“On December 17th, MoveOn members began 2 days of voting to decide our top goals for 2009. Each member was able to vote for 3 goals. Here are the final results, with the percentage of members who included each goal in their top 3.”
6. Restore civil liberties 16.8%
7. Hold the Bush Administration accountable 15.2%
8. Gay rights/LGBT equality 8.6%
- Ranking of each of these topics in a survey of MoveOn .Orgs members of the top ten goals for 2009. (Complete results can be found at http://www.pol.moveon.org/2009/agenda/results/results2.html).
Disappointment.
That is what I felt when I read the results of MoveOn.org’s member survey of what its top three goals for 2009 should be. It is hard to argue with the survey’s response that the number one goal in 2009 should be providing universal health care or that fixing the economy should be number two. What is disappointing, is undoing the damage done by the Bush administration to the constitution and the guarantee of rights for our fellow citizens ranked so low.
If only 16.8% of MoveOn ’s membership say a goal for 2009 should be to restore the civil liberties that Bush has abridged, and only 15.2% think holding the Bush administration accountable should be a goal, then what priority do these goals have for the rest of the country?
In the campaign Obama did not speak out heavily against the abridgement of our freedoms by the Bush/Cheney administration. Even now there is very little discussion on the fate of government eavesdropping or rendition programs. In addition there is a noticeable silence among other establishment politician on holding any Bush administration members to account, either legally or morally, for their actions.
The press has spent more time discussing Obama’s workout schedule then the report released December 11, by Carl Levin and the Armed Service Committee linking Bush and the White House to the torture of prisoners. (http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=305735 – this link also contains a pdf of the complete report). This story came and went with little or no notice.
Imagine.
A major Senate committee links the President to decisions that lead to torturing detainees held without trial, counsel or legal protection – and hardly anyone notices. (See Glen Greenwald: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/15/rumsfeld/).
If only 8.6% of MoveOn’s membership name LGBT rights a top priority, Obama can safely assume that more centrist or conservative groups would hold LGBT rights as an even lower priority. No wonder he feels safe in starting the new administration receiving a blessing from someone who helped voters revoke a minority group’s rights that had been guaranteed by the California constitution.
Bush changed the country in ways we couldn’t image when he took office 8 years ago. If one measures a President’s effectiveness by the impact he has on the character and dialog of the country, Bush ’43 will go down as one of history’s most effective Presidents.
In a Bush led US, the government can now declare anyone a threat to national security, lock them up without a lawyer and without showing them the evidence used to support the accusation against them. Then if it chooses the Government can torture a confession from the suspect. If the torture gets to be too much of an effort the Government can do the American thing and outsource it to other countries.
When I was growing up the fact that these acts were illegal was used to illustrate the limits on our Government that guaranteed our citizens’ rights. We were told this is why the United States was different and made our country a beacon to the rest of the world. Throughout the 20th Century we believed that to preserve these rights we had to stand up and fight totalitarianism in all its forms.
The incoming administration has said little about restoring these limits on the government and preserving our rights and freedoms. The press has also shown little interest reporting what the Bush administration has done to our freedoms and holding its members accountable.
Now one of the most venerable voices from the activist left does not see working for the restoration and preservation of its citizen’s civil rights as a major goal for the new year. If we do not hold Bush accountable, who will hold Obama to account? How will we ensure that Obama will not simply continue these same abuses?
I agree health care is major issue that has to be addressed for both the physical and economic health of the country. But ensuring all our citizens have their rights guaranteed and holding the Government accountable when those rights are abridged is just as vital to the health and character of this country. Otherwise little separates us from countries that provide universal health care while spying on its citizens and curtailing their freedoms.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
Peggy Noonan and Gov. Palin, Should Listen to Nixon
"I happen to think the media is up to a bit of mischief here. I think the media wants to take Sarah Palin and make her, subliminally, the face of the Republican Party. They want to make her: this is what Republicans are, the face of the party, the leader of the party, because it amuses them to do that."
-- Former White House speechwriter Peggy Noonan, on MSNBC.
Ms. Noonan’s disdain for Gov Palin was evident from the moment her open-mike “we’re finished” comment hit airwaves. From George Will to Kathleen Parker, establishment Republicans lined up to express their contempt for the Governor. They sat on their hands while the McCain campaign did everything it could to throw her under the bus without leaving any fingerprints. It was clear they felt she was a gate crasher to their club, and they not only disliked her, but were angry at McCain for letting her through the door.
But, despite her gaffes, her fractured syntax, a shaky grasp of many of the issues, and the contempt of the Republican establishment, Gov. Palin survives.
In a poll commissioned by the Daily Kos performed by Research 2000, (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/12/19/163122/92/701/674605), Palin would easily defeat Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the 2010 Republican primary for US Senate. In addition, the same poll shows Palin would defeat any named politician for that Senate seat. She does better running for Senate than she would running for re-election as Governor. Even so, she would handily win another term as Governor if she stood for re-election.
One thing no one disputes is her ability to read poll numbers. Palin is too ambitious to stay in Alaska. The Senate provides her a national platform closed to her if she stayed in the Governor’s mansion. In addition, being in the Senate would make her initial primary campaign stops easier. Because of distance and airline connections it takes 3 days of her time to speak at one dinner in Iowa. Compare that with Gov. Jindal who can get to and from an Iowa event in afternoon. If she were in the Senate it would be easier for her to stay in the lower 48 and pop in and out of the early primary and caucus states from DC.
It is not just the “left wing” media that is pushing Sarah Palin. In the December 23, 2008 edition of the Wall Street Journal, John O’Sullivan compares the Governor favorably to Margaret Thatcher. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122999917373529125.html). O’Sullivan makes the case that Palin speaks for the same constituency and values as the Iron Lady. Thatcher was widely ridiculed as a lightweight, until she took office and grew, like Reagan, into a benchmark of conservative political thought.
Sarah Palin sent her own message on what she thinks of the Republican elite, when she did not return two phone calls from former President George H.W.Bush. The press portrayed this omission as part of the same cluelessness that sees Russia from her backyard, while oblivious to a turkey being guillotined right behind her.
Maybe, just maybe, the Governor believes that former President Bush and the wing of the party he represents are not worth the effort to contact and cultivate. Palin and the group of Republicans who support her have clearly concluded that moderates like Bush ’41, are a part of the party they no longer need. They feel Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008 because they were not conservative enough. They believe that moderates weakened them, and voters will only return to an ideologically pure form of socially conservative Republicanism – one that does not include either former President Bush or any of the New England moderates whose passing they so loudly cheer.
No one can win the Presidency with only the support of one extreme wing of their party. The liberals couldn’t do it in 1988 with Dukakis. The Democrats regained power only with the broader centrist appeal of Bill Clinton. President Nixon learned this lesson early on. His advice to Republicans to run to the right in the primaries in and to the center in the November is now a truism. Play to your extreme base in the primary season and to the public in the general election.
When Gov. Palin does run for President, she will find she can mobilize enough voters to be a contender but not enough to win. To win the Presidency, she will have to start returning phone calls from all wings of the party. Unless establishment Republicans want to spend the next political generation slipping into irrelevance, they will have to admit that Gov Palin and the people she speaks to have a place at the political table.
-- Former White House speechwriter Peggy Noonan, on MSNBC.
Ms. Noonan’s disdain for Gov Palin was evident from the moment her open-mike “we’re finished” comment hit airwaves. From George Will to Kathleen Parker, establishment Republicans lined up to express their contempt for the Governor. They sat on their hands while the McCain campaign did everything it could to throw her under the bus without leaving any fingerprints. It was clear they felt she was a gate crasher to their club, and they not only disliked her, but were angry at McCain for letting her through the door.
But, despite her gaffes, her fractured syntax, a shaky grasp of many of the issues, and the contempt of the Republican establishment, Gov. Palin survives.
In a poll commissioned by the Daily Kos performed by Research 2000, (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/12/19/163122/92/701/674605), Palin would easily defeat Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the 2010 Republican primary for US Senate. In addition, the same poll shows Palin would defeat any named politician for that Senate seat. She does better running for Senate than she would running for re-election as Governor. Even so, she would handily win another term as Governor if she stood for re-election.
One thing no one disputes is her ability to read poll numbers. Palin is too ambitious to stay in Alaska. The Senate provides her a national platform closed to her if she stayed in the Governor’s mansion. In addition, being in the Senate would make her initial primary campaign stops easier. Because of distance and airline connections it takes 3 days of her time to speak at one dinner in Iowa. Compare that with Gov. Jindal who can get to and from an Iowa event in afternoon. If she were in the Senate it would be easier for her to stay in the lower 48 and pop in and out of the early primary and caucus states from DC.
