Posted by John Publius Jr. on January 18th, 2009 — in Issues/Policy, Barack Obama, Blog
The song “Happy Days Are Here Again” was written in November, 1929, shortly after the stock market crash. It became Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1932 election campaign song, and has been the unofficial song of the Democratic Party ever since. To many, this song evokes bittersweet emotions: an acknowledgement of hard times and hope for a brighter future.
The U.S. (and global) economy is in very bad shape, the worst since the Great Depression. President Barack Obama takes office at a time when we need hope and a new beginning. I don’t expect the Obama administration to fix the economy immediately, but I want to see significant action soon. Obama also faces major foreign policy and security challenges. I’ve heard much discussion about the Bush administration recently, and it makes sense to evaluate the outgoing administration now. I am much more interested in turning a new page and looking forward to the long-awaited and promised change. I essentially gave up on the Bush administration in 2005, after its inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina.
It’s very encouraging that a large percentage of Americans are happy with the Obama transition team and the incoming Obama cabinet choices. Obama has wisely crafted policies and decisions to unite us. In spite of gloomy economic conditions, optimism is in the air. Some of the ideological warriors are showing a willingness to collaborate on solutions. The Obama Era starts with an ideal that “we are in this together”, rather than the tired paradigm of the past: “us against them, survival of the fittest”.
We are in for a month-long debate about the 2009 fiscal stimulus package. Obama must work with the U.S. House and Senate to pass legislation that will produce new jobs quickly. State and local governments are facing bankruptcy. Many industries need some kind of “bail out”. Critics complain about federal spending and deficits, but we have no real choice other than to “print money” and inject the economy with many billions of new dollars. “The velocity of money” is an important concept. The federal stimulus must circulate money widely for it to work effectively. Funding “shovel ready” projects is smart and rebuilding U.S. infrastructure is necessary. This will create jobs quickly and strengthen our long-term economic standing.
Democrats prefer increased spending while Republicans emphasize tax cuts. The Obama proposal offers both. I suspect this is primarily a political decision rather than the best economic choice. Nevertheless, doing something reasonably effective now is better than fighting about the “perfect plan” for months. Rebuilding inner-city schools is a great idea even though some may label it as “pork barrel spending” and an “earmark”. Funding development, research, and production of green technologies is an obvious step and essential to our future. Restructuring the health care industry also must happen. Health care is simply too expensive for corporations, families, and individuals. How about giving nurses more power?
I hear some people still argue that Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was not effective. This argument is misguided. While it’s true that the depression lasted until World War II, Roosevelt prevented the economy from getting even worse. His administration gave people hope and that is worth more than a specific dollar amount. The U.S. depression of the 1930s was in the context of a global economic meltdown. Roosevelt kept America true to its democratic ideals while other parts of the world sank into totalitarianism. Roosevelt’s rebuilding efforts positioned the United States to enjoy tremendous prosperity once the depression ended.
Spring is just around the corner. Americans have many reasons to be grateful. By electing Barack Obama, we proved we can unite around good leadership instead of wallowing in the counter-productive ethnic conflicts of the past. Despite massive economic problems, we still enjoy a standard of living well above most of the world. As we watch the violence in the Middle East, we realize that we are lucky to be here instead of many other places.
Many people have strong opinions about the economy, regardless of their expertise on the subject. What I find interesting is that award-winning economists disagree with each other fervently. No one really knows what is the best solution or even what will work to some extent. Roosevelt did quite a bit of experimenting, and in retrospect, many believe he should have spent much more right away. Obama has a mandate for change. We need bold actions, professional follow-through, and transparency. The Obama team has great talent, and I find it annoying to get bogged down in tedious arguments about Timothy Geithner’s tax filing mistakes.
Economists agree that ultimately psychology plays a primary role in the economy. A dollar is worth a dollar because we all think it is. The word “credit” comes from the Latin word “credo”, meaning “I believe”. Our economy has fundamental structural problems. We cannot wish these away, yet optimism vs. pessimism impacts decisions throughout the economy. Ultimately, money is not important. We have our dignity and we have each other. I agree with many people who feel that Barack Obama is the right person at the right time. Through his strong leadership and intelligent decisions, we will overcome the huge financial hardships we face as individuals and as a nation. Happy days are here again, but we need to have some patience because it will take some time for the economy to recover.
Sphere: Related Content
No Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on December 11th, 2008 — in Democratic Party, Barack Obama, Blog
Latest News - Reference: Chicago Tribune’s comprehensive Blagojevich Arrest Coverage.
