Full Disclosure

Platform X Network Effect = Real business?

2011-07-13T10:13:00.003-04:00

Hey everyone, been a while since I posted (over a year). Think we're going to undergo a little pivot here as I've been getting more and more immersed in current tech trends, I thought I could use this soapbox as a place to express some opinions and thoughts about what I believe is happening.

First and foremost, I want to talk about the current meme that there is a tech bubble emerging. While there is definitely some reasons to be concerned when you hear of VCs outbidding one another on new businesses with nothing but a powerpoint, a lot of the new companies that are emerging have some solid advantages that I believe will position themselves as solid businesses. That said, some of these companies are smoke and mirrors - and we should likewise be concerned.

We're deep into what is known as Web 2.0 or even 2.5 technologies. Companies such as Facebook and Twitter rely on their customers to create content and attract viewers of that content. Facebook and Twitter then monetize the attention that they draw in. These companies benefit greatly from what is known as the Network Effect. The Network Effect applies to anything that becomes more valuable as more people use them. For example, if only one person had a telephone, it would be worthless as it couldn't call anyone. The more people with telephones, the more valuable each individual phone is. Sites with User Generated Content (UGC) are a perfect example of Network Effects, as the more people on these sites, the more valuable they become. Since the Network Effect is stronger with more nodes on the network, companies that benefit from strong Network Effects have a huge competitive advantage over future competitors.

The other thing that a lot of these sites do is act as platforms rather than conventional programs. A platform creates a set of rules, conventions and tools and then allows the UGC to flourish within that platform. Platforms work very well with the Network Effect (although they can each exist independently) because they create a situation where creative usage of the platform spreads across the network. Companies that act as platforms are able to harness the creativity of their users, rather than be threatened by it.

These concepts can seem very basic, but I strongly believe that companies that embrace these two elements are the Microsofts and Googles of the future. The fact that many of these technologies are emergent in the current supposed bubble allays a lot of my concerns.

Explaining Healthcare

2010-03-22T23:13:00.001-04:00

So I realize that many (all?) of you are not nearly as big geeks as I am, and, as such, you may have some questions about the Health Insurance Reform bill that President Obama will be signing tomorrow. I'm going to attempt to explain the main elements of the bill here.

Prior to the current recession, over 50% of bankruptcies were caused by health care expenses. Seemingly safe and secure middle class lives were turned upside down - and this could happen to any of us. Insurers had a host of tricks to disqualify coverage from rescission (kicking people off for problems in their original registration - no matter how old), lifetime caps on coverage, annual caps on coverage, not letting people with pre-existing conditions join in the first place. This whole class of reasons I'd term as ethically questionable if the real point of insurance is to ensure that people in need get covered.

The need to fix these problems and other ideological neutral fixes (such as allowing children up to 26 to remain on their parents policies) was the starting point for this legislation. However, it's not enough to just say you can't discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, because if you did, rates would just rocket. So this bill requires community pricing, among your cohorts you all pay the same.

However, if this was all the bill did, rates would still skyrocket as the cost to insurers is undoubtedly going up to cover those with pre-existing conditions. The only way to make the cost manageable is to bring new people (often healthy) into the system. If you fail to get insurance, then the government will impose a tax on you comparable to the lowest priced health care option. This is the mandate.

However, if you mandate insurance for someone who can't afford it, there's no recourse and it's extremely unfair. To deal with that, they've introduced subsidies. Subsidies will help individuals and small businesses that provide insurance.

These three elements work together, to quote Paul Krugman 'it's a 3-legged stool': Community Pricing, Mandates and Subsidies. That is the topline story.

The other major element that is perhaps the most important is the introduction of exchanges. Currently, if you're a large employer you get courted by insurers and can pick the plan that fits you best. However, if you're an individual or a small business - you're screwed. Rates are high, coverage is limited and the plans are very different from one another - making it very difficult to analyze the plan best for you. Exchanges will change that and introduce market economics into health care. The government will set minimum standards and then the insurers will come in and attempt to offer the best plan. This should hopefully inject a great deal of rationality into our health insurance decisions - something that's sorely needed.

As we dig a little deeper, some issues with this plan emerge. First of all, how can we afford this?

The bulk of this new plan is paid in two halves. The cost of the new plan is pegged at just under $1 trillion over the next 10 years. This is paid almost evenly in taxes on unearned income and cuts to medicare. As we dig into the taxes we find some interesting numbers. Bush rolled back the capital gains rate, this moves it back up about 5% for those making over $200,000. We have an increase in the medicare tax on high earners. We also have a 10% tax on tanning salons (that's why John Boehner was so mad!).

House Minority Leader John Boehner: Does this look like a natural tan to you?

The other tax that's gotten a lot of attention is an excise tax on 'cadillac' insurance plans. Starting in 2018 there will be a new tax assessed on insurance plans that are extremely expensive. The thing to keep in mind, that this is a great way to lower the cost of health care. Since we don't currently pay taxes on employer provided health care, a lot of salary is hidden by using it to pay for insurance. Since the cost is hidden, we end up getting more insurance than we often need driving the cost of everything up. Many 'cadillac plans' have such low deductibles that the patient isn't encouraged to be rational about what care they need. It's all free. Higher deductibles (not high, but higher than they are now) will have a very stabilizing effect on the cost of care.

Additionally, there are about $500 billion in Medicare cuts. The highly ineffective Medicare Advantage (where private insurers provide Medicare instead of the government at a cost of 15% more than it costs the government) will receive cuts. The pharmaceutical industry has lowered some of the rates it charges Medicare. And several other changes I'm not too familiar with.

This is the real simple story. Also contained within the bill is funding to create pilot programs to control costs, funding for community centers, savings from not having the uninsured clogging up and abusing the emergency room system...and much much more.

In Response to L and C Re: Healthcare...

2009-12-22T10:14:00.004-05:00

I'm responding to a facebook discussion (on the eve of the Health Reform bill passing) with a couple of friends (at least they were friends until I posted this!)here so that I could really answer their questions, if they'd like to respond I'll post the answers here (I've left their full names off until I get permission from them):

L: you think what is happening right now is good politics? you know as well as I do that these senators are pushing it because they want a big pat on the back from the president. And those rich republicans/dems are paying so much in taxes it is not our fault that the government couldn't allocate a freaking nickle appropriately. It is not a democrat/republican issue it is a socialist vs. capitolist society issue!

C: Quick question .... why does this need to get done before Christmas? Why are we not taking the time to do this right? And people say - oh it is a start. Here is the issue, once money is appropriated they will never cut that spending or give it back. Look at TARP. What is happening now is a joke. How come NATIONAL healthcare is being determined by STATE specific considerations? And dont make the pharma lobby a partisian issue. The Dems and Rebuplicans both take a ton of money from them. Check here. Please note Lieberman, Dodd, and Specter.

For L: Good government is fixing problems that exist! Democrats have run on reforming healthcare since at least 1968 and it has consistently becoming a larger problem in that time. Moreover, we have been discussing the need for universal healthcare all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt. Democrats won with a substantial majority all running for healthcare reform. They’ve tried to pass it before with sizable majorities and failed. I don’t see how this has anything to do with the president’s approval of them. There are over 30 million uninsured Americans, healthcare costs 16% of gdp and medical emergencies caused over 50% of bankruptcies in this country (at least prior to the current recession). This is a real problem that needs solving and the Democrats are committed to solving it.

Moreover, it is well established that the cost saving measures in this bill will mean that WE SAVE MONEY. This is a perfect example of allocating resources properly, saving money in medicare to help pay for needed reforms. It’s nice to say that it’s not Democrat or Republican when the Republicans made a mess of our federal government and then blame Democrats for trying to clean up their mess. Republicans were content to ignore the real problems in our country (such as healthcare) and leave it to the Dems. Instead, they did things like declare unfunded wars, pass new entitlements that were unfunded (medicare advantage) and taxcuts that were unfunded. It’s easy to give away money to the rich when you just increase a deficit. Now that we’re trying to clean it up, they just stand on the sidelines shouting nonsense. Like ‘Socialism’, or (segue):

For C: ‘Why are we not taking the time to do this right?’ What the heck does that even mean? We have been discussing healthcare reform since Teddy Roosevelt. We tried to pass this 16 years ago. The entire presidential campaign discussed this! We’ve been working on it all year! We even slowed it down so that Olympia Snowe could take her damn time deciding not to vote for it! Now, Republican senators are slow walking every single Senate procedure to delay the bill being passed and accuse of rushing it? They voted against funding for the troops just to slow us down! ‘It’s going too fast’ is not a substantive critique when the people who are actually willing to discuss how to make it work are all in agreement. Five years from now will be too fast for the GOP.

