% to HRC gives a final total of 1764 for HRC to 1774 to BO.
THIS A DEAD HEAT
Clearly it is time for the adults to take over. We cannot give McCain a 90 day headstart while we bicker.
1. It is almost impossible to be sure of totals. Pundit BS aside, it is confusing.
2. Per demconwatch.blogspot.com HRC has 1274 committed including 241 supers, to BO's 1371 incl 183 supers.
3. Add 55% of Texas and Ohio to HRC/45% to BO changes totals to 1458 HRC and 1521 BO - Texas/Ohio no doubt critical here.
4. Add 50% of uncommitted supers AND Florida and Michigan totals to each brings totals to 1798 HRC to 1740 BO with some 677 delegates to come.
Conclusion: there is no clear winner here if HRC polls 55% in Texas and Ohio and Florida and Michigan are added; there are 677 more to come from PA/RI/WY/MS/GUAM/INDIANA/NC/WVA/KY/SoD/ AND PR.
Even reversing the math to give BO 55% of TX and OH and 45% to HRC gives a final total of 1764 for HRC to 1774 to BO.
THIS A DEAD HEAT
Clearly it is time for the adults to take over. We cannot give McCain a 90 day headstart while we bicker.
Hubris
It is hard to compete with a man who is convinced he is invincible and will not make a mistake, ever. With such a man one must simply lie and take advantage. This will happen.
Webster defines hubris as: "exaggerated pride or self-confidence often resulting in retribution".
Let us all pray that any such retribution comes when he is not the President of the United States of America.
Webster defines hubris as: "exaggerated pride or self-confidence often resulting in retribution".
Let us all pray that any such retribution comes when he is not the President of the United States of America.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Dear Superdelegates:
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