Blagojevich should resign immediately, but don’t count on it. You can contact the Governor’s office directly online:
http://www.illinois.gov/gov/contactthegovernor.cfm, or, maybe give him a call, I’m sure he would love to hear from you: 217-782-0244 or 312-814-2121.
I would like the Illinois State Legislature to immediately impeach Blagojevich and remove him from office. This is likely, except not “immediately”. I have heard that this process may take weeks, which is very disappointing. This is a crisis of confidence. Illinois elected officials need to move as quickly as possible.
I also hope Illinois holds a special election to fill Barack Obama’s seat as junior Senator of Illinois. Some Democrats worry that a special election will open the doors to allow a Republican to gain the seat. I’m tired of what happens behind the closed doors - let the voters decide and hopefully this time they will make a good choice. It’s also a good idea to amend the Illinois constitution to mandate special elections in the case of vacant seats. In any case, Illinois needs to fill this U.S. Senate seat soon. We also need a new Governor soon. In the interim we will be in good hands with the Lieutenant Governor of Illinois Pat Quinn, who has a reputation as a reformer opposed to corruption. Quinn and “Blago” have a strained relationship, although this could be said about almost anyone and Blagojevich. Right now we are in limbo because Blago is still the Governor.
As an Illinois voter, I have been outraged by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s corruption since this was first publicized several years ago. Everyone in Illinois has known that Blagojevich is corrupt and that he has been under investigation by the U.S Federal Justice Department for quite a while. For at least the last year, Illinois politicians have distanced themselves from Blago. Blagojevich was first elected governor in 2002 and used his first days in office to alienate both houses of the Illinois legislature with his arrogance and obstinance. He had few political friends or even allies. I was disappointed that the voters re-elected him in 2006. His re-election was largely due to his ability to amass a substantial “war chest” of campaign contributions, and now we are all painfully aware of how he accumulated his massive funding.
In 2005 Blagojevich achieved perhaps his only positive major accomplishment for Illinois. This was an attempt to provide universal healthcare for children in Illinois, and the program is named “All Kids”. The “All Kids” program has received mixed reviews, but is not widely known by name to all voters in Illinois. In Blagojevich’s 2006 re-election campaign, he ran against the forthright and very capable former State Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka (Republican). Topinka opposed the “All Kids” program, and there was widespread legitimate debate over the effectiveness of this program. During the campaign, Blagojevich ran the most cynical campaign commercials I have ever seen. One campaign slogan was “Judy Baar Topinka is against All Kids”. The Blagojevich campaign also cynically used the popular and sleazy “guilt by association” tactic to falsely link Topinka to former Illinois Governor George Ryan, who is currently in prison, convicted on government corruption charges.
Implications for Barack Obama and others
President-elect Barack Obama is not caught up in the Blagojevich mess. Being from Chicago, Illinois does not mean you are corrupt. I hear the right-wing guilt-by-association demagogues trying to link Obama to Blago’s corruption. These people know nothing about Chicago politics and do not understand the real dynamics here. Yes, Chicago (and other parts of Illinois) deserve a bad reputation for corrupt politics from both the Democratic and Republican parties. Chicago’s corrupt tradition goes hand-in-hand with a tradition of politicians getting caught and serving prison sentences. We also have a reform tradition, albeit much less famous or understood. Although now, everyone should understand this reform tradition because this is Barack Obama’s tradition. Obama has opposed “machine politics” and risen above it.
Obama and his transition team have known that Blagojevich is corrupt and under investigation. Everyone knew this, so it difficult to believe that anyone would be stupid enough to get tangled in Blago’s corrupt dealings. Obama has much more to gain by being clean and has no incentive for corruption. Obama team members from Chicago - David Axelod, Rahm Emmanuel, and Valerie Jarrett - are included in the discussion of Blago’s corruption. Why would anyone on Obama’s team make a deal with Blagojevich? It doesn’t make sense to me, but the right-wing “guilt-by-association” game rarely is logical.
A number of other Chicago politicians are also discussed: U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., U.S. Rep. Jan Shakowski, President of the Illinois Senate Emil Jones, and others. It is likely that some additional people will be indicted, but the public has no evidence that any of the people being discussed were involved whatsoever in corruption. Many people have much faith in the work of U.S. Attorney Peter Fitzgerald. It’s best to let the truth come out before jumping to wild conclusions. We need to strengthen Chicago’s reform tradition, so it would be most unfortunate to damage the reputations of reform-minded politicians.