It is not just the “left wing” media that is pushing Sarah Palin. In the December 23, 2008 edition of the Wall Street Journal, John O’Sullivan compares the Governor favorably to Margaret Thatcher. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122999917373529125.html). O’Sullivan makes the case that Palin speaks for the same constituency and values as the Iron Lady. Thatcher was widely ridiculed as a lightweight, until she took office and grew, like Reagan, into a benchmark of conservative political thought.
Sarah Palin sent her own message on what she thinks of the Republican elite, when she did not return two phone calls from former President George H.W.Bush. The press portrayed this omission as part of the same cluelessness that sees Russia from her backyard, while oblivious to a turkey being guillotined right behind her.
Maybe, just maybe, the Governor believes that former President Bush and the wing of the party he represents are not worth the effort to contact and cultivate. Palin and the group of Republicans who support her have clearly concluded that moderates like Bush ’41, are a part of the party they no longer need. They feel Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008 because they were not conservative enough. They believe that moderates weakened them, and voters will only return to an ideologically pure form of socially conservative Republicanism – one that does not include either former President Bush or any of the New England moderates whose passing they so loudly cheer.
No one can win the Presidency with only the support of one extreme wing of their party. The liberals couldn’t do it in 1988 with Dukakis. The Democrats regained power only with the broader centrist appeal of Bill Clinton. President Nixon learned this lesson early on. His advice to Republicans to run to the right in the primaries in and to the center in the November is now a truism. Play to your extreme base in the primary season and to the public in the general election.
When Gov. Palin does run for President, she will find she can mobilize enough voters to be a contender but not enough to win. To win the Presidency, she will have to start returning phone calls from all wings of the party. Unless establishment Republicans want to spend the next political generation slipping into irrelevance, they will have to admit that Gov Palin and the people she speaks to have a place at the political table.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Obama - meet Cindy Sheehan
" But I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life ... I think the people want the president to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy. And part of my being is to be outside exercising. So I'm mindful of what goes on around me. On the other hand, I'm also mindful that I've got a life to live and will do so."
George Bush August 13, on why he did not meet with Cindy Sheehan, reported by Ken Herman of Cox Enterprises
The erosion of your image, your support and your popularity often doesn’t begin with some big crisis or a cataclysmic rockslide in popularity. It begins with a small pebble bouncing down the hillside - a pebble that held a larger boulder in the balance. Bush’s image of callous incompetence did not begin in late August of 2005, with the image of people sleeping on overpasses in a flooded New Orleans. It began earlier in the month when he refused to meet with Cindy Sheehan, a Gold Star mom who wanted to speak to him about Iraq. When Bush went bike riding with Lance Armstrong rather than taking the time to shake the hand of a woman who had lost her son in Iraq, the President changed his narrative from being a compassionate conservative to being selfish and unconnected.
This change set the framework for the narrative of Katrina and made it easier for the American people to believe their President was callus and self absorbed. Had he shaken Sheehan’s hand and listened to her, Americans would have more likely seen him as compassionate and caring. That view would have helped him get through the Katrina debacle with much less damage.
Why bring this up now? Because this story holds a lesson for President-elect Obama. Somewhere out there is a pebble that will start bouncing down the hillside. It will be a missed detail, an opportunity stepped past – or the insensitivity of a choice.
Is Rick Warren his pebble?
For Obama, the choice of Warren presents several dangers. First, it could end the narrative of Obama as change. Selecting Warren for the invocation gives a nod to a man with unpopular and bigoted ideas. Obama looks like any other politician pandering to the hard right. Second, Warren will remind people of the controversy around Rev Wright. People will start wondering about Obama’s true beliefs. Is he the progressive who fought fiercely for gay rights or is he the candidate who kept quiet about Prop 8 and regularly came out against marriage equality? Obama’s “Mr Cool”, remote demeanor, gives so little away that people will come up with the answers based on the clues they find.
During the campaign people looked at Rev. Wright as a clue of Obama’s true beliefs. The conclusion people drew nearly killed Obama’s candidacy. He was able to change that narrative with a brilliant speech.
It is hard to change your own narrative once it sticks. Romney tried and failed. So did McCain. Bush is trying it now. It is not easy to do once, nearly impossible to do twice. Obama was able to change the narrative after the Rev. Wright controversy. Will he be able to do it again after Rev Warren pronounces his blessing on the inauguration?
Monday, December 8, 2008
The Hidden Burden
72%
- According to ProjectStudentDebt.Org, the percentage of students in 2007 who graduated from the University of North Carolina School of the Arts with an average college loan debt of $18,000.
This September, bankers trekked to Washington DC and were handed the equivalent of the cost the Iraq war with no strings and no questions asked. The auto industry is asking for the equivalent of twice their combined market value.
No one is discussing a bailout for people carrying student loans.
How important relief to student loan holders is, was driven home to me while cleaning house and indulging in my guilty pleasure of watching TRU TV (formally Court TV) reality shows. In a show about repo men, a young woman who had had her car repossessed, sat on the curb and cried, “They’ve taken my car! How am I going to get to work? I have $35,000 dollars in college loans!”
This scene is, I am sure, being repeated on curbs and living rooms all across the country.
Since 1995, the average annual tuition cost for both public and private universities has doubled, (http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008022_3b.pdf, pg 467). Over 70% of college students leave school with some sort of college debt. The amount of student debt rose 6% between 2006 and 2007. During the same period, earnings for 18-24 year old graduates rose only 3%, (Student Debt for the Class of 2007. Report released by ProjectStudentDebt.Org in Oct 2008). The US Department of Education will provide $83 Billion worth of financial aid loans this year, (Department of Education website at Ed.Gov).
This load of debt represents a secret drag on the economy. When graduates are laid off - as they will be in this economy – they are still liable for what they owe. This could force them into a bankruptcy that will follow them for years. If they do have jobs, their debt load will prevent them from getting mortgages to buy a home, get credit, or start a business.
People are staggering under a mountain of debt. They have so much debt that even if the banks were lending, consumers have too much debt to borrow. The average amount of credit card debt per U.S. household in 2007 was $9,840 - an increase of 25% since 2000. According to the Federal Reserve consumers in the US carry $2.6 trillion of all kinds of consumer debt - an increase of 24% from just 2003.
Delinquencies for credit cards are on the rise. According to the American Bankers Association in the first quarter of 2008, bank-card delinquencies jumped to 4.51% - above the five-year average delinquency rate of 4.4%. (This information may be found in Forbes magazine at http://www.forbes.com/finance/2008/09/12/credit-card-debt-pf-ii-in_jl_0911creditcards_inl.html?feed=rss_finance).
Since September, politicians, business people and economists have proposed different ways to stimulate the economy. The goal of all of these plans is to put money back into people’s hands so they can spend and save. The fastest way to do this would be reduce personal debt loads. Less money going to debt service is more money that goes into the economy.
The most effective way the government can address the problem of personal debt load is to forgive or reduce college loans. This is one of the major financial levers the government has access to. It is also an option that has not been discussed at all.
If the government forgave or reduced loans from 1999-2008 it wouldn’t cost more than Paulson’s $700 Billion plan to bail out the banks - which had no impact on the current economic crisis. But forgiving $10,000 of loans per student loan holder would provide a direct jolt to the economy both in the short and long term. Its price tag would be finite and stable as the Government would know the exact dollar value of loans forgiven.
The effects of forgiving Federal student loans would flow into the economy faster than Obama’s public works proposals, and would be broader and less expensive than McCain’s idea of buying bad mortgages. Easing the burden of college loans could also reduce personal bankruptcies, which would preserve loan holders’ future ability to obtain a mortgage or car loan.
There are other benefits to this approach - and not all of them financial. How would the culture of the country be enriched if artists, who graduated from the University Of North Carolina School of the Arts, could practice their art without having to slow, sidetrack or give up their careers to pay student loans? How many more teachers would we be able to hire for public schools if loan holders did not have to worry about paying back a college loan on a school teacher’s salary?
The point of the banker’s bailout was to “unfreeze” the credit markets and get people and corporations spending again. The banks took the money and ran. There was no accountability and they have simply used the money to clean their balance sheets. It is now time for the government to help people who wear Nike’s, sweatshirts and carry backpacks, and not just those who wear Gucci, Armani and carry briefcases.
- According to ProjectStudentDebt.Org, the percentage of students in 2007 who graduated from the University of North Carolina School of the Arts with an average college loan debt of $18,000.
This September, bankers trekked to Washington DC and were handed the equivalent of the cost the Iraq war with no strings and no questions asked. The auto industry is asking for the equivalent of twice their combined market value.
No one is discussing a bailout for people carrying student loans.
How important relief to student loan holders is, was driven home to me while cleaning house and indulging in my guilty pleasure of watching TRU TV (formally Court TV) reality shows. In a show about repo men, a young woman who had had her car repossessed, sat on the curb and cried, “They’ve taken my car! How am I going to get to work? I have $35,000 dollars in college loans!”