The bigger point being that Republicans refuse to even discuss reforms in good faith. When they do that, they force Dems to get every single Democrat vote on board and you need to horse trade to get everyone on board. Then you can pretend that you actually give a damn about how these votes were gotten when you’ve never cared before about how Republicans passed bills. More to the point, do state specific considerations make this bill bad?

I beg you, do not say that the bill is too long or my head might explode!

Understanding What's Going on with Healthcare

2009-07-29T13:38:00.004-04:00

This post is going to examine in shallow depth a lot of what's going in with Healthcare reform right now. I feel like the confusion that a lot of people are feeling is making them risk-averse (at least that's my impression among friends and family), so I'd like to take a stab at explaining things.

There are two major issues with healthcare in this country that Washington is attempting to fix. 1) Healthcare costs 16% of every dollar made in America and the cost is growing faster than inflation, which is unsustainable and too expensive already and 2) we're the richest country on the planet and many people in this country can not afford sufficient healthcare. Since the lack of coverage problem appears to be less present to people than the financial issues, it is useful to reformers to note that getting universal coverage will help to reduce the cost of the system.

Healthcare costs are increasing for many reasons. High priced and cutting edge treatments is just one cause. The system is tilted toward doctors spending more money (since they get paid for each test they run, rather than for successful results, quick fixes are discouraged even if they're the better treatment). The insurers take a large percentage for profit. Every service essentially has a tax built in for the uninsured as we need to subsidize the costs of emergency room treatments.

It is known that a large number of people are uninsured. The White House claims it is 46 million people, reform opponents say it is much lower - but that entirely misses the point, I believe. This is the United States, richest country in the world and in all of human history; and we are not the top in the world in providing care for our citizens? The Declaration of Independence does state: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." However, even beyond the general understanding that there is a problem, people always think it's someone else's problem, since most of us do have insurance. However, that's because most people don't realize how easily they could lose their insurance. Whether being fired or changing jobs, we can easily find ourselves without insurance and excluded due to a pre-existing condition.

So how can we solve these issues... There is much saving that could occur if we bring uninsured people into the system. Emergency care is the most expensive type of care, but the only type available to the uninsured. If we get everyone insured, emergency costs will decrease greatly. We can also save money by taking away doctors' incentives to order extra tests. Certain institutions (like the Mayo Clinic) have gotten great results putting doctors on salaries so that they are not rewarded based on the number of tests they order, but instead by healing their patients. However, this is only going to amount to some of the cost (estimated at $100 Billion a year) required to fund the new covered people. We'll need to raise more money from some other sources, possibly 1-3% taxes on earners making over $1 million a year. However, the way the system is currently designed, if we institute reforms the savings will just disappear into the insurers pockets, costing citizens the same amount. That is the purpose of the public option (explained below).

Under the reform plan, all citizens will be required to have insurance. If you can't afford it, then the government will pay for it for you. You can choose any plan that is available for the value of the government subsidy, whether public or private. The public option will be based on Medicare. Medicare guarantees all seniors in this country a minimal level of coverage. If you (or your employer/former employer) can afford more or better coverage you are welcome to it, and many people do. However, if all you can afford is Medicare, then that is usually sufficient. If you can afford insurance and don't have it, the government is proposing penalizing you. The current penalty appears to be half the cost of the public option (likely around $2,000).

One of the most common arguments I hear against government involvement is that this threatens the free market, the driver of all innovation. The first point is, if the free market is more efficient than the government plan, then people will stay with private providers and there won't be an issue. However, if the government is more efficient then that undermines the argument.

And that is the bigger point here. We use the government's size and reliability to do many things in this country where they are more appropriate than private business. Public transit, roads, army, the courts. Just because healthcare has been a non-governmental function in the past, doesn't mean that's appropriate. Moreover, free markets don't really work for healthcare. For one, most people never think of the cost of healthcare, especially those that spend the most on it. People have their workplaces take care of all or part of it and rarely if ever choose employers based on healthcare. Also, humans are very bad at rationally understanding large numbers.* Free markets only work when there is full information available to all. Since citizens can't really conceive of healthcare's value to them until they actually need it, they are not rational actors when they purchase healthcare - making an inefficient market, exploited by healthcare companies.

The bottomline here is that the system is unsustainable as is and we know this. The current proposal will address the need for cost controls, give universal coverage and not alter most people's coverage. Ignore the fearmongering, it's simple and it's needed.

Please comment on this post if you'd like me to clarify or explain anything further.

*I'm currently at home with a knee healing from an ACL reconstruction. My surgery likely cost my insurance company $40,000. What are the odds that you'll tear your knee in the next month? (I have no idea what the answer is, but it's pretty low) Now how much would you pay to insure against that happening?

No More Torture

2009-04-17T11:27:00.003-04:00

Yesterday, President Obama released four memos outlining the legal jujitsu and gymnastics the lawyers in President Bush's Office of Legal Counsel came up with to justify turning our CIA agents into torturers. You can see the memos obtained by the ACLU here.

And you all should take a moment to look at them for a second. Lawyers for the President explain how 'extreme pain or suffering', as forbidden by international treaties, does not apply to our techniques because our torture doesn't take too long, or cause permanent physical impairment. So, it's ok for us to throw people into walls, slap people around, put them in stress positions and (yes) waterboard the terrorists.

There's nothing particularly newsworthy here, we've just kept our heads in the sand for so long about what really happened that I'm interested to see if documentary evidence of the depravity that took place will raise peoples' consciousness.

It seems like the consensus in this country is to leave the past in the past. This is bullshit. Just this week, the US agreed to deport a purported Nazi war criminal. Yet, we have no need to look into the mirror at ourselves and our countrymen at the atrocities they committed?

For all of our country's shortcomings at taking the moral high ground, we are different than others, have been different than others, and should remain so. Papering over this incident is despicable. But, I'm spitting a lot of strong words here, so let me explain:

1) We broke international laws and treaties, blatantly. There's no excuse here, the international law is clear, we've attempted to judge others by this standard and reestablish an international community following the Bush debacle. We need to stand up for what we allowed to happen.

2) Torture is ineffective, any experienced interrogator will tell you so. Moreover, these memos lay out the fact that these aren't some Jack Bauer wannabes. The torture outlined here was not about obtaining information. It was about abusing our enemies. Abu Ghraib is a direct consequence of behavior like this, and it blows my mind that most of these memos were issued after Abu Ghraib. How was the lesson not learned?

3) Moving forward is not an option. We will not defeat Islamism without international support, however we have minimal international credibility. Showing that we are addressing our past will bring our allies with us. As proof, as recently as Tuesday, Spain was vocally investigating war crimes charges against some of Bush's lawyers who authorized this. When it became clear that these memos would be released, Spain backed off and let us handle our own business.

4) Ever since Ford pardoned Nixon there has been a complete dereliction by the American public to hold our executive officials to the legal standards they are meant to defend. First Nixon gets pardoned. Then Bush pardoned the Iran Contra operatives. Then Scooter Libby. Meanwhile, anyone with half a brain knows that the Bush administration broke many laws in their singleminded pursuit of the war on terrorism (you can claim that they were worth doing, but you can't deny that they were breaking laws left and right - at least you can't deny it credibly as shown by how outlandish these memos are), yet we are even considering letting everyone off the hook, except the frontline soldiers who got caught?

We need to begin to believe in ourselves again, and we can only do that by addressing our failures and proving ourselves better than it.

John Yoo who is the most well-known of the Bush hacks who authorized torture is today a teacher at Cal Berkeley. Teaching law each and every day. This is outrageous and depressing and shows our nation's failure to confront these criminals and make them pay for their crimes.

I know everyone wants to move and forget the past, no need to stir up confrontations. That's bullshit, our country can never heal unless it addresses its failings and I fear we'll fail ourselves again.

An Open Letter to President Obama

2009-04-04T10:35:00.001-04:00

Mr. President (and staffer),

I am a strong supporter of yours. I rented my own buses to Pennsylvania to bring volunteers to your campaign and spent a week working in Pennsylvania.

That said, I believe you need to seriously consider letting Mr. Summers resign. You fought against the corruption of the revolving door in your campaign. Mr. Summers defines that. I understand that he is intelligent and a confidant, but you need someone who is untainted.

I believe that there has been too much focus on preserving the institutions on Wall Street for their own sake, rather for the sake of the economy. This also extends to our behavior with AIG. We don't NEED AIG or Citi, we need them not to collapse and damage those affected. However, there is no implicit need for these companies to exist.

I believe this gets back to people in your administration having preconceived notions of the permanency of the financial system as it is now. It is outsized to our economy and therefore exerts an outsized influence on you and your administration. Having someone with such clear conflicts as Mr. Summers does (as shown in the Washington Post article today), inhibits him from making truly neutral observations. He is not a bad man, but he is compromised.

Furthermore, having these types of figures around you only gives opportunities to those who oppose you. Don't give them the opportunity. I also reject the notion that everyone who is qualified may be compromised. That is a cop out. You're the President, millions would jump at the opportunity to advise you.