Quick Background on Chicago Politics
Richard J. Daley was mayor of Chicago from 1955 until his death in 1976. He built the infamous Chicago political machine, including a massive “patronage army”. The city was corrupt even on the most mundane grassroots level. Mike Royko’s book Boss is one of the few “must read” books about politics. Boss describes how, in Chicago, bribery and sleazy deal-making were the “normal” ways of doing business, paying traffic tickets, getting out the vote, constructing a building, getting a job, and getting anything done.
The election of Chicago Mayor Harold Washington in 1983 changed Chicago politics fundamentally by challenging Richard J. Daley’s old political machine. The “old guard” fought Washington and his allies every step of the way. The corrupt tradition was led by aldermen “Fast” Eddie Vrdolyak and Richard Mell. Richard Mell is Mrs. Blago’s father. Of course, the Blagos and Mells don’t get along anymore because, remember, no one gets along with Blago. Also, Blagojevich started his career by working for Vrdolyak. Obama’s base of support in Chicago is from the Harold Washington reform tradition.
Daley’s son Richard M. Daley has been mayor of Chicago since his first election in 1989. A number of people from his office have faced corruption charges. Actually, people from all traditions have been convicted, including those scooped up in Operation Silver Shovel. It’s especially disheartening to see so-called reformers involved in corruption. Chicago and Illinois have different overlapping power-bases, unlike the old days when there was one all-powerful Daley “machine”.
We are not unique - politics and corruption have been intertwined throughout time and geography. We must hold our elected officials to the highest standards and expect justice when corruption occurs. “Guilt-by-association” politics is a frustrating distraction and does a disservice to all of us.
Sphere: Related Content
3 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on November 5th, 2008 — in Issues/Policy, Barack Obama, John McCain, Blog, Election Referee
On November 4, 2008, Illinois Senator Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States.
By electing the first African-American President of the United States, America turns an important page in our history. Over 100,000 people celebrated in Grant Park, Chicago as the election results were announced. Barack Obama addressed the crowd, which responded with euphoric chants of “Yes, We Can!”
Obama not only won all of the traditionally Democratic states, he also won the key battleground states of Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. New battleground states emerged in 2008, and Obama won them all: Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. Missouri was the only traditional battleground state that John McCain won.
The Obama campaign fulfilled the important goal of expanding the electoral map by winning states in the South and the Southwest. In Political Science, a “landslide” is when a candidate wins by more than 10%. Obama won an electoral landslide, defeating McCain 364-174. The popular vote was closer, with a margin of approximately 7%. Election officials are still counting the votes, and at this time the totals are Obama 63,893,037 (53%) and McCain 56,404,917 (46%).
Obama won for several reasons: widespread disapproval of the Bush administration and the U.S. economic meltdown made the conditions extremely difficult for John McCain. The Obama campaign was truly historic in assembling the largest grassroots organization ever in the U.S. Literally millions of people volunteered and/or donated to the Obama campaign. This led to many newly registered voters and very high turn-out for Obama on election day and even earlier due to “early voting” provisions in some states. Obama’s messages of hope and uniting Americans resounded strongly in a country tired of division and fear.
Analysts will continue discussing what this all means. The vote totals were very decisive but not overwhelming. Many states were very close, but the 2008 election was a much clearer decision than the extremely close 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.
The Democratic Party gained seats in both the Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, building on the gains Democrats made in the 2006 congressional elections. The Democrats are projected to have a minimum of a 56-40 majority over Republicans in the Senate, with results for 4 seats still being counted. Democrats are projected to have a minimum advantage of 254-173 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, with results for 8 seats still being counted. Consequently, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) have increased their power.
The Obama administration and the Democratic Party clearly have a “mandate” to enact some important changes. Voters want and expect action. The Democrats now have the power and hold that responsibility. We will hold them accountable two years from now in the 2010 congressional elections.
Simply by electing Barack Obama, the image of the United States throughout the world has improved, literally over night. This is not enough and this is not policy. The Obama administration faces many perilous global circumstances. Establishing new U.S. policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are key first steps.