This scene is, I am sure, being repeated on curbs and living rooms all across the country.
Since 1995, the average annual tuition cost for both public and private universities has doubled, (http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008022_3b.pdf, pg 467). Over 70% of college students leave school with some sort of college debt. The amount of student debt rose 6% between 2006 and 2007. During the same period, earnings for 18-24 year old graduates rose only 3%, (Student Debt for the Class of 2007. Report released by ProjectStudentDebt.Org in Oct 2008). The US Department of Education will provide $83 Billion worth of financial aid loans this year, (Department of Education website at Ed.Gov).
This load of debt represents a secret drag on the economy. When graduates are laid off - as they will be in this economy – they are still liable for what they owe. This could force them into a bankruptcy that will follow them for years. If they do have jobs, their debt load will prevent them from getting mortgages to buy a home, get credit, or start a business.
People are staggering under a mountain of debt. They have so much debt that even if the banks were lending, consumers have too much debt to borrow. The average amount of credit card debt per U.S. household in 2007 was $9,840 - an increase of 25% since 2000. According to the Federal Reserve consumers in the US carry $2.6 trillion of all kinds of consumer debt - an increase of 24% from just 2003.
Delinquencies for credit cards are on the rise. According to the American Bankers Association in the first quarter of 2008, bank-card delinquencies jumped to 4.51% - above the five-year average delinquency rate of 4.4%. (This information may be found in Forbes magazine at http://www.forbes.com/finance/2008/09/12/credit-card-debt-pf-ii-in_jl_0911creditcards_inl.html?feed=rss_finance).
Since September, politicians, business people and economists have proposed different ways to stimulate the economy. The goal of all of these plans is to put money back into people’s hands so they can spend and save. The fastest way to do this would be reduce personal debt loads. Less money going to debt service is more money that goes into the economy.
The most effective way the government can address the problem of personal debt load is to forgive or reduce college loans. This is one of the major financial levers the government has access to. It is also an option that has not been discussed at all.
If the government forgave or reduced loans from 1999-2008 it wouldn’t cost more than Paulson’s $700 Billion plan to bail out the banks - which had no impact on the current economic crisis. But forgiving $10,000 of loans per student loan holder would provide a direct jolt to the economy both in the short and long term. Its price tag would be finite and stable as the Government would know the exact dollar value of loans forgiven.
The effects of forgiving Federal student loans would flow into the economy faster than Obama’s public works proposals, and would be broader and less expensive than McCain’s idea of buying bad mortgages. Easing the burden of college loans could also reduce personal bankruptcies, which would preserve loan holders’ future ability to obtain a mortgage or car loan.
There are other benefits to this approach - and not all of them financial. How would the culture of the country be enriched if artists, who graduated from the University Of North Carolina School of the Arts, could practice their art without having to slow, sidetrack or give up their careers to pay student loans? How many more teachers would we be able to hire for public schools if loan holders did not have to worry about paying back a college loan on a school teacher’s salary?
The point of the banker’s bailout was to “unfreeze” the credit markets and get people and corporations spending again. The banks took the money and ran. There was no accountability and they have simply used the money to clean their balance sheets. It is now time for the government to help people who wear Nike’s, sweatshirts and carry backpacks, and not just those who wear Gucci, Armani and carry briefcases.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
A Silent Earthquake
“The devil is in the details.”
State Sen. Don Perata on Proposition 11 – California’s redistricting reform
A silent earthquake struck California on election night.
Californians passed Proposition 11, a complete reform of the state redistricting process. Its passage was overshadowed by Prop 8 and Barak Obama.
Prop. 11 is designed to break the hold of the extreme wings of both parties on the State Assembly by creating competitive state assembly districts. The theory is holding incumbents accountable in competitive districts should move them to the political center.
By taking redistricting out of the hands of the State Legislature, Prop 11 completely changes the way districts are drawn for the California State House, the California State Senate and the State Board of Equalization (our Orwellian named tax department). It also writes into law, guidelines that must be followed in creating US House Districts.
Prop 11 requires that districts be of equal population size, be geographically compact, not divide communities, and comply with all Federal voting rights acts. Districts will be drawn by a commission whose selection process is arcane and out of the hands of the legislators themselves.
Before Prop 11, legislative districts, as in most states, were drawn by the legislators themselves. As time went on they became more open that their goal was to protect their seats. The result was (and is) a highly partisan legislature, with a high reelection rate, that contains the most extreme members of each party. The Democrats are represented by uncompromising purist of the left and the Republicans by an anti-tax group nick-named C.A.V.E dwellers (which stands for Citizens Against Virtually Everything).
The result has been a disaster for California. California has a balanced budget requirement with a super majority needed to raise taxes. We have spent the entire year (as we did last year and the year before) locked in a budget deadlock that threatens to close down the State. The legislature just adjourned from a special session without reaching a budget deal (second time this year). The Republicans refused to raise taxes, and the Democrats refused to reform government employee union work rules that have lead to massive abuse. Once again regular Californians will suffer as social services stop for our neediest citizens.
This gridlock is one reason why the state’s ballot initiative process is so active. Regular citizens are frustrated by the lack of action in Sacramento. Special interest groups also realize that they cannot get their agendas through the gridlock in the State Assembly. Consequently, these groups pour a lot of money (much of it from out of state), passing ballot initiative that benefit a very narrow group (Indian Gaming) or to press a particular social agenda (Proposition 8). If the State Assembly worked together to address the issues facing the state, there would be less reason to turn to ballot initiatives. This would be a significant change in California politics.
One argument against Proposition 11 was that it would hurt minority representation as there is no guarantee that the redistricting commission wouldn’t cut up their communities. This ignores the fact that legislators currently don’t have any motivation to keep minority communities intact. In many cases there is incentive to divide and neutralize the voices of these communities. Minorities fared better after the courts took over the redistricting process in 1970 and 1990. In the 2000 redistricting legislators cut up minority communities in Long Beach, San Jose, Fresno and the San Gabriel Valley. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/12/EDV812RJMK.DTL).
A stronger argument against Prop 11 was that states that have adopted the commission process (for example Washington State) have not seen an easing of partisanship. This may be so. But reforming the processes should lower the amount of horse trading that goes on between members to draw districts designed to keep each other safe.
In 2011 we will see how successful Prop 11 is. If it is successful, Prop 11 should give Californians more moderate representation that will work to solve the state’s problems and not just to score points off the other guy. If it doesn’t work, we won’t be much worse off than we are.
California is the cradle of other movements that have swept the country. If Prop 11 is successful, a redistricting commission may be coming to state near you.
State Sen. Don Perata on Proposition 11 – California’s redistricting reform
A silent earthquake struck California on election night.
Californians passed Proposition 11, a complete reform of the state redistricting process. Its passage was overshadowed by Prop 8 and Barak Obama.
Prop. 11 is designed to break the hold of the extreme wings of both parties on the State Assembly by creating competitive state assembly districts. The theory is holding incumbents accountable in competitive districts should move them to the political center.
By taking redistricting out of the hands of the State Legislature, Prop 11 completely changes the way districts are drawn for the California State House, the California State Senate and the State Board of Equalization (our Orwellian named tax department). It also writes into law, guidelines that must be followed in creating US House Districts.
Prop 11 requires that districts be of equal population size, be geographically compact, not divide communities, and comply with all Federal voting rights acts. Districts will be drawn by a commission whose selection process is arcane and out of the hands of the legislators themselves.
Before Prop 11, legislative districts, as in most states, were drawn by the legislators themselves. As time went on they became more open that their goal was to protect their seats. The result was (and is) a highly partisan legislature, with a high reelection rate, that contains the most extreme members of each party. The Democrats are represented by uncompromising purist of the left and the Republicans by an anti-tax group nick-named C.A.V.E dwellers (which stands for Citizens Against Virtually Everything).
The result has been a disaster for California. California has a balanced budget requirement with a super majority needed to raise taxes. We have spent the entire year (as we did last year and the year before) locked in a budget deadlock that threatens to close down the State. The legislature just adjourned from a special session without reaching a budget deal (second time this year). The Republicans refused to raise taxes, and the Democrats refused to reform government employee union work rules that have lead to massive abuse. Once again regular Californians will suffer as social services stop for our neediest citizens.
This gridlock is one reason why the state’s ballot initiative process is so active. Regular citizens are frustrated by the lack of action in Sacramento. Special interest groups also realize that they cannot get their agendas through the gridlock in the State Assembly. Consequently, these groups pour a lot of money (much of it from out of state), passing ballot initiative that benefit a very narrow group (Indian Gaming) or to press a particular social agenda (Proposition 8). If the State Assembly worked together to address the issues facing the state, there would be less reason to turn to ballot initiatives. This would be a significant change in California politics.