I also wanted to note that this is the first time I've emailed you with a complaint since you capitulated on FISA immunity last summer. I am not one to write about every issue of the day, but your own reliance on the people and institutions that brought us this mess concerns me greatly.

I hope you are able to broaden your circle of advisors in light of this conflict and recognize that I am not some partisan attacking but a concerned citizen.

Thank you,

William Finkel

My Thoughts on Tax Situation (late breaking, Daschle withdraws -phew)

2009-02-03T12:55:00.001-05:00

I have a few thoughts on the 'tax situation'...

1) Nancy Kileffer - Doesn't this sound like Bernard Kerik? Fess up to a smaller crime and withdraw when no one is paying too much attention? I know it's pure speculation on my part, but her offenses hardly seem worthwhile to withdraw over - so I assume there's something we don't know.

2) Geithner - I understand why one could say his transgressions are more serious than Daschle given his standing as chief enforcer (and overseer) of tax collections. But in his case, I think this actually does show how complicated taxes can be and might help the case for simplification (which I firmly believe could and should be a nonpartisan issue, however, if you think the debate over social security is considered the 3rd rail, wait till they take away deductions for interest on home equity loans).

3) Daschle - This is where I have a problem. I can (kinda) understand that he is given a corporate car and driver and fails to recognize that as income.

However, the problem is that he was accepting a car and driver as a consultant. There is no meaningful distinction here with the forbidden class of 'lobbyist' and he's been involved in this game for years (his wife's been a consultant for decades). Obama's loyal to Daschle as Daschle has been a mentor to him, but exceptions to rules need to be meaningful - and I don't see a reason why Daschle NEEDS to be the pick for HHS. Is he the only one who can get health care reform passed?

With the person given the waiver in DOD, I can understand saying that he is the ONLY man for the job - Daschle is not the only man for the job and he is tainted by the revolving door. Barack doesn't need him, but apparently his talk of cleaning up DC ends when his friends are the topic. I'm embarrassed. (and now I'm relieved he's gone...)

How Obama Leads

2009-01-15T09:28:00.003-05:00

So I've been gone a while...I trust most of you know what I was up to during the election (running my own buses down to Doylestown, PA to help the Obama campaign), maybe one day I'll feel up to writing more fully on the experience. In the meantime, I've noticed something very interesting in the way that Obama has chosen to lead, and I felt compelled to share it.

Quite simply, Obama leads from the center and as someone who admits his own limited information. Given his own limited information, he expects to be lobbied by the citizens to correct flaws in his actions. This is a marked difference from the Bush administration and (from what I recall) the Clinton administration. Obama isn't concerned with being first and being right, he is concerned with being right at last...

There are three incidents in the past week that back up my belief and show the importance that citizen engagement is going to have on the Obama administration.

1) In early December, Obama announced that Pastor Rick Warren would give the convocation at his inauguration. Warren is one of the biggest names in evangelism and marks a significant conciliatory shift from the fire and brimstone of previous leaders such as Jerry Falwell. However, he is an evangelical leader and embraces many views that I (and liberals generally) oppose - in this case, most notably he opposes gay marriage. Obama supporters smarting from the passage of Prop 8 in California (which made gay marriage illegal) and Warren's role in the passage were outraged. Obama held to his guns, defending his politics of civility to those with different opinions. However, the attacks and howls of betrayal continued.

Just last week, Obama announced that he would be having Gene Robinson a gay Episcopal bishop give the commencement address at his inauguration. In doing so, Obama showed that he was susceptible to citizen pressure and that the rules applied for everyone. As much as us liberals and progressives were opposed to Warren, so too are conservatives against Warren's participation. The President-elect is showing that his rhetoric of a United states is not just rhetoric, but that he may need to be kept honest.

2) Over the past few weeks, the administration announced its plan for a recovery program. It's plan was smaller than most economists called for and included tax cuts that did not seem to have much impact on the short term economic needs. Fears spread that Obama was ceding the debate to Republicans by coming in with a plan aimed to placate them, but lacking the teeth needed to save the economy. Senators Harkin and Kerry (both Democrats) publicly expressed their concerns. Liberal economists chimed in. People began to worry whether the President-elect would fight for what's needed over what's politically expedient.

However, the President-elect was not done. He stated during an interview that he was open to anyone with a plan that might work. He also stated that this was a starting point as he expected the bill to grow. Then a few days later, he announced that due to overwhelming opposition, he was removing his plans for a business credit for each new job created (apparently the program would have been ripe for abuse and impossible to oversee). This proposal had been his alone, and he has let it go in response to the opposition from his OWN PARTY.

Since Obama had to cede ground to his own party, he was there representing the opposition to his party. By being the target of democratic doubts, he marginalized the true opposition.

3) Just last Sunday, Obama appeared on ABC and was asked about closing Gitmo, a promise he made during the election. Apparently, the transition process has revealed many of the difficulties in just shutting down the installation immediately, although he remains committed to doing so. In the interview he stated that he can not promise that it would be closed in 100 days.

A cry of outrage went out from various bases all opposed to our mistreatment of prisoners and abuse of international law that took place there. On Monday, the transition office made a statement that an executive order will be issued on Inauguration Day ordering gitmo closed. Another victory for our right to speak back to the President.

And all of a sudden, these pieces came together for me. I'm here in New York struggling to keep interest and support going among the people who volunteered with me in Pennsylvania. And I keep wondering, is the Obama team ever going to come up with a plan for us? Then it comes to me, keeping the President honest will not be opposed to what he wants, it is what he wants.

During the transition, many entrenched DC folks have taken on prominent roles in his cabinet. I'm not opposed to this, the President-Elect has recognized that they are the technocrats but that their thinking can be stale. He intends for us to pay attention to what is happening in his administration and let him know when the insiders are wrong. This isn't second guessing him, this is helping him.

Also, another interesting aspect is how the President has seemed to take a centrist position but is in fact taking a watered down liberal version. The spending bill, more progressive churches (such as Warren's) and closing Gitmo are all to the left of traditional discourse in this country. If Obama had fully embraced these issues then he would be seen as ruling from the left. Instead, he cedes a little to the right to rule from the center. Then, when his base opposes him on it, he is forced to move to the left to placate them, making it still appear as if he rules from the center, as he has embraced the left's views. He has made himself the leader of the rational right and put himself in opposition to the left - essentially cutting the entire far-right out of the debate. I don't know if it was done on purpose, but it's brilliant.

So, how gullible are we?

2008-07-07T14:29:00.000-04:00

Why I believe Obama will win

2008-06-14T19:58:00.002-04:00

Some people ask if I really believe Obama can win. Maybe they're worried about entrenched racism being too much to overcome. Or perhaps they bought into the Hillary line about him not being able to win the swing states. Either way, I feel very confident (though that's happened before).

There are two reasons I believe in Obama's potential - substantive and situational.

Substantively, Obama has made the right decision to stop running away from Republicans on 'Republican Issues'. Since the late 60s, Republicans have won on foreign issues, while Dems have dominated on domestic issues. Democrats so internalized this divide that a generation of Democrats have been ashamed to speak their mind on foreign policy. Hillary exemplified this by voting for the war in Iraq and attempting to prove her Commander in Chief qualifications by tying herself to John McCain. She would constantly cede the foreign policy ground and attempt to change the subject to domestic policies. However, times have changed and Americans have realized how the republicans have done us poorly in their neo-imperialistic posture. Obama recognizes this and will run on principles. The principle that Republicans royally screwed up in Iraq (from hype, to concept to execution). The principle that being afraid to speak to adversaries will lead us to more wars. Obama has never been afraid to challenge McCain on this, so he is now forcing the media to question their assumptions here as well. Of course, we still dominate on domestic policy (even if Obama has shown weakness in articulating his economic policies). I believe the American public is ready to have a sustained discussion about our role in the world, and by addressing the Republicans assumptions, he can show a Democratic spine - something that's been missing.

Situationally, this country is trending Democratic after a sustained conservative strength starting with Reagan's election. There are several pockets across the country that Obama has the power to flip. Virginia and (to a lesser extent) North Carolina both have a large creative class as well as a large blue collar workforce relocated from the Northeast. In the mountain West, the Republicans have disappointed a lot of libertarian small government conservatives and (at the least) Obama can make those states closer (for example, Montana's governor and both Senators are now Dems). Additionally, there is the liberal small government West (New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado - as well as Arizona if McCain weren't running). These states are highly energized by his campaign and may also shift Democratic this time around.

So yes, Obama may have problems in Florida and Appalachia, but the new parts of the country that he has opened up give the Democrats to build a new majority, not a temporary reprieve by being Republican Lite. This is exciting and why I think he will prevail.

Obama Needed To Get The Dirt Off His Shoulder After the ABC Farce

2008-04-17T22:58:00.002-04:00

ABC 'Debate'

2008-04-16T20:46:00.000-04:00

45 minutes, and not one policy question. What a joke.