Necessarily, people will focus mainly on the economy, and this is not a simple problem to solve. We have some short-term major problems and long-term major problems. The U.S federal government needs to do more to stabilize the financial markets and bring relief to the struggling middle class. We are likely in the beginning of a long, deep recession. Extending unemployment benefits and tax relief for the middle class are obvious first steps toward easing the pain. The U.S. must become more competitive in global markets and we need a strong and stable dollar. For both the short-term and the long-term, the U.S. economy must provide good jobs for the middle class.
The high costs of energy, health care, and education are long-term problems that have hampered the U.S. economy. We have an historic opportunity to restructure these vital sectors. This is likely where the political battle lines will be drawn in the early days of the new Obama administration and stronger Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. The success or failure of new economic policies will depend largely on the American people and Obama’s leadership abilities. A working majority of U.S. voters must support specific new policies in order for changes to occur and be effective.
John McCain gave a magnanimous concession speech, which included this call for unity:
I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together, to find the necessary compromises, to bridge our differences, and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited.
Whatever our differences, we are fellow Americans. And please believe me when I say no association has ever meant more to me than that.
The United States has changed. For the momemt, U.S. politics have shifted toward the left. It is up to the Democratic Party to work with the American people in forming new policies that will improve our country.
Sphere: Related Content
8 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on November 2nd, 2008 — in Barack Obama, John McCain, Blog, Election Referee
The presidential election is Tuesday, November 4th.
For me, the choice is easy, obvious, and necessary. The United States has a two-party system. Every four years we have an opportunity to vote for either a continuation of current policies or to try the alternative.
The U.S. economy is in serious trouble. This has made foreign policy a secondary issue, but U.S. foreign policy is also in serious trouble. The current Republican Party policies have been a disaster. Read a newspaper, watch the news.
Barack Obama has run an historic campaign in reaching out across America, attempting to unite a new majority of voters beyond the recently rigid electoral map of red states vs. blue states. A year ago many compared Obama to John F. Kennedy. Given today’s economic meltdown, America needs leadership more reminiscent of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Obama appears ready and able to meet this challenge. I admire John McCain, but not his policies, especially not now.
From the beginning of the whole presidential campaign cycle, it has been obvious that this election was about whether or not voters want change. That may sound simplistic, but remember on Tuesday you have a simple choice: Obama or McCain. This isn’t an essay question.
Don’t believe any of the non-sense from the Obama-bashers. Communist, terrorist-sympathizer, Muslim, Socialist, radical, un-American. I’m sorry I haven’t had time to address each of these wild accusations. I wanted to post on this blog more often, but I have been working very long hours trying to pay my bills.
First of all, Obama is not a Muslim, but so what if a candidate were a Muslim? People should not be prejudiced against or that ignorant about Muslims anyway. So this accusation is very dumb on two levels. Attempting to frighten people by appealing to prejudice is disgraceful.
In the last month, Obama voted to help save our capitalist system. His tax policies are hardly radical. Tweaking the tax code by a few percentage points to help the middle class is not socialism. Please look it up. Read a book.
Radical associations? I’ve known gun-nuts, anti-abortion extremists, former Black Panthers, ex-felons, ex-gang-bangers, former ’60s radicals, Christian fundamentalists, former ’30s radicals, witches, Jews for Jesus, and musicians. The United States has over 300 million people. Try to get to know someone who isn’t exactly like you. Guilt by association is against the U.S. Constitution. Obama knows many thousands of people. The isolated insular style of the Bush Administration is one cause of our problems.
Obama’s story is the American dream. The attacks against Obama’s character are shameful attempts to fool and frighten people.
I sincerely attempt to be as objective as possible on this blog. I have heard more than enough of the right-wing attacks. I especially object to the idea of “real Americans” vs. the rest of us. The president’s duty is to represent all of us. We have more than enough division in America. Obama has proven he can bridge the gap between people. Now more than any time in my lifetime, the United States needs leadership based on bringing us together and working with us to solve the many problems we face.
Whoever wins the election on Tuesday, we all need to accept the outcome and give the new president a chance.
Sphere: Related Content
2 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on August 22nd, 2008 — in Barack Obama, Blog
On Saturday, Barack Obama announced that Democratic Senator Joe Biden of Delaware will be his running mate in the 2008 presidential election.
Obama’s selection of Biden for the vice-presidential slot surprised no one. Joe Biden best embodies all of the desirable qualities Obama described in a recent CBS interview:
“Obviously, the most important question is: Is this person prepared to be president?” he said.
“The second most important question, from my perspective, is: Can this person help me govern? Are they going to be an effective partner in creating the kind of economic opportunity here at home, and guiding us through some dangerous waters internationally?” he added.