One argument against Proposition 11 was that it would hurt minority representation as there is no guarantee that the redistricting commission wouldn’t cut up their communities. This ignores the fact that legislators currently don’t have any motivation to keep minority communities intact. In many cases there is incentive to divide and neutralize the voices of these communities. Minorities fared better after the courts took over the redistricting process in 1970 and 1990. In the 2000 redistricting legislators cut up minority communities in Long Beach, San Jose, Fresno and the San Gabriel Valley. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/12/EDV812RJMK.DTL).
A stronger argument against Prop 11 was that states that have adopted the commission process (for example Washington State) have not seen an easing of partisanship. This may be so. But reforming the processes should lower the amount of horse trading that goes on between members to draw districts designed to keep each other safe.
In 2011 we will see how successful Prop 11 is. If it is successful, Prop 11 should give Californians more moderate representation that will work to solve the state’s problems and not just to score points off the other guy. If it doesn’t work, we won’t be much worse off than we are.
California is the cradle of other movements that have swept the country. If Prop 11 is successful, a redistricting commission may be coming to state near you.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Sarah Palin Kicks at the Door of History
“Today I announce that I will seek and I will win the presidency of the United States of America.”
- Dan Quayle announcing his candidacy for President of the United States in April of 1999. He withdrew after placing 8th in the Ames Iowa straw poll in August of 1999.
As Sarah Palin considers kicking in doors the Almighty may have left cracked for her, she should hope that He oiled its hinges as well. The history of failed Vice Presidential candidates who went on to win the big prize is short.
The only failed Vice Presidential candidate since 1865 who went on to be elected President was Franklin Delano Roosevelt (VP Candidate in 1924 with John W. Davis who lost - big time – to Calvin Coolidge). In the same period of time only two Vice Presidents won the presidency without first ascending through the death of their President – Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush.
FDR, Nixon and Bush each broke through in extraordinary circumstances. After 1924, FDR went on to serve successfully as Governor of New York. Running a major state during the onset of the Great Depression proved his executive skills to the nation. Nixon’s monomania kept him in the game. PepsiCo put him on its payroll so he could travel and rebuild his image. Eight years after losing to JFK, he was able to take advantage of a split in the Democratic Party to narrowly win election. George H.W. Bush won running on the accomplishments of a very popular incumbent. He also had the good fortune to run against Michael Dukakis who, until John McCain ran in 2008, was the most incompetent Presidential candidate since Alf Landon.
These circumstances are not in place for Sarah Palin.
Why do Vice Presidential candidates and Vice Presidents have such a hard time rising to the top? There are several factors they have to overcome to win.
First, Presidential candidates do not pick someone who is strong enough to overshadow them. VP candidates are picked to shore up a weakness or bring in the support of a targeted constituency. In the late 19th and early 20th century this would be a political machine, and/or someone well known in a region distant to the main candidate. In modern times the VP is picked to appeal to a narrow constituency who view the Presidential nominee with suspicion, or to fill a perceived gap in their resumes. Thus Gore was picked by Clinton and Biden by Obama to provide an air of DC competence and experience that an outsider would need to succeed in Washington. George H.W. Bush chose Quayle and McCain chose Palin to improve their standings among conservatives who distrusted them. In no case were these candidates chosen because the Presidential candidate looked at them and said “they can be President.”
Second, a Vice Presidential candidate’s role is to protect the Presidential nominee by doing the ticket’s dirty work and paying the political price for it. This enables the Presidential nominee to glide above the fray. By the time the campaign is over the VP candidate’s reputation is damaged and his or her political capital is spent. If they lose they have little opportunity to regain that capital. Generally speaking they are out of office and have few ways to rebuild what they lost.
If they lose but have an office to go back to, like Bob Dole did after 1976, their previous campaign comes back to haunt them when they run again. In 1996, Dole tried so hard not to be the biting attack dog that he was when he ran with Gerald Ford, that he made himself uncomfortable and never looked natural.
If their ticket does win, they do have that opportunity to repair their image and rebuild political capital. But running as a sitting VP is a double edged sword. If the incumbent keeps them at a distance and out of the loop they won’t be seen as experienced enough. This was one of the problems Nixon had when he ran in 1960. Bush ’41 also had this problem, but was lucky in that the Dukakis campaign was as inept as Regan was popular.
If you are involved in the incumbent’s administration you have to run on his record. Walter Mondale and Al Gore had this problem. Both men had to lug around all the baggage their President loaded on their bandwagon. Neither could overcome unpopular aspects of the Carter and Clinton administration.
Palin and Quayle share a third factor. By the time their VP campaigns were over, they were (and are) seen as a punch line of a joke. Each had opportunities to overcome this perception, but both blew it through simple lack of skill and self-awareness. Whether it is Sarah Palin standing in front of a turkey rendering machine in action, or Dan Quayle ensuring a spelling bee contestant adds that pesky silent “e” at the end of” potato,” those moments will define them throughout their lives. Once Americans start laughing they never stop.
So Palin is kicking on a door that probably will remain closed. No matter how hard she kicks by flying around the country fundraising, campaigning, and giving speeches, history shows she is more likely to follow in the footsteps of Dan Quayle than in those of FDR.
- Dan Quayle announcing his candidacy for President of the United States in April of 1999. He withdrew after placing 8th in the Ames Iowa straw poll in August of 1999.
As Sarah Palin considers kicking in doors the Almighty may have left cracked for her, she should hope that He oiled its hinges as well. The history of failed Vice Presidential candidates who went on to win the big prize is short.
The only failed Vice Presidential candidate since 1865 who went on to be elected President was Franklin Delano Roosevelt (VP Candidate in 1924 with John W. Davis who lost - big time – to Calvin Coolidge). In the same period of time only two Vice Presidents won the presidency without first ascending through the death of their President – Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush.
FDR, Nixon and Bush each broke through in extraordinary circumstances. After 1924, FDR went on to serve successfully as Governor of New York. Running a major state during the onset of the Great Depression proved his executive skills to the nation. Nixon’s monomania kept him in the game. PepsiCo put him on its payroll so he could travel and rebuild his image. Eight years after losing to JFK, he was able to take advantage of a split in the Democratic Party to narrowly win election. George H.W. Bush won running on the accomplishments of a very popular incumbent. He also had the good fortune to run against Michael Dukakis who, until John McCain ran in 2008, was the most incompetent Presidential candidate since Alf Landon.
These circumstances are not in place for Sarah Palin.
Why do Vice Presidential candidates and Vice Presidents have such a hard time rising to the top? There are several factors they have to overcome to win.
First, Presidential candidates do not pick someone who is strong enough to overshadow them. VP candidates are picked to shore up a weakness or bring in the support of a targeted constituency. In the late 19th and early 20th century this would be a political machine, and/or someone well known in a region distant to the main candidate. In modern times the VP is picked to appeal to a narrow constituency who view the Presidential nominee with suspicion, or to fill a perceived gap in their resumes. Thus Gore was picked by Clinton and Biden by Obama to provide an air of DC competence and experience that an outsider would need to succeed in Washington. George H.W. Bush chose Quayle and McCain chose Palin to improve their standings among conservatives who distrusted them. In no case were these candidates chosen because the Presidential candidate looked at them and said “they can be President.”
Second, a Vice Presidential candidate’s role is to protect the Presidential nominee by doing the ticket’s dirty work and paying the political price for it. This enables the Presidential nominee to glide above the fray. By the time the campaign is over the VP candidate’s reputation is damaged and his or her political capital is spent. If they lose they have little opportunity to regain that capital. Generally speaking they are out of office and have few ways to rebuild what they lost.
If they lose but have an office to go back to, like Bob Dole did after 1976, their previous campaign comes back to haunt them when they run again. In 1996, Dole tried so hard not to be the biting attack dog that he was when he ran with Gerald Ford, that he made himself uncomfortable and never looked natural.
If their ticket does win, they do have that opportunity to repair their image and rebuild political capital. But running as a sitting VP is a double edged sword. If the incumbent keeps them at a distance and out of the loop they won’t be seen as experienced enough. This was one of the problems Nixon had when he ran in 1960. Bush ’41 also had this problem, but was lucky in that the Dukakis campaign was as inept as Regan was popular.
If you are involved in the incumbent’s administration you have to run on his record. Walter Mondale and Al Gore had this problem. Both men had to lug around all the baggage their President loaded on their bandwagon. Neither could overcome unpopular aspects of the Carter and Clinton administration.