McCain

2008-04-15T12:02:00.001-04:00

Can we be honest for a second…Why would anybody who reads this blog possibly consider voting for John McCain?

Seriously.

Because he’s a nice guy? So’s the old guy who lives downstairs from me. And he’s a war veteran too! Seriously.

There’s a myth around McCain of the straight shooter. Since losing in 2000, he has consistently pandered to the far right (tax policy, religious extremists, compromising on torture), yet people seem to downplay this behavior. Almost as if we should believe that he is unchanged from the straight shooter of 2000. As if he was a straight shooter then when he believed the same stuff as the mainstream media, and now that his actions betray the previous words, they’re gonna choose to believe his older words, not the past 8 years of actions.

Let’s understand for a second who John McCain is. During the Keating 5 scandal of the mid-80s, McCain had major ties to Keating and decided that the best way to avoid being marred by association was to be completely open with the press. To his credit, he has been. However, the press gives him way too much credit for talking to them and so act as editors and collaborators in defining him as someone who does no wrong.

Let’s look at what he has said about the major current policy discussions:

On Iraq: he has multiple times said he has no problem being there for 100 years. Of course, he explains that he can see staying there 100 years if there are no American casualties, yet we need to stay until we’ve made sure that there are no American casualties. Head spinning yet? I’ll simplify. We’re going to stay there until the big serious men in DC decide its time to come home, because they have expertise. The same expertise that got us into this mess, but let’s not pay attention to that problem.

On the economy: His chief advisor on the economy is Phil Gramm, the same person who pushed much of the deregulation of derivatives that got us into the current meltdown. A month ago he said that he didn’t believe in bailing out individuals (just the multi-billion brokerage houses). Fine, if that’s what he believes then we know. But wait, two weeks ago he came forward to say that some bad mortgages the government will help. Not out of principal mind you, but the grand panderer is at it again. Then today, he seems to have said something about citizens getting 30-year fixed rate mortgages through a simple form at the post office. I think this is what he said, but it seems so nonsensical that out of any other candidate I’d assume I misunderstood it. (And I’m leaving aside his plans to extend the Bush tax cuts).

Then again, this is the man who recently said he doesn’t know much about the economy, so he was reading Alan Greenspan’s book. I don’t know about you, but my faith in Greenspan has been shaken a bit.

I understand this won’t convince some people, but I really am speechless that there are Democrats who would consider voting for this man. Sure, he seems nice enough, and yes, he was a war hero, but this is your fucking future people. Wake up!!!

My Ideology

2008-03-08T14:14:00.004-05:00

Over dinner the other night with my father, we started talking about suicide bombers, terrorists, and general distaste for the US across the globe. It made me start thinking about how hard it is to get my entire worldview across in any one discussion. It makes it difficult for me to actually be aware of my own ideology, so this is my attempt to explain it. If you disagree with some of my logic, I welcome the feedback, because I think it is very hard to conceptualize one's own ideology and perhaps someone else can highlight flaws in my thinking.

A philosopher I'm very partial to, Louis Althusser, wrote that ideology is a false understanding of the relationship between one's self and their society. What that means is that ideology is the way we think things are in order to make sense of what we do within that societal structure. This is inherently a false understanding because we can't objectively see our role in a larger society. Hence, here's my false understanding of my reality:

Generally, whatever god there is, she is clearly a hands off force (or being) as there is no provable divine intervention. If she were actively engaged in our affairs, then I don't think she would have quit meddling after Moses (or Jesus, or Mohammed). Since god is not actively engaged in the affairs of earth, our jobs as humans has been to better organize the earth over the generations to better ensure our survival.

This is where governments arose. They provided for the things that are needed to make societal life more stable. Traditionally, their main functions would have been mainly to serve the leadership (at least in Western tradition). To this end, they imposed stability through law enforcement and military defense. Law enforcement and military defense were the chief concerns of the moneyed elite, who had the resources to personally survive any other instabilities (without a revolt, they had the resources to personally survive famine, inclement weather, etc.).

However, over time power has generally become more distributed as technology advanced (again, at least in the West, but in a lot of nondemocratic countries as well). Distributed power meant that the common people gained rights. This often happened in phases (by race, by sex, by religion), but generally, over the history of time, we have become more pluralistic. Pluralistic societies provide valuable stability to many more people as they now have input into the function of the government.

So I have two foundations to my beliefs here:

1) Government exists to help ensure our survival (individually and as a society)

2) The extent to which Government is expected to provide for its citizens is tied to their involvement in the government

So that leaves the question of what our society needs to do to survive in the short, mid and long term.

Short term: To my way of thinking, when we see marvels of the modern age such as science and technology there is no way to think that any one entity deserves sole credit for that product. That product is a direct offshoot of the infrastructure and society that government has enabled to flourish. For that reason, it is understandable that the government should a) collect taxes on these items and b) want to provide some of these technologies back to the less privileged in our society. For example, I think that it is okay for the owners of say Johnson & Johnson to pay decently high taxes that help ensure that the destitute and struggling among us are able to afford basic healthcare that J&J got rich on. J&J would never have earned their riches without our roads, utilities and citizens. (This is actually a rich example because Woody Johnson was a big Bush supporter and ostensibly opposed to paying taxes )

There are many examples like this, but bottom line - people who complain about their taxes must fail to see how good we have it. This is the most advanced society in the history of the planet and taxes played a major role in this (WPA, Eisenhower Interstate, NASA, DARPA, etc). Our aversion to taxes have gotten us into a horrible financial hole because we don't always raise taxes to make up budget shortfalls. As such, Bush cut taxes at the same time as launching a $3 Trillion war in Iraq. We are fighting this war on debt and it has destabilized our entire society. This has largely happened because conservatives are so deeply invested in the myth that lower taxes increase tax revenue (the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard). Bottom line, our society has developed an unhealthy relationship with our government where we don't recognize the value we receive from it and so fall for the hucksters who convince us that we overpay for our government. Now we've underfunded it for about a generation (MY GENERATION to be exact) and there are serious financial repercussions that are developing.

The point being, there will be income tax increases and those are not bad things. A rich person has much more to gain from a stable society as they live the life of luxury during stability but have more to lose from disasters. Having a working health care system will make us all healthier as there will be less diseases spread. Having paved roads will make us all richer because it will be easier to travel and transport goods. Having educated children will make us all richer as we will have a more valuable workforce. We all benefit from providing for the weakest among us rather than overvaluing the value of property (be it financial, physical, or intellectual). Government's job is to keep this in balance. Unfortunately, since the Reagan Revolution we have undervalued the role of government in our lives and our government has been made unstable because of this.

We need to put our government back together because the world we live in was built by a central government and will fall apart without a solid one.

Mid Term: (Check back later, but this is my environmentalist/global culture rant)

Long Term: (This is my build spaceships rant)

Thank you, DNC!

2008-03-08T14:07:00.003-05:00

As we hear the petty posturing by the Clinton and Obama campaigns, reconciling the realities of politics with the media's love for false outrage, it is good for us to remember the big picture here. John McCain is a disciple of President Bush. Just because someone is willing to look you in the eye while they damage the future of this country with outdated, disproved theories of governance doesn't mean they're a good person. A politician who thinks the proper way to deal with our enemies is to bomb, bomb, bomb them is naive and destructive in the modern interconnected world.

McCain is Bush's protege, and his theory of leadership is bankrupt.

Me thinks the Automaton Doth Protest Too Much

2008-02-07T14:22:00.000-05:00

You know someone is full of crap when they frequently remind you of their frankness.

To wit, the presumptive GOP nominee in 2012, (no, not Jeb Bush) Mitt Romney, withdrew from the race today. Stating:

"If I fight on in my campaign all the way to the convention, I want you to know I've given this a lot of thought, I forstall the launch of the rest of the campaign and frankly I'd be making it easier for Sen. Clinton and Obama to win," Romney said. "Frankly in this time of war I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."

There's never been a frank word out of this conman's mouth.

I'm just disappointed that I wasted $20 registering the domain ceosforromney.org.

Understanding Delegates

2008-02-06T19:21:00.000-05:00

I promised to explain this today, but Josh does it the best, so I'll just let you take it from him:

And for the real geeks, here is a more detailed analysis of the numbers.

Visibility for Obama

2008-02-05T19:08:00.000-05:00

Here's a story about my visibility on 81st and Park Avenue .

Get ready for a late night folks, nothing will be settled tonight, expect California's final numbers to come in on Friday. Then again, don't expect any of it to matter, tonight will likely not settle anything.

Indulge me for Some Giants Goodness!

2008-02-04T00:32:00.001-05:00

Here are some people jumping on a garbage truck by Union Square about an hour after the Super Bowl.

What's that? You're asking, "Which Super Bowl?"