“And the third criteria for me, I think, was independence. I want somebody who is going to be able to challenge my thinking and not simply be a yes-person when it comes to policy-making.”
The third point is especially notable because it demonstrates Barack Obama’s message of change, and is vastly different from the Bush administration’s perilous mode of “group think” in which dissent is punished. The Iraq War is largely the result of the “neo-con” faction of the right-wing, recklessly pushing through an agenda regardless of intelligent contrary opinion. Obama recently stated his admiration of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s important book: Team of Rivals: the Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, which describes how Lincoln assembled his cabinet by choosing the most talented politicians available, especially his rivals.
Joe Biden enjoys widespread popularity among Democrats. Although he is not especially well-known, all political junkies have seen him on TV talk shows. He is especially articulate in speaking about foreign policy, and he was an early forceful critic of the Bush administration’s mishandling of the Iraq War.
As the Democrats and Barack Obama work to assemble a winning coalition, Joe Biden certainly brings more depth to the ticket, and he is potentially appealing to some undecided voters. Biden communicates well by conveying obvious intelligence and in-depth knowledge in a way that “the rest of us” can understand and appreciate. Recent American politics have given us some candidates that seem too aloof or effete, or the other extreme of being anti-intellectual or immature. Joe Biden is “a regular guy” with a brain and a heart.
Joe Biden also fits a target demographic in a year of “identity politics”: he is Catholic, has a working class background, and was born in Pennsylvania. If voters of similar demographic characteristics vote Democrat in November, Obama will be the next president. Unlike John McCain, Joe Biden knows how many houses he owns.
For more information, read this article from the Washington Post: Obama Picks Biden as VP.
Loading …
2 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on July 22nd, 2008 — in Comic Relief, Barack Obama, John McCain, Blog
JibJab is at again, providing much needed comic relief with a very silly video cartoon featuring some of our favorite characters: John McCain, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Hillary Clinton.
This may not be the greatest political satire, but that’s not really the point. It’s a fun ditty set to the tune of Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are A-Changing”.
I enjoyed this and I hope you do to!
Sphere: Related Content
2 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on July 6th, 2008 — in Issues/Policy, Barack Obama, John McCain, Blog
In Defense of Flip-Flopping:
Imagine an American leader with a specific strategy to fight a foreign enemy and save New York City. Then this leader meets with leaders from France and instead adopts a very different strategy, the French strategy. As we celebrate the 4th of July, remember that this flip-flop by George Washington in 1781 enabled the fledgling United States to defeat the British in Yorktown, Virginia.
Abraham Lincoln was a big time flip-flopper, especially on the issue of slavery. Instead of holding to strong principles on the most important moral and social issue of the 19th century, Lincoln’s position on the slavery issue continually shifted according to the political winds. After many years and much tragedy, Lincoln finally abolished slavery for politically and militarily strategic reasons. Also, thank goodness Franklin D. Roosevelt finally flip-flopped on his position regarding fighting Hitler and the Nazis in 1941.
Changing your mind is not necessarily bad. History is very interesting and teaches us important lessons, but I’m much more interested in the future. What will a candidate really do if elected president? I want leaders who evolve and grow. The tragic mess of the Iraq War is largely the result of a myopic, inflexible, obstinate mindset.
Perhaps the greatest “invention” of all time is the scientific method. Science has the humility to start with the premise that we don’t know the truth, and perhaps we never will. We continually test theories and measure, learn and revise. Effective government is an ongoing process. Government is far from pure science, but the concept of learning and re-evaluating is essential. Each day brings new challenges and shifts in economic and demographic reality. Policies that made sense in 1984 are often not good choices today. Of course, in wartime, policies need to change instantly as “events on the ground” dictate and as our understanding deepens.
The Political Problem of the Flip-Flop:
Don’t misread my “defense of flip-flopping”. Just because flip-flopping is not always bad does not mean it’s always good. It is always a political risk in that it raises questions of character. People accuse candidates of not having strong principles, opting out to do only what is politically expedient, and of lying, breaking campaign promises, not being trustworthy.
Hearing that a candidate is a flip-flopper persuades some knee-jerk voters. All politicians are flip-floppers. John McCain’s “Straight Talk Express” and Barack Obama’s “New Politics” are good campaign slogans. Each accusing the other of “flip-flopping” is easy, but hopefully a worn-out tactic and meaningless label in 2008. Often the flip-flop accusation itself is politically expedient. Emblematic of the dumbing down of political discourse, sound bites and meaningless labels replace intelligent discussion of difficult and intricate policy.