Palin and Quayle share a third factor. By the time their VP campaigns were over, they were (and are) seen as a punch line of a joke. Each had opportunities to overcome this perception, but both blew it through simple lack of skill and self-awareness. Whether it is Sarah Palin standing in front of a turkey rendering machine in action, or Dan Quayle ensuring a spelling bee contestant adds that pesky silent “e” at the end of” potato,” those moments will define them throughout their lives. Once Americans start laughing they never stop.
So Palin is kicking on a door that probably will remain closed. No matter how hard she kicks by flying around the country fundraising, campaigning, and giving speeches, history shows she is more likely to follow in the footsteps of Dan Quayle than in those of FDR.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Mumbai
Mumbai has been added to a long chain of evil, hatred and bloodshed. My thoughts are with the victims and survivors of this tragedy. My hope is that the light will one day shine in the dark corner of all peoples’ hearts so that terrorism becomes a sad, distant memory.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Cashing a Reality Check
"From what we could see from all the polling and everything else, it remains a conservative country."
- Brit Hume on Fox news election night 2006 when the Democrats took back the House and Senate.
From Brit Hume on election night 2006 to Fred Barnes in 2008, whenever the Republicans lose, their shills take to the airwaves to convince themselves and others that the US is a center-right country. They tell us any win by progressives is a fluke, brought on by the “gotcha media” snookering a gullible public.
Are they right?
A quick look at the presidential elections from 1992 – 2008 shows this is actually a center-left country and has been for a long time. During this time a conservative Presidential candidate won once – in 2004. Clinton won in 1992 beating the moderate conservative Bush ’41 and the ever entertaining Ross Perot. In 1996 Clinton ran and beat Bob Dole who ran on a classic conservative platform.
Then there is the 2000 election. Gore and his center-left platform won more votes than Bush ’43. Together with Nader the center-left/liberal agenda won solid support from the voters. In 2004 Bush ’43 won re-election by running a campaign of fear against an almost incoherent Kerry campaign. Polls showed that if Kerry had run on domestic issues, he would have won. In 2008 Obama won with over 50% of the vote. So again the center-left/liberal agenda won.
Surveys show that American disagree with much of basic Republican orthodoxy. (The poll numbers quoted below are compiled in a report published by Media Matters : The Progressive Majority: Why a Conservative America is a Myth; found at http://mediamatters.org/progmaj/report.)
In a survey published National Election Studies (NES) in 2004, 59% of respondents said we need a bigger government to do bigger things. It is no surprise then that 42% of respondents said they wanted more programs even if it meant more spending. This is not exactly strong support for small government that Republicans advocate.
A survey by the LA Times in 2005 found that whereas most people felt taxes were too high it didn’t rate as a number one concern and it never had, (it still doesn’t). At the same time a Wall Street Journal poll showed the overwhelming majority felt spending was better than tax cuts at stimulating the economy.
Pew Research published data in 2007 that showed people who oppose making abortion difficult to obtain rose from 49% in 1985 to 56% in 2007. So from mid-Reagan to mid-Bush ’43 opposition to restrictions on abortion steadily increased. In a CNN poll taken in 2007, 62% of respondents opposed overturning Roe v Wade.
These are three key planks of the Republican platform. These are also planks with which the country strongly disagrees – and has done so over a long period of time. These examples are not outliers or exceptions. For example, in addition, Americans support increases in the minimum wage, and universal health insurance both of which Republicans have stridently opposed.
As Republicans try and work out why they lost in 2006 and 2008 and may lose again in 2010, they need to understand where the country actually is philosophically. Simply put the Republicans loose because they are out of step with the majority of Americans. Until they get back in stride with the average voter, Republicans will continue to go down in defeat.
- Brit Hume on Fox news election night 2006 when the Democrats took back the House and Senate.
From Brit Hume on election night 2006 to Fred Barnes in 2008, whenever the Republicans lose, their shills take to the airwaves to convince themselves and others that the US is a center-right country. They tell us any win by progressives is a fluke, brought on by the “gotcha media” snookering a gullible public.
Are they right?
A quick look at the presidential elections from 1992 – 2008 shows this is actually a center-left country and has been for a long time. During this time a conservative Presidential candidate won once – in 2004. Clinton won in 1992 beating the moderate conservative Bush ’41 and the ever entertaining Ross Perot. In 1996 Clinton ran and beat Bob Dole who ran on a classic conservative platform.
Then there is the 2000 election. Gore and his center-left platform won more votes than Bush ’43. Together with Nader the center-left/liberal agenda won solid support from the voters. In 2004 Bush ’43 won re-election by running a campaign of fear against an almost incoherent Kerry campaign. Polls showed that if Kerry had run on domestic issues, he would have won. In 2008 Obama won with over 50% of the vote. So again the center-left/liberal agenda won.
Surveys show that American disagree with much of basic Republican orthodoxy. (The poll numbers quoted below are compiled in a report published by Media Matters : The Progressive Majority: Why a Conservative America is a Myth; found at http://mediamatters.org/progmaj/report.)
In a survey published National Election Studies (NES) in 2004, 59% of respondents said we need a bigger government to do bigger things. It is no surprise then that 42% of respondents said they wanted more programs even if it meant more spending. This is not exactly strong support for small government that Republicans advocate.
A survey by the LA Times in 2005 found that whereas most people felt taxes were too high it didn’t rate as a number one concern and it never had, (it still doesn’t). At the same time a Wall Street Journal poll showed the overwhelming majority felt spending was better than tax cuts at stimulating the economy.
Pew Research published data in 2007 that showed people who oppose making abortion difficult to obtain rose from 49% in 1985 to 56% in 2007. So from mid-Reagan to mid-Bush ’43 opposition to restrictions on abortion steadily increased. In a CNN poll taken in 2007, 62% of respondents opposed overturning Roe v Wade.
These are three key planks of the Republican platform. These are also planks with which the country strongly disagrees – and has done so over a long period of time. These examples are not outliers or exceptions. For example, in addition, Americans support increases in the minimum wage, and universal health insurance both of which Republicans have stridently opposed.
As Republicans try and work out why they lost in 2006 and 2008 and may lose again in 2010, they need to understand where the country actually is philosophically. Simply put the Republicans loose because they are out of step with the majority of Americans. Until they get back in stride with the average voter, Republicans will continue to go down in defeat.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Team of Rivals
“Hillary, I look forward to you advising me”
- Barack Obama in an early Democratic Presidential debate
When Obama made his comment on getting advice from Hillary everyone laughed, because no one thought he would win, and if he did, that he would offer anything to Clinton. Even more farfetched was the concept that she would accept. Lost in the laughter was his follow-up comment “I wanna gather up talent from everywhere.” This comment went almost unnoticed.
That was then, this is now.
Obama’s reported nomination of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is an inspired choice of a confident President who places competence over political payoff and personal connection
Looking back, this statement says a lot about Obama. He told us he was going to gather up talent from all around and he has done just that. In addition to picking Clinton for State he is also getting advice from Brent Scowcroft, one of Bush 41’s major foreign policy advisors. It is a sign that he intends to follow through on his vision for what he wants to accomplish as President.
Choosing Clinton shows a man confident in his opinions and abilities, as well as one who understands his weaknesses. The world is a complex place and Clinton has “walk-in” rights and relationships with most of the major world leaders. Obama doesn’t and he understands that there is not enough time for him to establish those relationships. With Hillary at the State Department Obama can hit the diplomatic ground running.
Will she support him?
Of course she will. She understands that her future is linked to his success. If she is seen to cause Obama to fail or appears to undercut him for her own gain, her future in the party is done. However, if she is seen as a key to a successful Obama administration she still has a chance to run for President if she chooses. She will only be 69 in 2016. In the meantime she has an opportunity to operate on the world stage that she wouldn’t have if she stays in the Senate.
The 2016 Presidential race will be like 2008; neither the incumbent nor the Vice President will be running. Secretary of State is an excellent place for Clinton to position herself for that race if she chooses.
- Barack Obama in an early Democratic Presidential debate
When Obama made his comment on getting advice from Hillary everyone laughed, because no one thought he would win, and if he did, that he would offer anything to Clinton. Even more farfetched was the concept that she would accept. Lost in the laughter was his follow-up comment “I wanna gather up talent from everywhere.” This comment went almost unnoticed.
That was then, this is now.
Obama’s reported nomination of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is an inspired choice of a confident President who places competence over political payoff and personal connection
Looking back, this statement says a lot about Obama. He told us he was going to gather up talent from all around and he has done just that. In addition to picking Clinton for State he is also getting advice from Brent Scowcroft, one of Bush 41’s major foreign policy advisors. It is a sign that he intends to follow through on his vision for what he wants to accomplish as President.
Choosing Clinton shows a man confident in his opinions and abilities, as well as one who understands his weaknesses. The world is a complex place and Clinton has “walk-in” rights and relationships with most of the major world leaders. Obama doesn’t and he understands that there is not enough time for him to establish those relationships. With Hillary at the State Department Obama can hit the diplomatic ground running.