Well, SuperBowl 42 of course, you know, the one where the Giants, from New York (by way of New Jersey) upset the undefeated New England Patriots - leaving them with a 18-1 record.

Young Obama Supporter

2008-02-03T23:49:00.000-05:00

Did some visibilities today on 86th street, much more support than I expected. Here was my highlight, a young dude holding an Obama flyer:

Yes We Can

2008-02-03T16:35:00.000-05:00

This is pretty great stuff, Obama speeches as a song - reminds me of War by Marley - which was based on a speech by Haile Selassie.

My Endorsement

2008-02-01T07:29:00.000-05:00

On Tuesday, February 5th, I will get to vote in the first meaningful presidential primary of my lifetime. I am voting for Barack Obama and I urge you to do the same.

Barack Obama is a gifted orator and an inspiring figure. He has crossed this country and found record audiences waiting for him wherever he went. This is important. Our political system is very disempowering and anything that is exciting citizens and bringing new people into the system is a positive development, as Barack has the power to make us a more Democratic nation. But, admittedly, this is only a ‘feel good’ reason. There are also several concrete reasons to elect him.

First of all, this country engaged in a war of aggression against Iraq. There is no other way to express this. There is also no way to minimize the impact that it has had on our standing in the world. Barack offers hope that we can regain our standing in the world. I feel that Hillary does not offer the same opportunities. Barack opposed the war, Hillary supported the war. She may try to equivocate that she only supported the authorization, but she never spoke up as we rushed into battle.

This isn’t semantical or looking in the rear-view mirror. For one, Barack was always in front on this issue. When we try to re-engage the world following the Bush debacle, we need someone with credibility. Hillary has never overcome her Iraq vote. First of all, she admits that she never read the National Security Estimate in advance of authorizing force. Second, she refuses to admit that it was a mistake, instead she hangs her hat on the fact that she was wrong to expect Bush not to screw up. This is no different than McCain’s position, who believes that he could have done a better job in Iraq. This is important as well. WE DON’T RUSH TO WAR! This is America. We don’t seek war. Among the many reasons why you don’t rush to a war of choice is that there are unintended consequences. Among these, is that things can go wrong. Hillary seems to still not understand this as she has voted to label the Iranian National Guard a terrorist organization, giving Bush the pretense to lead us in to war. She has not learned her lesson, and the world knows this as well. Barack Obama shows the world that we are eager to be part of the world community again, and his name, skin color, and position on the Iraq war are all important aspects of that.

On domestic policy, there is little difference between the two candidates – and I believe that credit for this goes to John Edwards, who was the first to talk about climate change, universal healthcare and poverty issues. That said, the biggest strike against Obama may be his stance on non-mandated health care. This is not something that I am happy with as it seems a bit naïve, but it is far from a dealbreaker. One thing that has really impressed me about Obama is that he is not shy in telling Americans that a sacrifice will be required from us to work toward energy independence and a stable environment. This may not make him popular, but politicians should value honesty over pandering. I believe that Barack does.

Ethically, I feel very bad for the Clintons. They are vilified, largely through no fault of their own. But their own deafness to this problem cost this nation dearly during Bill’s presidency and will likely cost us dearly during a Clinton II administration. People hate them and will do anything to destroy them – and, likewise, they play in the mud. She has been very unethical in her attacks on Obama and it sours people on politics. Additionally, Hillary takes a lot of money from lobbyists. Her chief advisors are Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson. Google them. These are not progressives, these are manipulators. If you really want to change things, then show it with your actions, not your words. Stop accepting money from lobbyists. Tell Bill to announce the donors to his library. Let us judge whether those donors have given money to curry favor. Hillary plays into our cynicism and tells us to ignore that cynicism – since everyone does it. I reject this answer, because I want more.

On hope, this is not a contest – and it is not meaningless. People of my generation are cynical by nature. We’ve stopped believing. We see handout after handout to big business. Policies that are destined to fail because they are handcuffed by giveaways. We don’t believe that there really can be something better. Obama believes this, and he’s already inspired millions to this belief as well. I’m still holding on to my cynicism, but I’m thankful that not everyone is.

For all these reasons, and because he would destroy McCain, I support Barack Obama for President and urge you to do the same.

PS - I welcome any discussion on this so please share your opinion

Thoughts

2008-01-04T09:34:00.000-05:00

So, Obama won Iowa. Think about that. A black dude won the majority of votes in Iowa. And he did it by bringing young people and independents into the process. That's really really cool.

The other night my dad asked me about the Des Moines Register Poll that showed Obama up 39-32 on Clinton. I rejected it out of hand because the survey projected for 60% of caucusers would be new voters. In reality, the number was in the 40s. That's still incredible.

One thing to note was that 20% of voters were independent (they're allowed to caucus if they register at the time of the caucus) and 4% were Republican, and Obama won these groups overwhelmingly since he only won 32-31 among Democrats. Hillary will try to spin this as non-democrats directing our direction. I say, who cares? He's bringing new people to the table, and that's powerful. Additionally, the next event is New Hampshire which also allows independents to vote in the democratic primary, so his model still works. Then comes Nevada's Primary, which is dominated by the labor unions and may not go fully for Obama, but after that is South Carolina, and I doubt that a 50% black electorate will get in the way of the first black nominee for President.

It's not a done deal, but unless there's a real game changer, Barack can really win this thing.

It's look like the revolution is here, I was hoping it would be a bit more radical, but I'll take what I can get.

Shocked, Shocked

2008-01-03T21:41:00.000-05:00

Obama and Huckabee win.

After all, it's really just Iowa.

The press is loving the chance to kick Hillary and Edwards got some real concerns about being forgotten. However, kudos to Obama.

Huckabee, wow. I still can't believe he makes it to the nomination, much less the Whitehouse - but he makes me worry about McCain or (shudder) Giuliani making it through.

What we're not hearing...

2007-12-21T08:39:00.001-05:00

It seems like everyone I know in New York can't understand the rise of Mike Huckabee, the popularity of Ron Paul or the sustaining polls of John Edwards in Iowa. People are fed up with the way our government works. All they see is corporate policies destroying this country and want someone who will represent that in DC.

Huckabee comes across as someone like them and he always talks of his values. Ron Paul responds to the impotency the average person is faced with in the global world. John Edwards wants to fight the powers that be to fix things. Each of them represents a rebellion against the dominant paradigm. They're all somewhat damnations of the centralization of power on the coasts and in their cities across the country, and that's hard for the media (and us) to get our heads around.

Atrios basically got it

2007-12-18T20:42:00.000-05:00

"Shorter Candidates

Obama: The system sucks, but I'm so awesome that it'll melt away before me.

Edwards: The system sucks, and we're gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.

Clinton: The system sucks, and I know how to work within it more than anyone."

He's pretty close and that's my only problem with Obama, he's not very clear about how he'll bring us this future. He's got a vision, and he resonates with people - and this is strong.

He kills the cynic in a lot of us, but Edwards has my heart when it comes to policies.

I'm not really sure where I come down on this, but I like Obama better against Hillary, and I fear her running for president - because she can win and because she can lose - and I don't think that she's good for the nation doing either.

We're on the wrong path, and she doesn't change directions, it's Democratic Corporations against Republican Corporations (I'm still on the record with Romney here - who IS THE Republican Corporation). But don't get me wrong, I'll work my butt off to get that Democratic Corporation elected, if I have to - but I'm hoping I won't have to.

Tom Tomorrow nails it

2007-12-16T21:17:00.000-05:00

Hillary's John Kerry with different reproductive organs.

Is Hillary Imploding?

2007-12-14T19:30:00.000-05:00

I can't believe that I actually feel this way, but she is acting out of such desperation I think that voters who take anytime to look at this past week would have to be disgusted.

First, Bill Shaheen implied that Obama's admission to prior cocaine use should make us worry about whether he had given it to friends, whether he had sold it, etc. All wild, racist and rehearsed bullshit. This was their attack on Obama. That he had been honest with the public over a youthful indiscretion. Now Shaheen is not a nobody. His wife is one of the most identifiable people in the state. He is extremely prominent as well. He knows how to behave when acting as a surrogate for a campaign. He's also clearly not ashamed to be the fall guy.

They fire Shaheen for the offense. But that same evening, Mark Penn (her chief advisor and pollster) is on Hardball parroting the lines. And he claims that Obama's been negative, when Obama's been running on the facts.

The whole implication of this entire incident is that Hillary is more disciplined than Obama and we don't know enough about Obama.

She reiterated this concept today on a program when she stated that she had been vetted. Implying that Obama was unknown.

This is beyond ludicrous.

1) Obama is appreciated for his candor and honesty. People like him because he is open about the good and bad in his past. Hillary isn't. So the public trusts him and they don't trust her.