Recent Flip-Flop Disasters:
We have two big examples of the flip-flop label impacting recent elections. In the 1988 presidential campaign, Republican George H.W. Bush promised, “Read my lips, no new taxes”, and then during his presidency, Bush raised taxes. This especially angered some Republicans who either voted for Ross Perot or stayed home for the 1992 election. This flip-flop was one factor enabling the election of Bill Clinton. In 2004, Democrat John Kerry recorded this most unfortunate sound bite: “I actually did vote for the $87 billion [in funding for the Iraq War] before I voted against it.” Republican operatives used this in their larger negative portrayal of Kerry as being unreliable. The flip-flopper label stuck on Kerry and hurt his public image.
McCain/Obama Flip-Flops: 2008 Greatest Hits:
We are going to hear much about candidate flip-flopping until November. The flip-flop label hurts the most when it sticks to just one candidate. Both McCain and Obama have each accumulated sizeable lists of flip-flops. Attacking each other as a “flip-flopper” makes as much sense as criticizing their opponent for being a Senator.
Basically, flip-flopping doesn’t really matter unless: 1) people really care about that specific issue, and 2) a candidate clearly breaks a promise important to many voters. Another scenario is an established pattern of flip-flopping in which a candidate rapidly changes positions on many issues. Neither McCain nor Obama have flip-flopped in a way that will hurt them significantly.
Here’s a short list of some well-publicized McCain and Obama flip-flops and a quick review of why each doesn’t matter.
Obama on Campaign Financing: in 2007 Obama promised to “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a public financed general election”. Obama clearly flip-flopped on this one when he announced last month that he would opt out of public financing. This means Obama will not accept the $84 million of federal government funds available to him. In doing so, he is exempt from fund-raising limits. Obama has kept his promise to not accept money from PACs (political action committees) and corporations. Individuals are limited to donating a maximum of $2,300. Few people follow the intricacies of campaign financing rules. Those who actually follow this realize that Obama’s new approach saves the federal government $84 million. Also, the problem with campaign financing is precisely that PACs and corporate interests have too much influence. By accepting only small donations from individuals, Obama’s campaign exemplifies what campaign finance reform laws strive to achieve. Reference.
McCain on Privatizing Social Security: John McCain has recently taken both sides of this controversial topic, as quoted in the Baltimore Sun:
Two weeks ago, Mr. McCain said, “I am not for privatizing Social Security. I never have been. I never will be.” Funny that categorical claim, too, because according to a Wall Street Journal story March 3, here’s what Mr. McCain said just three months ago: “As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it - along the lines of what President Bush proposed.”
This is an important issue that divides people, but McCain has time to clarify where he really stands. He may anger some Republicans/conservatives if he clarifies that he is against privatization. Given recent stock market performance, support for privatizing Social Security is dwindling.
McCain and Obama cut ties with controversial religious leaders: Both McCain and Obama had embraced religious leaders who ended up being campaign liabilities because of their inflammatory statements and fiery rhetoric. Both presidential candidates flip-flopped by ultimately denouncing, renouncing, and rejecting their former allies. Very few voters will change their vote because of they dislike these rejections.
McCain on Off-Shore Drilling: McCain has been a long-time opponent of offshore drilling, but recently (three weeks ago) changed his position in favor of offshore drilling. This is like many flip-flops: people are much more concerned about the actual issue than the act of flip-flopping. McCain is hedging his bet that his new position will be more popular than his previous opposition to offshore drilling. Reference.
Obama on Iraq: This is a case in which no flip-flop happened. Obama has been remarkably consistent on the issue of the Iraq War. Some anti-Obama operatives (e.g., Fox News) are attempting to manufacture a controversy simply by accusing Obama of flip-flopping. This is compounded by complaints from a few left-wing “purists” who abhor any suggestion of nuance and especially any move toward the political center. Example (Barack at Risk by Tom Hayden).
Barack Obama has often repeated his well-crafted sound bite that “we need to be as careful getting out of Iraq as George Bush was careless getting in.” Obama has always been clear that he wants a quick but orderly withdrawal from Iraq based on the recommendations of the generals in the field.