Will she support him?
Of course she will. She understands that her future is linked to his success. If she is seen to cause Obama to fail or appears to undercut him for her own gain, her future in the party is done. However, if she is seen as a key to a successful Obama administration she still has a chance to run for President if she chooses. She will only be 69 in 2016. In the meantime she has an opportunity to operate on the world stage that she wouldn’t have if she stays in the Senate.
The 2016 Presidential race will be like 2008; neither the incumbent nor the Vice President will be running. Secretary of State is an excellent place for Clinton to position herself for that race if she chooses.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Road to Nowhere
“The party united around god, guns and gays is finished.”
- Jeffrey Hart, Professor Emeritus Dartmouth College
The Republican Party is off to wander in the same wilderness from which the Democrats have only recently emerged. There are a number of reasons the Republicans find themselves lost in the desert. These reasons are larger than the “MBA President” and his mishandling of the nation’s finances. The Republicans are lost because they are following a map drawn in 1992 through landscape that has changed. So, what on the map looks like a straight highway to an exciting city turns out to be dirt road off a cliff.
After George H. W. Bush lost to President Clinton in 1992, the religious conservative were the rising power in the Republican Party. Pat Robertson showed them how to organize, Jesse Helms showed them how to fund themselves and Lee Atwater showed them the political power of fear. Pat Buchanan’s “Cultural War” speech at the1992 Republican National convention provided a rally cry with broad appeal. Evangelical conservatives rebranded themselves Social Conservatives, started purging dissenters from the GOP, and were off and running.
The share of evangelical voters who voted Republican was its highest in 1996. The fact that Dole lost was not lost on the Republicans. They ran Bush as a “compassionate conservative” to attract a wider audience, but Bush lost the popular vote. Carl Rove attributed this to the drop in the evangelicals from 1996 levels and made every effort to get them to turn out in 2004.
September 11, 2001 gave Bush a potent political issue. His 2004 win was based more on national security and fear of terrorism than on Social Conservatism. The Republican share of the evangelical vote solidified – but the proportion of the evangelicals in the electorate dropped to 20% in 2004 from 23% in 2000. The fact that Republican won a larger portion of a smaller pie was masked by moderate suburbanite’s voting Republican out of fear of Jihad.
The Social Conservatives misinterpreted the 2004 election as a mandate for their views. In 2005 they went all in and pushed the House and Senate to intervene in the Terri Shiavo case. This alienated those suburbanites that Bush had won and could have easily been converted to the Republican Party. It also began the alienation of the Goldwater Republicans.
By 2006 former White House Counsel John Dean, a protégée and close friend of Goldwater, was regularly speaking out against the Party. He became the voice of the disenchanted Goldwater conservatives who had provided a lot of the conservative movement’s intellectual force.
Initially they stayed on board into 2008 because they had some faith in John McCain. But they lost that faith when the Social Conservatives bullied McCain into picking hardliner Sarah Palin. The Goldwater Republicans joined moderate and independent voters in turning away from the GOP. Even worse for the Republicans, evangelicals increased their proportion of the electorate to their 2000 level of 23% - but Obama significantly increased the proportion of evangelicals who voted Democratic.
The Republican Party is now just a stump. The Goldwater wing left, the moderates are crushed and only the hard line Social Conservatives are left. As one writer put it, you get rid of the Social Conservatives and the Republican Party ceases to exist. This has been a long road from 1992. Now the Republicans have to decide whether to put on brakes and turn around, or blow through the road closed sign.
- Jeffrey Hart, Professor Emeritus Dartmouth College
The Republican Party is off to wander in the same wilderness from which the Democrats have only recently emerged. There are a number of reasons the Republicans find themselves lost in the desert. These reasons are larger than the “MBA President” and his mishandling of the nation’s finances. The Republicans are lost because they are following a map drawn in 1992 through landscape that has changed. So, what on the map looks like a straight highway to an exciting city turns out to be dirt road off a cliff.
After George H. W. Bush lost to President Clinton in 1992, the religious conservative were the rising power in the Republican Party. Pat Robertson showed them how to organize, Jesse Helms showed them how to fund themselves and Lee Atwater showed them the political power of fear. Pat Buchanan’s “Cultural War” speech at the1992 Republican National convention provided a rally cry with broad appeal. Evangelical conservatives rebranded themselves Social Conservatives, started purging dissenters from the GOP, and were off and running.
The share of evangelical voters who voted Republican was its highest in 1996. The fact that Dole lost was not lost on the Republicans. They ran Bush as a “compassionate conservative” to attract a wider audience, but Bush lost the popular vote. Carl Rove attributed this to the drop in the evangelicals from 1996 levels and made every effort to get them to turn out in 2004.
September 11, 2001 gave Bush a potent political issue. His 2004 win was based more on national security and fear of terrorism than on Social Conservatism. The Republican share of the evangelical vote solidified – but the proportion of the evangelicals in the electorate dropped to 20% in 2004 from 23% in 2000. The fact that Republican won a larger portion of a smaller pie was masked by moderate suburbanite’s voting Republican out of fear of Jihad.
The Social Conservatives misinterpreted the 2004 election as a mandate for their views. In 2005 they went all in and pushed the House and Senate to intervene in the Terri Shiavo case. This alienated those suburbanites that Bush had won and could have easily been converted to the Republican Party. It also began the alienation of the Goldwater Republicans.
By 2006 former White House Counsel John Dean, a protégée and close friend of Goldwater, was regularly speaking out against the Party. He became the voice of the disenchanted Goldwater conservatives who had provided a lot of the conservative movement’s intellectual force.
Initially they stayed on board into 2008 because they had some faith in John McCain. But they lost that faith when the Social Conservatives bullied McCain into picking hardliner Sarah Palin. The Goldwater Republicans joined moderate and independent voters in turning away from the GOP. Even worse for the Republicans, evangelicals increased their proportion of the electorate to their 2000 level of 23% - but Obama significantly increased the proportion of evangelicals who voted Democratic.
The Republican Party is now just a stump. The Goldwater wing left, the moderates are crushed and only the hard line Social Conservatives are left. As one writer put it, you get rid of the Social Conservatives and the Republican Party ceases to exist. This has been a long road from 1992. Now the Republicans have to decide whether to put on brakes and turn around, or blow through the road closed sign.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Fear and Loathing on the California Ballot
"We need to show the world when one thing happens to one of us, it happens to all of us,"
- Seattle blogger Amy Balliett
Let's begin with an update on a previous post regarding Proposition 8, the amendment to the Californian Constitution repealing equal rights of marriage. Nate Silver of Fivethirtyeight.com posted some analysis regarding the demographics of the Yes on 8 voters.
“…the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters -- the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) -- voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.Now, it's true that if new voters had voted against Prop 8 at the same rates that they voted for Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance -- they were helpful on balance. If California's electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.Furthermore, it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8's passage. Latinos aged 18-29 (not strictly the same as 'new' voters, but the closest available proxy) voted against Prop 8 by a 59-41 margin. These figures are not available for young black voters, but it would surprise me if their votes weren't fairly close to the 50-50 mark.At the end of the day, Prop 8's passage was more a generational matter than a racial one. If nobody over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would have failed by a point or two. It appears that the generational splits may be larger within minority communities than among whites, although the data on this is sketchy"
- Nate Silver – www.fivethirtyeight.com
As Nate Silver points out the split on Proposition 8 was more generational than racial. he exit polling for Proposition 8 found at CNN.com bears this out. This poll shows white men voted for Prop 8; White women voted against it. So white women’s no vote is why Prop 8 did not pass among white voters.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1
So it is both unfair and incorrect to single out any minority groups out for blame for the passage of Proposition 8.
Mea Culpa
A key turning point in the civil rights movement in the fifties and sixties was when whites began to understand that their own fate was linked to the fate of their fellow black citizens. Whites initially learned this in stark local economic terms such as the bus boycott in Montgomery or the boycott of businesses in downtown Atlanta.
As time went on whites began to see the wider cost of segregation. They saw how difficult it was to attract business from out of state making it harder to diversify their economies, raise revenue and modernize.
Finally they learned what it was costing in moral and spiritual terms. The oppressor is harmed deeply and in different ways than the oppressed. The spiritual cost of bigotry and fear is high. If as the bible says Perfect love drives out fear, then when you hold on to fear you block off love and the spiritual growth it brings.
Marriage equality forces need to show those that don’t support them the costs they bear as a result of this discrimination. When you single out one group and say its members cannot enjoy the same rights and protections as the rest of us, we all are at risk for being singled out and stripped of our rights. Marriage advocates need to show those who oppose them there is nothing to fear and that the country is always stronger when the constitution is applied to all members of society.