2) But even crazier, she was married to the most vetted person in the country and her husband still got caught having an affair. Obama's too clean to bring this up, but the superficial bullshit in Obama's past is less offensive then her marital problems to most people. Even if they sympathize with her.

The point is, she smears him in a way that highlights her own weakness. Which puts the lie to her smear.

Which tells me she's getting desperate, because she has to know we're all fed up with these attacks, and yet she is trying as hard as she can.

After this performance, I'm really scared by the prospect of her winning. The lesson she seems to have learned from Bush is that she should try to run fearmongering, hateful, deceitful campaigns - just back them up with better policies. Bush felt the same way about himself.

Plus, now that she's playing dirty and cheap she included a smear that had racial overtones, offending a core constituency of hers, black voters.

I only hope this is the beginning of the end for her.

Some quick thoughts

2007-12-12T13:25:00.001-05:00

My apologies for delinquency, now, thoughts:

1) Huckabee is awesome, come on Republicans nominate him. I'm sure the Dems can't defeat him. We all believe the earth is 6,000 years old.

2) No wait, I want Romney. Let's have a battle between those of us who believe in a secular society and those who believe in a theocracy. No chance we lose that. And oh yeah, he's a fucking two-faced plastic asshole (and I won't stoop to his level and badmouth his religion)

3) Wait Giuliani, in Jimmy Breslin's words "He's a small man in search of a balcony". Come on, I want him.

4) Wait, Uncle Fred. I want, wait a second... is he still running?

5) McCain, he's a principled man, I mean he really stuck to his guns on opposing the Theocons and neocons. Well at least he didn't compromise on the important things like torture.

Wow, even hillary can defeat these twits.

Wow, A rare back-to-back post!!!

2007-12-05T23:16:00.000-05:00

My $.02 on the National Intelligence Estimate saying that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon program.

1) Hallellujah! - People, a lot of those reading this live in NYC, if any of these doomsday scenarios happen, we're in a lot of damn trouble. Nice to find out one of them has been made less likely.

2) There's something to be said for Bush's totally lunatical approach getting Iran to back down from a confrontation. That said, let's not pretend that total isolation is the only approach. There is engagement also, and the costs are much less. Attempting to isolate extremists does not often work (see Castro, Fidel).

The Media Narrative

2007-12-05T22:31:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow Mitt Romney will address his religious beliefs in a major speech. This is being compared to JFK's speech on his Catholicism, which was widely viewed as a necessary step to establish himself as a real presidential contender.

I think it's all bullshit. For the past year plus the press has been harping on 'when's Romney going to give his JFK speech?' (I'd bet that if you googled that phrase there'd be a handful of verbatim quotes). Who cares? Mormons believe that Native Americans are the descendants of evil aliens so now Mormons don't smoke. Christians believe that Jesus was born from an immaculate conception and was resurrected and will allow all his true believers to live in some cloud like world. Jews believe that God gave an adopted Egyptian two tablets with words engraved that created society. It's all bullshit and none of the papers really care what he has to say.

The papers create a narrative (Hillary is the favorite, but first she needs to get challenged, then she needs to fight back, then by fighting back she proves she's the favorite). Romney's narrative is a great CEO with a circumspect religious belief is attacked by a lightweight Christianist (before you make fun of Romney realize that Huckabee believes the earth is under 6,000 years old), he then realizes the need to explain his beliefs. The public accepts the goodness in his heart and rallies to his side. Exeunt all.

This story was written a year ago, all that's needed is a couple of quotes (which will be provided gratis 2 hours before the speech). I don't know how the story will play out, whether Iowans will really accept him, but I do know the headlines on Friday will read: Romney addresses faith, Calms doubts.

Who cares? The guy is an empty suit.

So what about the Dems?

2007-12-04T07:49:00.000-05:00

So as I went into yesterday, the Republican race in Iowa looks to be between Huckabee and Romney and largely dependent on the strength of their field efforts. Just to put myself on the record, I've always believed that Romney would be the GOP nominee and I'm not changing that opinion. I also can't imagine him winning the primaries without a win in Iowa (a loss opens up the field in NH), so my money is on Willard Mitt Romney.

The Democratic side is even more intriguing. You have the same issue of deadlocked polling (the top 3 candidates are within 10 points in most major polls) along with the more complicated (and potentially surprising) caucus method that the Democrats employ.

While a lot of people want to paint this as a race between Hillary and Obama, that's ignoring how resonant Edwards' populist positions are, especially in Iowa. It also ignores the fact that Edwards has been building relationships in Iowa non-stop since 2004 and that he has the support of the majority of unions in the midwest. Plus, the relationships Edwards has cultivated has been among caucus goers specifically, raising his odds. Obama is reliant on bringing new people into the process (which I wouldn't bet against his doing) and Hillary is reliant on getting seniors to the polls. There are a lot of ifs for Hillary and Obama, Edwards is dealing with more of a known quantity as far potential caucusers go.

Then comes the complication, as I mentioned on Sunday, any candidate who fails to garner 15% of supporters in any given caucus releases his caucusers to his/her second choice. Will the Richardson/Dodd/Biden (R/D/B) supporters go to Obama, Hillary or Edwards?

The fact that they support people with experience has led Hillary to begin courting these caucusers, trying to become their second choice. She did this explicitly yesterday when she mentioned R/D/B and herself together in a sentence to juxtapose their experience against Obama. I also would not at all be surprised for Richardson to tell his supporters to make Hillary their second choice. (Want to guess why I no longer support Richardson? Playing footsie with Hillary does not go far in my book)

However, these supporters of R/D/B all have made a conscious decision not to get on the Hillary bandwagon. Although the experience claim does appear strong, Biden and Dodd seem to represent an embrace of internationalism that Obama would wholly embody. That said, Edwards' populism does not seem to have the potential to move these voters to his column.

So my point? I have none, except: don't count out Edwards. But I have no clue who is going to win.

So the polls don't matter?

2007-12-03T17:24:00.000-05:00

Well, that's not quite the case.

We can find out the general sentiment in Iowa by reading the polls, just don't know who fits the likely voter model (which is the only poll that matters). Similarly, a blow out would be reflected in polling numbers. However, when you get within a few points of one another, the polls become somewhat worthless. That said, the polls are interesting because of how close they are and what they mean about the primaries.

On the Republican side (in Iowa), it appears to have become a 2 man race between Huckabee and Romney. Giuliani is polling in the low teens, which he claims to have been his plan. He has never put up a large broadcast campaign and has essentially written off the state. McCain has never been popular in Iowa (which is very conservative), despite his growing appeal nationwide. Thompson appears to have never gotten off the ground. Paul is still an afterthought in Iowa.

Heading up to election day the question is who has the better model of likely voters - Romney with his paid staff of campaign veterans who know how to mobilize on caucus day or Huckabee with his network of conservative churches. The polling is a toss up, so the question will be: who can get the bodies to the polls on caucus night?

Essentially, we're back to the question of the likely voter model, as both candidates seem to be about evenly popular and are using two completely different models of recruitment - churchgoers vs. members of the party machinery.

It's worth noting that they're now even as Huckabee has (forgive the term) surged: this may change now that he is at the front of the pack and his small government foes will attack him.

However, this may also be a re-alignment away from Romney by the evangelicals and Huckabee may go on to extend his lead. Point being: we don't fully know what the trend is, but if the two candidates remain deadlocked at the top, it will come down to mobilization.

Is this any way to run a democracy?

2007-12-02T11:56:00.000-05:00

Hello faithful (or philandering) readers!

To gear up for the primary season, I have returned. This week I will cover the major storylines, so without further ado:

1) Who counts?: The Iowa caucuses are notoriously complicated and convoluted. While the Republican process is fairly typical for voting (the main differences being that there is a set time to vote and that the vote isn't binding - just a guide for the state delegates), the Democratic caucus requires a different level of dedication.

Voters show up and stand in designated areas to show their support for a candidate. If their chosen candidate should fail to meet a threshold of support (often 15%) in that given caucus room, then the supporters shuffle around and go meet with their second choices, until every candidate remaining is above the threshold. This is often a multi-hour process and has received notoriously low turnout. This low voter turnout severely skews polling as no one is sure exactly how to figure out who fits the model of the 'likely voter'.

The added wrinkle of a vote on January 3rd means that even past models of 'likely voters' are unreliable. There are no absentee votes at the caucuses, so vacations interfere. This year, college students will be at home. As you can see, it is a real crapshoot as to whom will attend.

This uncertainty plays itself out in several ways. In 2004, there were competing rationales relating to Howard Dean's insurgent campaign. On one hand, people looked at his supporters (young) and decided that his support was weak as most young supporters had never caucused. The flip side of that was that the passion of his supporters was so strong that some people believed that their passion would get them to the polls. We all know how this turned out (and it has nothing to do with the scream, which occurred at his caucus after-party). Dean and Gephardt (who had led in the early Iowa polling due to his union support) tore each other up, turning off a good deal of the electorate and allowing the myth of electability to coalesce around John Kerry.