Obama has recently re-iterated his belief that U.S. policy in Iraq needs flexibility based on the advice of commanding officers. Some have jumped on this statement to characterize it as a “flip-flop”. Attempting to couple the flip-flop label with a key issue is a good campaign tactic, but it is much more effective if it is based on at least a shred of truth. The hope must be to alienate some of Obama’s strong anti-war supporters. In all fairness, this tactic should hurt only the credibility of the false accusers. Reference.
More McCain and Obama Flip-Flops:
The Move to the Center: Politics 101 teaches that once the primaries are over, the presidential nominees from each party move to the political center and away from respective left and right extremes. As John McCain and Barack Obama attempt to win over the political center, we will see more real flip-flopping and accusations from both of the candidates and their campaigns. The bottom line is that you can’t simply vote against the flip-flopper: all candidates flip-flop and maybe that’s even a good thing.
The left-wing purists are a problem for Obama, and the right-wing purists are a problem for John McCain. This sounds like a good topic for my next article.
Sphere: Related Content
4 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 28th, 2008 — in General Election Rules, Barack Obama, John McCain, Blog, Election Referee
Election Referee has developed an interactive point-and-click electoral vote calculator map to let you easily explore election scenarios. You can see that many states are currently “toss-up” swing battleground states. This map calculator also shows the electoral map for the last five elections. You can easily see which states have consistently voted as Democratic blue states and which have been Republican red states.
One interesting scenario: click on 2004, click on Obama, and then click on Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada. This results in a 269-269 tie between John McCain and Barack Obama. Although unlikely, this scenario would force a vote of the U.S. House of Representatives to decide the next president.
You can embed this electoral vote calculator map into your own website or blog. Simply copy the “Embed” code above and paste it into your web page or blog post code.
For more in-depth analysis tools for the 2008 presidential election, visit these excellent resources:
Also, read our article U.S. Presidential Election Rules and the Electoral Map. This includes many interesting details and some important history with good reference links.
Sphere: Related Content
5 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 25th, 2008 — in Barack Obama, Comic Relief, Talk Radio, Mainstream Media, John McCain, Blog
The 2008 general election battle between John McCain and Barack Obama is starting to take shape. This election is a critically important referendum on the future direction of the United States. We have very serious decisions to make about both our bad economy and problematic foreign policy, including the Iraq War.
Meanwhile, much of mainstream media and talk radio focus on unfounded, meaningless, and downright stupid attacks on candidate spouses Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama. I cannot possibly find a better way to address this than to include some comic relief with this video from The Daily Show’s John Stewart:
I hope that this video is final word on candidate spouse controversies. This election should be about the policies and character of the candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. The attacks against both Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama are ridiculous and frustrating distractions from important issues. People perpetuating these attacks are shameless.
Sphere: Related Content
2 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 21st, 2008 — in General Election Rules, Barack Obama, John McCain, Blog
Reference: see Wikipedia’s article - Electoral College (United States) for more information.
The rules for the election of the President of the United States are quite simple and clear. Unlike the rules of political parties, these general election rules are laws based on the U.S. Constitution and Amendments.
The Electoral College has 538 Electoral Votes:
The President is NOT elected by the popular vote, but rather by the electoral votes of the “electoral college”.
All fifty states plus Washington, D.C. have at least three electoral votes. The total number of electoral votes is 538. This is known as the “electoral college”. To win the presidency, a candidate must receive an absolute majority of electoral votes, which is the “magic number” of 270. (538 divided by 2 equals 269, and 269 plus 1 equals 270).
The presidential election focus between now and November 4th is on analyzing the electoral map and attaining this number.
Below is the electoral map of the 2004 Presidential Election:
(See our Free 2008 Presidential Electoral Vote Calculator Map. This includes a point-and-click interactive map that enables you to explore election scenarios. The map shows the 2008 red, blue, and toss-up states based on recent polls. You can also quickly see the electoral map results of the last five presidential elections.)
The number of electoral votes for each state is based on adding the number of U.S. Senators (always two) plus the number of U.S. Representatives, which varies according to population (each state has at least one Representative, and California has the most with 53). For example, Missouri has two U.S. Senators and nine members of the U.S. House of Representatives, so Missouri has a total of 11 electoral votes. Washington, D.C. gets 3 electoral votes based on the Twenty-third Amendment adopted in 1961.
Winner-Take-All vs. Maine and Nebraska Exceptions:
Each state legislature determines the rules for how the electoral votes of the state are awarded to candidates. All the states and Washington, D.C. have a “winner-take-all” system, except for Maine and Nebraska. Under “winner-take-all”, the candidate who gets the most votes (the “popular vote”) in the state wins all of the electoral votes of the state.