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”
- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
- Seattle blogger Amy Balliett
Let's begin with an update on a previous post regarding Proposition 8, the amendment to the Californian Constitution repealing equal rights of marriage. Nate Silver of Fivethirtyeight.com posted some analysis regarding the demographics of the Yes on 8 voters.
“…the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters -- the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) -- voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.Now, it's true that if new voters had voted against Prop 8 at the same rates that they voted for Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance -- they were helpful on balance. If California's electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.Furthermore, it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8's passage. Latinos aged 18-29 (not strictly the same as 'new' voters, but the closest available proxy) voted against Prop 8 by a 59-41 margin. These figures are not available for young black voters, but it would surprise me if their votes weren't fairly close to the 50-50 mark.At the end of the day, Prop 8's passage was more a generational matter than a racial one. If nobody over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would have failed by a point or two. It appears that the generational splits may be larger within minority communities than among whites, although the data on this is sketchy"
- Nate Silver – www.fivethirtyeight.com
As Nate Silver points out the split on Proposition 8 was more generational than racial. he exit polling for Proposition 8 found at CNN.com bears this out. This poll shows white men voted for Prop 8; White women voted against it. So white women’s no vote is why Prop 8 did not pass among white voters.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1
So it is both unfair and incorrect to single out any minority groups out for blame for the passage of Proposition 8.
Mea Culpa
A key turning point in the civil rights movement in the fifties and sixties was when whites began to understand that their own fate was linked to the fate of their fellow black citizens. Whites initially learned this in stark local economic terms such as the bus boycott in Montgomery or the boycott of businesses in downtown Atlanta.
As time went on whites began to see the wider cost of segregation. They saw how difficult it was to attract business from out of state making it harder to diversify their economies, raise revenue and modernize.
Finally they learned what it was costing in moral and spiritual terms. The oppressor is harmed deeply and in different ways than the oppressed. The spiritual cost of bigotry and fear is high. If as the bible says Perfect love drives out fear, then when you hold on to fear you block off love and the spiritual growth it brings.
Marriage equality forces need to show those that don’t support them the costs they bear as a result of this discrimination. When you single out one group and say its members cannot enjoy the same rights and protections as the rest of us, we all are at risk for being singled out and stripped of our rights. Marriage advocates need to show those who oppose them there is nothing to fear and that the country is always stronger when the constitution is applied to all members of society.
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”
- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Obama and Lieberman
"Senator Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead. But eloquence is no substitute for a record -- not in these tough times,"
- Senator Joe Lieberman at the 2008 Republican Convention
What should Obama do about Joe Lieberman? It looks like he will work to keep Lieberman in the Democratic caucus and hold his Chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee. This is a low cost solution politically for Obama with a high return. If he remains, Lieberman would continue to vote with Democrats on key votes. Obama would show the world he is in control of his party. It also sends a strong message, that in sharp contrast to the Republicans of recent years and the purist wing of the Democrats, Obama puts country above settling scores. This will make it easier for the President-elect to gather a wide range of people to work with him to solve the nation’s problems.
Lieberman on the other hand, would be grateful that Obama would have spared him the difficult choice of jumping ship. If Lieberman leaves and joins the Republicans he would lose his Chairmanship and the trust of both parties. His vote won’t make a difference to the Republicans overall, so there is no reason for them to give him much. The one place where Lieberman could make a difference is in cloture votes. But these are about specific issue, and as close as the Democrats are to sixty votes, it would be easy for them to peel off the one or two Republican votes they would need. So without much to offer to the Republicans in way of being a swing vote, Lieberman would be neutered legislatively.
It is also doubtful that he would feel at home in the Republican Party or they would feel comfortable having him. His ADA rating for 2007 at 70% was higher than the three most liberal Senate Republicans; Susan Collins, (55%); Olympia Snowe, (60%); and Arlen Specter, (60%). (Interestingly enough, Obama’s ADA rating was 75% - far from being the “most liberal member of the Senate.”)
But if Obama supports Lieberman’s position in the Democratic caucus and his retention of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee chair, he would have in a grateful Lieberman the support of a Senator with experience in a key Senate post.
After all the forgiven are the most loyal.
- Senator Joe Lieberman at the 2008 Republican Convention
What should Obama do about Joe Lieberman? It looks like he will work to keep Lieberman in the Democratic caucus and hold his Chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee. This is a low cost solution politically for Obama with a high return. If he remains, Lieberman would continue to vote with Democrats on key votes. Obama would show the world he is in control of his party. It also sends a strong message, that in sharp contrast to the Republicans of recent years and the purist wing of the Democrats, Obama puts country above settling scores. This will make it easier for the President-elect to gather a wide range of people to work with him to solve the nation’s problems.
Lieberman on the other hand, would be grateful that Obama would have spared him the difficult choice of jumping ship. If Lieberman leaves and joins the Republicans he would lose his Chairmanship and the trust of both parties. His vote won’t make a difference to the Republicans overall, so there is no reason for them to give him much. The one place where Lieberman could make a difference is in cloture votes. But these are about specific issue, and as close as the Democrats are to sixty votes, it would be easy for them to peel off the one or two Republican votes they would need. So without much to offer to the Republicans in way of being a swing vote, Lieberman would be neutered legislatively.
It is also doubtful that he would feel at home in the Republican Party or they would feel comfortable having him. His ADA rating for 2007 at 70% was higher than the three most liberal Senate Republicans; Susan Collins, (55%); Olympia Snowe, (60%); and Arlen Specter, (60%). (Interestingly enough, Obama’s ADA rating was 75% - far from being the “most liberal member of the Senate.”)
But if Obama supports Lieberman’s position in the Democratic caucus and his retention of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee chair, he would have in a grateful Lieberman the support of a Senator with experience in a key Senate post.
After all the forgiven are the most loyal.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Rudeness in North Carolina
“If you can’t say anything nice about anyone – you can come sit by me.”
- Cross-stitch Pillow at the home of Alice Roosevelt Longworth
Several election cycles ago a co-worker once asked me why on earth was Strom Thurmond still getting elected to the Senate. After all, my co-worker pointed out, Thurmond could barely walk, hear or even think. And yet South Carolinians kept sending him back to the Senate. My response was that South Carolinians were just being polite. Thurmond had nothing else in his life but the Senate, and it would be rude to vote him out when you pretty much knew he wasn’t going to be around long anyway.
That story goes to underscore there are rules and limits even in the hurley burley of a campaign. Some things about a candidate are fair game, others are off limits. Politics, like the Mafia has its rules and code, and you violate them at your own risk.
So it was no surprise to me that Sen. Elizabeth Dole lost her re-election bid. The race was close until she all but accused her opponent of being atheist. My first reaction when I saw the “Godless” commercial she ran against Kay Hagan was “How rude.”
You can call people out on a lot of things in politics but you don’t call them out on their religion. That is just rude. Anyone from North Carolina could have told Dole she was stepping over the line. North Carolinians take religion very seriously and would not dream of questioning someone’s faith. Unfortunately for Dole, she had been out of the state so long she didn’t understand that.
Obama just squeezed out a victory, Bev Perdue had a solid but not huge win, but Kay Hagan won by the largest margin of the three. The difference was the “Godless” advertisement. Hagan’s win proves that it doesn’t pay to be rude – even in politics.
- Cross-stitch Pillow at the home of Alice Roosevelt Longworth
Several election cycles ago a co-worker once asked me why on earth was Strom Thurmond still getting elected to the Senate. After all, my co-worker pointed out, Thurmond could barely walk, hear or even think. And yet South Carolinians kept sending him back to the Senate. My response was that South Carolinians were just being polite. Thurmond had nothing else in his life but the Senate, and it would be rude to vote him out when you pretty much knew he wasn’t going to be around long anyway.
That story goes to underscore there are rules and limits even in the hurley burley of a campaign. Some things about a candidate are fair game, others are off limits. Politics, like the Mafia has its rules and code, and you violate them at your own risk.
So it was no surprise to me that Sen. Elizabeth Dole lost her re-election bid. The race was close until she all but accused her opponent of being atheist. My first reaction when I saw the “Godless” commercial she ran against Kay Hagan was “How rude.”
You can call people out on a lot of things in politics but you don’t call them out on their religion. That is just rude. Anyone from North Carolina could have told Dole she was stepping over the line. North Carolinians take religion very seriously and would not dream of questioning someone’s faith. Unfortunately for Dole, she had been out of the state so long she didn’t understand that.
Obama just squeezed out a victory, Bev Perdue had a solid but not huge win, but Kay Hagan won by the largest margin of the three. The difference was the “Godless” advertisement. Hagan’s win proves that it doesn’t pay to be rude – even in politics.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
McCain's Lead in the Polls
“When was the last time you went a week without a rationalization?”