One last footnote to this story, Dennis Kucinich was polling in the low single digits going into the caucus in 2004. In order to maximize his impact when it became clear that he would not win, he told his supporters explicitly who his second choice was. This allowed his supporters to peel off and coalesce around John Edwards, when he failed to reach the threshold of votes. We'll never know the extent to which Kucinich's move helped Edwards, but the fact that his supporters were able to move quickly and orderly to their second choice, must have helped in a handful of caucuses, and definitely contributed to Edwards surprise 2nd place.

This post is longer than I expected, so I'll be back tomorrow with part two which will cover the parties' races going on in Iowa.

I'm Just Callous Enough To Polticize Elizabeth Edwards

2007-03-26T13:15:00.000-04:00

I think this works greatly in favor for Edwards, at least for the time being.

I for one have been a big supporter of Edwards' causes and appreciate the fact that he is the most proposal-oriented candidate. He has announced positions on most issues while the other candidates have used rhetoric.

That said, he's so perfectly manicured, that I find myself questioning his sincerity at times. There is no questioning his sincerity about Elizabeth or about their commitment to making a change. All of a sudden, he seems a lot more earnest than I had given him credit for. Unfortunately, it was this horrible news that made him seem more human. I think other people will be hard pressed not to see him in a different light.

Additionally, if he does it the right way, Elizabeth's suffering can be used to talk about many medical issues that this country wants to discuss: stem cell, cancer research, and universal healthcare. Again, this is an opportunity raised from this bad event.

Paradoxically, I am concerned by the prospect of Elizabeth being mortally ill while Edwards is president. If her health starts to deteriorate, I imagine this concern will occur to many other citizens.

Friedman Says What Now?

2007-03-21T00:43:00.000-04:00

I can understand the rationale of saying that setting a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq is dangerous as the factions will just run out the clock until we leave.

I don't agree, I believe the time to get out is now - pulling out of the cities, but I can understand the argument. However, Friedman's argument in this article is incomprehensible (behind a wall if you don't have Times Select). His article says that Pelosi's pressure to set a withdrawal date can give General Petraeus leverage to get the Iraqis to work together.

Did you get that? A threat of a deadline for withdrawal, without a deadline gives him leverage. Wouldn't that mean that a deadline would give him more leverage?

Friedman, why can't you say something? anything?

Anyone Need to Buy a Couch?

2007-03-06T21:34:00.000-05:00

Here's my sales pitch!

The Fired US Attorneys

2007-03-04T21:29:00.000-05:00

This topic is an interesting nexus of my interest in politics, legal education and, specifically, the class I'm in now, Administrative Law.

The basic story is that someone in the Administration stuck a small change into the Patriot Act at the last minute that expanded the President's right to name Interim United States Attorneys. The effect of this law is that the Bush Administration can replace a sitting US Attorney without any check or balance by either of the other branches of government. The White House has wasted no time in availing themselves of this new law by replacing 8 US Attorneys. Now this is weird enough as it is rare for any administration to replace this many judges in their WHOLE TERM!

The next red flag was that one of the replaced attorneys was Carol Lam, the USA from San Diego who had put Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham in prison for bribery. Her inquiry into the scandal has continued and she is working on a case against the former #3 man in the CIA, Dusty Foggo, a Republican appointee. There is no telling where her inquiries lead as this appears to have been an extensive bribery ring that was focused on delivering government contracts.

Then the USA from New Mexico, David Iglesias said that he believes he was fired for not responding to pressure by two Congresspeople from New Mexico, believed to be Rep. Heather Wilson and Sen. Pete Domenici (Domenici has confirmed they spoke, but denied having pressured him). He is now being subpeonaed by Congress to explain the situation behind his firing.

It looks like the whole thing is beginning to fall apart for them on this front, yet there is nothing that can be done to undo the firings. This situation highlights the basic willlingness of the Bush Administration to push politics to the letter of the law, consequences be damned. They used to do so under the assumption that their spinmachine was so well oiled that they could spin the middle enough that they would be able to maintain public support. Now that Bush is truly a lame duck, he's given up the mantle of public support in defending extreme behavior and has decided to just ignore the question.

Inherent Problems With War Execution Due to Bush's Narrative

2007-02-28T10:21:00.000-05:00

I was thinking last night and it occurred to me that a lot of the problems that we have in Iraq can tie back to a lie by the administration that forced them into poor decisions in Iraq. This isn't to let the government off the hook from their horrible misjudgements, but I think this highlights why preemptive (or unnecessary) war should be avoided.

Here are a few examples:

-WMDs: By claiming that the war was being waged to secure WMD's (it seemed obvious from the start that this was a pretext, I was undecided as to whether it was a valid pretext), the administration devoted its resources to finding those weapons upon invasion. This attention to non-existent weapons took away from the real needs of stabilizing the country. Additionally, protecting the nonexistent weapons from the (likely) nonexistent terrorists living in Iraq - meant that we left the museum and various institutions vulnerable to being ransacked.

-Democracy: Our claim that we were fighting to spread democracy meant that we could not replace Saddam with a strongman who could have kept the country in line. Since we pretended there were higher ideals at play in our conquest, we failed in what should have been our primary post war goal - stabilization.

-Saddam was evil: By defining Saddam as 'evil', rather than a term that is more flexible we were forced to deal with him and his supporters in absolute terms. A lot of experts feel that we really lost control because of all the unemployed Baathists and military veterans who had no disincentive against stirring up trouble because they were not invested in the society.

-Nothing Will Change: A variation of this argument was used to get agreement with (or at least tolerance for) our attack plans from Saudi Arabia and Turkey. We told the Saudis and the Turks that the essential makeup of Iraq would not change postwar. The Saudis feared the situation we find ourselves in (with a meddling Iran running a proxy war against the Saudis through Iraq) and the Turks feared an independent Kurdistan. The lies we told our allies, forced us to avoid the most logical outcome of war in Iraq without a strong ruler, partition. So now we are standing in the middle of a civil war.

-We can Fight on Multiple Fronts: This justified starting a war while we were still engaged in Afghanistan - sad.

Why I Care About Hillary's "Mistake"

2007-02-26T12:26:00.000-05:00

When people talk about Hillary refusing to admit she made a mistake regarding the Iraq Authorization for the President to go to war, it often sounds like an argument about semantics. Her stump line is "If I knew what I know now, I wouldn't have supported the resolution.", she goes on to lay the responsibility at Bush's feet and expresses remorse.

This might sound like a sufficient mea culpa. I don't know about others, but I don't want her to apologize as some act of contrition. I opposed invading Iraq because I didn't think there was sufficient cause to buck the entire international community and do it on her own. What's more, we created a dangerous precedent with preemption. When I say I want Hillary to admit a mistake, it is because without admitting a mistake, how am I to know she learned from this?

Her 'apology' makes it clear she wouldn't support another preemptive war by President Bush. But what about the next President. The mistake here wasn't believing the President, the mistake was supporting a war without international support or the kind of evidence needed to justify it. The mistake wasn't that she was misled, the mistake is that she believes in a vision of the US where preemption is justified on very little evidence. The other outcomes are entirely predictable when gambling on a policy of preemption.

So What Do We Do Now?

2007-02-25T12:31:00.000-05:00

As promised, here's my proposal for Iraq. Yes, I know that I don't know shit. That has yet to stop the President, so it's not gonna stop me.

I believe in a plan that is similar to the one proposed by Congressman Murtha last year (I'm not sure how it compares to his current proposals). The gist of his proposal, and the right thing for us to do, is to pull out of the cities in which we are constantly engaged in no win battles. By fighting the insurgents in the streets, we fight at their advantage in an environment that alienates us from the populus.

I envision us pulling out to more secluded bases throughout the country. From these bases we could still conduct our training of troops, if there is a desire to train forces without the distratcions of home. More important, our soldiers would not be sniped out everyday.

The rhetoric about Iraqifying the war has largely receeded with the latest 'surge', yet pulling back to the sidelines and telling the Iraqis to figure it out might force them to get involved. At the least, it would cause the Sunni insurgents and the Shiite agitators to fight each other without us standing in the middle.

By not committing to a full withdrawal, we are able to be mobile and intervene in situations where we believe there are international terrorists (distinct from local terrorists who are only fighting us because we're there). We can also intervene if a massacre or slaughter type situation develops. We also prevent Saudi Arabia and Iran from fully invading and fighting a proxy war.

I don't understand why this option is not more widely considered. The main failing I see is that it is an admission of civil war by Bush, and he still thinks he can with the support of the American public.

Ironic Terrorism

2007-02-25T02:17:00.000-05:00

I was struck by a thought while reading this post on Talking Points Memo. It discusses the circular logic of Bush's justification of the War in Iraq.