Maine and Nebraska award the electoral votes based on each congressional district. Maine has four congressional districts and Nebraska has five. The candidate who wins the most votes in a congressional district gets the one electoral vote for that district. Therefore, Maine and Nebraska could split their electoral votes among the candidates, but this has never actually happened.
What if no candidate wins the majority of electoral votes?
If no candidates wins the majority of electoral votes, the U.S. House of Representatives votes on who will be the next President. This can happen and did happen in 1824.
There is an important difference between who wins the most votes and a “majority”. A majority is 50% plus one. Sometimes a candidate wins the most votes but does not win a majority, especially when more than two parties have strong candidates. This is called a “plurality”, not a “majority”.
In the election of 1824, Andrew Jackson won the most electoral votes, but won only a plurality, not a majority. Jackson also won the popular vote (which never officially matters). The decision went to the U.S. House of Representatives, and the House elected President John Quincy Adams. This was one of the most controversial elections in U.S. history and led to the emergency of the Democratic Party as the first “modern” political party in the U.S. In 1828 Andrew Jackson won the presidency with a majority of electoral votes.
The presidential elections of 1824, 1876, and 2000 were especially controversial and well worth studying.
The Electoral College must Certify the Election
Technically, the Electoral College is comprised of 538 people who are designated officials representing the electoral votes from the fifty states and Washington, D.C. These 538 representatives must officially certify the election. They are “expected” to vote in accordance with the electoral vote of their states (or congressional district in the cases of Maine and Nebraska). However, these 538 electors legally can vote for whomever they wish.
This electoral college body has never overturned the electoral map results, but this possibility exists. If you look at Minnesota in the map above, you will see a little circle with the number “1″. All ten of Minnesota’s electoral votes were “expected” to go to John Kerry, however, one of Minnesota’s electors voted for John Edwards instead of Kerry.
Implications of the General Election Rules: Red States vs. Blue States:
General election strategy necessarily focuses on attaining the 270 magic number. In recent presidential elections, the electoral map has been fairly static. News media have standardized the map discussion by always displaying Republican states in red and Democratic states in blue.
The map (above) of the 2004 election is essentially the “strategic starting point” for the 2008 election between John McCain and Barack Obama. Many states are considered “solidly red” or “solidly blue” (a.k.a., “safe” states). Recently, Republican candidates have won most of the Southern states and also the Western states between the Mississippi River and the Pacific Coast states. Democratic candidates have won most of the Northeast, Great Lakes, and Pacific Coast states.
General election campaign strategy focuses on trying to win the “swing states”. These may be states that recently voted for the Democratic candidate, but in other recent elections voted for the Republican. Some swing states consistently voted for one party, but only by very narrow margins. Also, some states change over time and come into “play”. Demographic changes and other internal political changes can move a state’s allegiance from one party to another. Any state that is in “play” for whatever reason is a swing state and also called a “battleground state”.
For the 2000 and 2004 elections, the following states were among the swing states: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire. Most analysts expect these same states to be battleground states in 2008.
Barack Obama’s campaign hopes to put additional states in play. The Southwest may be changing enough for the Democrats to win at least one of these: Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada. Also, Obama hopes to win at least one of these Southern states: North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, and maybe others. Obama could also win one or more Western states, such as South Dakota or Kansas.
John McCain’s campaign strategy involves winning most of the swing states from the last two elections and also trying to put Oregon and New Jersey into play.
Visit Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. This is a great resource and shows the electoral map of every presidential election in history and includes many details.
Quick History Lesson - the Election of 1876:
The Samuel Tilden-Rutherford Hayes election of 1876 was the ultimate political controversy with four disputed states, including Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Oregon. With no agreement on how to count the electoral votes of the disputed four states, Tilden had a plurality but not a majority. Think of the Gore vs. Bush Florida controversy in the 2000 election, then multiply it by four. The result was the infamous “Compromise of 1877″ or “Tilden-Hayes Compromise”, worked out via back-room deals. Republican Hayes was given the presidency over Democrat Tilden in exchange for a railroad in the South and Southwest. Most importantly, the Republicans agreed to end Reconstruction, thus opening the flood gates to extend Jim Crow laws denying civil rights and voting rights for African-Americans.
Sphere: Related Content
5 Comments »