- “The Big Chill.” the character Michael, played by Jeff Goldblum, describing why rationalization is more important than sex.
Since before Election day there was an ever increasing parade of McCain operatives and shills on the various news shows saying “McCain was ahead in the polls when the financial crisis hit in Sept. That was when things turned against us.”
So let’s take a quick trip through the polls shall we?
First let’s look at Pollster.com’s table of presidential election polls which may be found at
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php
The Republican National convention was held between 9/1 and 9/4. In the 25 polls taken between 9/5 and 9/15 McCain lead in 13 of them and were tied in six. Thus in the time McCain was “leading” the Democrats lead in nine polls. Even more interesting, out of those 13 polls the Republican lead was outside the margin of error only once. That was a 5% lead in a Gallop poll taken between 9/7 – 9/9/08. (Just to be fair there was a 10% lead in USA Today Poll taken between Sept 4, but this result is so far off from all the others that it is clearly statistical outlier.)
In June, July and August, McCain was consistently behind in the polls. The last poll before the Sept Gallop Poll where McCain was up greater than the margin of error was a poll taken by Rasmussen between 5/25 and 5/28 2008 where the Republicans had a lead of 5%. (Interestingly enough the Economist released a poll for the same time period that was clearly an outlier with McCain ahead by 10 %.)
The very last poll that had the Republicans up was a poll by Zogby Interactive between 9/25 and 9/28/2008 where McCain was up by 2%.
Even more dramatic is the Electoral vote graph found in Electoral-Vote.com at
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/ec_graph-2008.html.
There McCain cracks 270 one time between the end of May and Election Day.
All of this shows that the McCain campaign never had a solid lead after the end of May. They only had a brief time in Sept. where McCain and Obama were statistically even.
The real reasons McCain lost was not the financial collapse. He was well on his way to defeat before then. The reason he lost was running a poorly managed Rove-like campaign with no theme and no strategy.
- “The Big Chill.” the character Michael, played by Jeff Goldblum, describing why rationalization is more important than sex.
Since before Election day there was an ever increasing parade of McCain operatives and shills on the various news shows saying “McCain was ahead in the polls when the financial crisis hit in Sept. That was when things turned against us.”
So let’s take a quick trip through the polls shall we?
First let’s look at Pollster.com’s table of presidential election polls which may be found at
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php
The Republican National convention was held between 9/1 and 9/4. In the 25 polls taken between 9/5 and 9/15 McCain lead in 13 of them and were tied in six. Thus in the time McCain was “leading” the Democrats lead in nine polls. Even more interesting, out of those 13 polls the Republican lead was outside the margin of error only once. That was a 5% lead in a Gallop poll taken between 9/7 – 9/9/08. (Just to be fair there was a 10% lead in USA Today Poll taken between Sept 4, but this result is so far off from all the others that it is clearly statistical outlier.)
In June, July and August, McCain was consistently behind in the polls. The last poll before the Sept Gallop Poll where McCain was up greater than the margin of error was a poll taken by Rasmussen between 5/25 and 5/28 2008 where the Republicans had a lead of 5%. (Interestingly enough the Economist released a poll for the same time period that was clearly an outlier with McCain ahead by 10 %.)
The very last poll that had the Republicans up was a poll by Zogby Interactive between 9/25 and 9/28/2008 where McCain was up by 2%.
Even more dramatic is the Electoral vote graph found in Electoral-Vote.com at
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/ec_graph-2008.html.
There McCain cracks 270 one time between the end of May and Election Day.
All of this shows that the McCain campaign never had a solid lead after the end of May. They only had a brief time in Sept. where McCain and Obama were statistically even.
The real reasons McCain lost was not the financial collapse. He was well on his way to defeat before then. The reason he lost was running a poorly managed Rove-like campaign with no theme and no strategy.
Lost rights in California
“Keep your magic undies off my civil rights!”
- A sign at an anti-Prop 8 protest rally outside the LA Mormon Temple
Lost in all of the cheering, crying, celebration and happiness that Barack Obama put an end to the Bush era was the fact that California voted to repeal civil rights extended to group of citizens who were doing no harm to anyone. Proposition 8 outlaws marriage between two individual who are in love, committed to each other, but who happen to be of the same gender. Up until Tues two people in love could marry. Now a lack of physiological difference would disqualify two otherwise healthy happy loving people from getting married.
Even sadder is the fact that across the country, two other ballot propositions outlawing equality in marriage rights also passed.
What happened in California?
The “No On 8” campaign got complacent. They let the other guy frame the debate. The “Yes on 8” campaign (heavily funded by out of state money from the Mormon church) hit the airwaves first with an effective ad featuring a doe-eyed little moppet excitedly telling her mother that today in school she learned a “prince can grow up to marry a prince or a princess can marry a princess!” The look of concern on the mother’s face played over a doom laden male voice warning that Prop 8 would mandate gay marriage be taught in public schools.
The “No on 8” ran a very weak ad featuring the Secretary of CA Education saying that CA Ed code mandated no such thing. Unfortunately his own website showed that the CA Ed code did.
Ooops.
“No On 8” went down and went down big time.
The “No on 8” forces made several basic errors:
1) Never become complacent when it comes to people’s fear and ignorance – especially running against a group that has no qualms about stirring those fears up to win.
2) Get your facts straight. You would think watching Sarah Palin drive off the bridge to nowhere would have given “No On 8” the heads up to check their facts.
3) Don’t fight your battle on the other guy’s ground. Rather than running ads saying the “Yes on 8” ads were wrong they should have run adds that showed gay couples and PFLAG members talking about what marriage meant to them.
4) Know who is supporting the other guy and why. Blacks and Hispanics voted overwhelmingly in favor of 8.
The last point is where the “No On 8” forces really blew it. In 2004, Karl Rove made inroads into the black electorate by going to black churches and playing on the fear of gay marriage. Black churches are socially conservative on this topic as are Hispanics. That history was there for all to see. “No On 8” did not understand that the heavy black and Hispanic turnout for Obama would also be a heavy turnout of constituency that has historically been against marriage equality. So Californians were treated to the ironic sight of blacks using Scripture as the basis to discriminate against a class of citizens, just like whites used Scripture for so many years to justify slavery and segregation.
Now much ink is being spilled on how the marriage equality votes split along generational lines. In five years, the thinking goes, the majority of the electorate will be of the generation that overwhelmingly supports marriage equality, so just wait and things will change.
This sounds a lot like what black civil rights workers were told in the fifties and sixties – “Don’t be impatient given time we will give you your rights.”
Gavin Newsome tells the story of an elderly man coming up to him on the street in support of Newsome implementing equality of marriage rights in SF saying “Thank you for what you did for my daughter.”
Time to get impatient.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Our Long National Nightmare is Over
“Our long national nightmare is over”
- Gerald Ford
My feelings that Democrats are like Chicago Cubs fans. I was afraid to hope for a win because you never know when a fan will reach out and interfere with a foul ball costing you a sure out, the playoff game and the trip to world series.
Maybe I am still bruised from the disapointment of 2004. I am still processing Tues. night.
The sight that defined the meaning of Tuesday night was not just the 100,000 people in Grant park, but was of Jesse Jackson standing alone in the crowd weeping.
Jesse Jackson a close aide to Dr. King and former Presidential candidate himself gave a memorable speech to the Democratic convention. In 2004 he spoke of the moving promise of America. He recounted how his father on coming home from WWII, while in uniform, had to detrain in Washington DC in order to move to the “negro only” rail car for the rest of his ride home. Jackson went on to say that now, a few blocks away from where Jackson’s father had to change rail cars to comply with Jim Crow, his father’s grandson serves in the US House of Representatives.
…and now here is Rev. Jackson weeping watching a black man take the stage as President-elect.
- Gerald Ford
My feelings that Democrats are like Chicago Cubs fans. I was afraid to hope for a win because you never know when a fan will reach out and interfere with a foul ball costing you a sure out, the playoff game and the trip to world series.
Maybe I am still bruised from the disapointment of 2004. I am still processing Tues. night.
The sight that defined the meaning of Tuesday night was not just the 100,000 people in Grant park, but was of Jesse Jackson standing alone in the crowd weeping.
Jesse Jackson a close aide to Dr. King and former Presidential candidate himself gave a memorable speech to the Democratic convention. In 2004 he spoke of the moving promise of America. He recounted how his father on coming home from WWII, while in uniform, had to detrain in Washington DC in order to move to the “negro only” rail car for the rest of his ride home. Jackson went on to say that now, a few blocks away from where Jackson’s father had to change rail cars to comply with Jim Crow, his father’s grandson serves in the US House of Representatives.
…and now here is Rev. Jackson weeping watching a black man take the stage as President-elect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)