The way I see it, there are two disturbing explanations for those who choose to still believe in the justness of our cause.

The first group still believes that Saddam was a menace and a danger that had to be neutralized in Iraq. Most probably believe that a link exists between Saddam and Al Qaeda. The only way I can see someone believing this is if they truly believe that Islam and all tied to it are suspect, as it is readily apparent that there were (and still are thanks to the Iraq adventure) more threatening regimes in the world and that the Saddam/bin Laden nexus was manufactured.

The second and more 'rational' explanation of our continued presence in Iraq goes as follows: We thought they were terrorists(despite evidence to the contrary) so we invaded, turning a decent amount of the population into terrorists, however, if we leave now we embolden the terrorists. So we need to fight them where they are, which is what we wanted to do in the first place. We turn a population into terrorists, and then kill them and claim justification because they were terrorists. This is what the mainstream opinion on Iraq really supports. This is what I believed up until a few months ago. Now I think we need to move aggressively towards disengagement (I will post my thoughts on what our redeployments should look like shortly).

I don't know about you, but it makes me feel pretty sick to realize the horrible irony of it all.

Miers?

2005-10-04T15:19:00.000-04:00

So everyone is asking, who is it Harriet Miers? Why did Bush pick her? and will she get confirmed?

None of us seem to know much about Miers yet. The fact that she hasn't been a major jurist or lawyer means that she hasn't argued a lot of cases or published law journal pieces which can give an insight into her views. From what we do know, she is definitely Conservative but somewhat of the Bush model. She supports gay rights, but opposes abortion rights; not an absolutist, which has really upset Bush's base.

She is in line with what the Senate has been calling for, a politician not a jurist. The Senate has been very alarmed in the recent past that the Supreme Court has been establishing itself as above the Congress in reversing their legislation. They have called upon the President to appoint someone with political experience to this seat, as O'Connor had been the only sitting justice who had held elected office during the Reinquist court.

Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid has already come out in support of Miers, which makes sense considering that he had recommended her to the President. It is a certainty that the Dems will not fillibuster this nominee as she is not an extremist. That said, we can expect to see some skirmishes among the liberal Senators as they point out that this is another example of Bush cronyism (see Browwn, Michael - FEMA). There will also likely be disputes over the fact that the White House will seek to hide as many documents as possible (claiming privileged communications), and that she does not have a large record and will not be forthcoming. This is very alarming to the future of Congressional power and echoes the concerns that have been raised in the Bolton and Roberts confirmations. The claim to a check and balance on White House authority by the Senate has been severely eroded by this White House. That said, there are consequences to elections, and losing in 2004 means we must accept the President's nominee if she is palatable.

The most interestign aspect of this nomination is the indignation and the outrage being expressed by the Right. President Bush has essentially abandoned his base on this nomination, not delivering on the extremist that he has repeatedly promised them. My take is that between the backlash from the failures in response to Hurricane KAtrina, the multiple investiagtions in DC rigth now (DeLay, Abramoff, Safavian, Rove, Libby, Frist...), and Bush's failures on Social Security - the President felt that he could not waste capital right now. Despite leading DC for 5+ years as if the Dems did not exist (with the Dems willing help), Bush has finally reached a point where he had alienated too many moderates and realized that if he wanted to accomplish anything during the rest of his presidency he needed to avoid conflicts that would minimize his importance. He is finally moving to the center. While his base is pissed off, they have no where to go to. However, if he permanently loses the moderates, then his agenda would be dead. It's not only the Dems who want to keep the 'powder keg dry' this time.

Judith Miller Goes to Jail

2005-07-07T10:33:00.000-04:00

Long story short: NY Times writer refuses to reveal her sources to a federal prosecutor, judge finds her in contempt, she goes to jail while protecting her source.

Long story long: She's undermining journalists everywhere for her own ambition. Shield laws apparently exist in most states to protect journalists from being compelled to reveal anonymous sources. These laws exist because there is a belief that the free flow of ideas is the best insurance of a democratic society. More specifically, we, as a society, believe that freedom of speech is the best way to make sure that truth surfaces. By protecting whistleblowers' and victims' identities, we make sure that they will not fear retribution for speaking out. To my mind, this is the purpose of the shield laws.

If we are to say that the shield laws exist solely to protect anonymous sources, then we get a loophole that has been precisely manipulated in this case. This shield law changes effects greatly, what in fact arises is a system where a lawbreaker is 'shielded' from prosecution solely by employing a journalist as an intermediary. You want to defame someone, get a journalist to publish it. All of a sudden, you are protected from slander. The fact is, the shield law that Miller is trying to protect is one that allows her to get scoops from sources that don't want to reveal themselves for plausible deniability. They are preventing the public from knowing their true identities in order to insulate their political goals, not to protect themselves from retribution. And if you take the next step here, (why would Judith Miller go to jail to protect a source that is using her?) the answer seems to be she wants to protect her right to get scoops. Do the shield laws really exist to protect a journalist's right to get scoops?

Miller made her name by having sources within the Bush administration that used her to diseminate information. She's entitled to say that she does not want to reveal her sources as it would damage her career, but she is doing a disservice by hiding behind the shield laws that are intended to serve the public, not her ambition.

Needing a laugh today

2005-07-07T10:14:00.001-04:00

Jason Reed/Reuters

There was this picture in the Times today in a story about the President's birthday. But the best part was the following passage:

"Mr. Bush, apparently aiming to burn off some of his birthday calories after arriving at the Gleneagles resort in Scotland, took his mountain bike out for a spin. He was pedaling along at what his spokesman, Scott McClellan, described as "a pretty good speed" when he crashed into a local police officer who had been standing guard along the road.

The president, who was wearing a helmet, slid across the asphalt, suffering "mild to moderate" scrapes on his hands and arms, Mr. McClellan said, and was bandaged by the White House physician, Dr. Richard Tubb.

The White House provided no details of any damage to Mr. Bush's ego. The police officer unlucky enough to have been in the president's path was taken to a local hospital and later released after doctors found no fractures. Mr. McClellan said the president had spent some time with the officer, whose identity was not released by the White House, right after the collision."

Modern Memorial

2005-05-29T19:54:00.000-04:00

I was out the other night and met a couple of Marines who were out during fleet week.

After talking for a couple and learning they had served in Iraq, and were heading back soon. I thanked them for their service, saying that I had no way of knowing if my thanks were important, but that we appreciate their sacrifice on our behalf.

One of the Marines looked at me with a tear in his eye and said, 'you have no idea how much that means to us to hear.' It turns out that many of them had come to New York expecting to be villified. One of the guys I was talking to had recently been back home to Boston and had been asked to leave two bars.

I explained that my friends and I had been discussing that (despite being liberals who were againt them being sent to war) we hoped they were treated with the respect they deserved in our city. What's more, I feel like my duty to those serving in a war that I disagree with is to try and protect those soldiers.

These men went to war because the only way for us to be safe is to have soldiers who know how to follow orders. It is our job to make sure that their effort is not wasted. It is our job to keep the government and the military honest, to protect these soldiers and to keep the institution intact for those who may want to serve in the future.

That's my duty to the young officer from a little town in KY who had a week off from service and was scared to come to New York in a completely different way than he was scared to go to Iraq. Our soldiers deserve better.

Taking What Scraps We Can Get

2005-05-23T21:55:00.000-04:00

So this is our victory.

Bush gets 5 of the 7 through, and we put the Religious extremists back in their box until the midterm elections. Most importantly, we prevent a Chief Justice Scalia...

It sucks, but you know a deal is fair when both sides are upset.

The best might have been the Nuclear Option losing on a floor vote, but the Senate would be forever scarred by the process. Plus we were taking the chance of losing, and losing our opportunity to block a Supreme Court justice.

One of the best things that comes from this resolution is that Frist didn't lose to Reid, he lsot to the moderates. If there was any chance for him to save face and be Senatorial (though I'm not holding my breath) is to have the perceived weakness coming from his own party. What's more, we no longer need to worry about President Frist - though McCain is looking more and more realistic, and he didn't need any help. But he still needs to win the primaries and the Religious Right will be gunning for him. 2008 is going to be a bloody Holy War on the right, and I can't wait for it. Also nice to see Rove's newest golden boy go down.

I'm beginning to think that this was Reid's intention. As much as these nominees are abhorrent and represent a horrible lack of jurisprudence, we have reserved the right to find someone to overrule them. By forcing this to a showdown, and getting to show that there are moderates in the GOP we force Bush to tread a little more lightly. I think this incident might show Bush that he can't force through Social Security reform.

We also have created a new group of Republican Senators (6 or 7) who are going to be attacked viciously by the Right, hopefully making them more amiable to compromising with us in the future. What's better, they're going to be slandered and beat up in their primary races by extreme conservatives - exposing the party for who's in control and weakening the downticket candidates.

On the Supreme Court seats, it does seem to me now that the Dems who didn't vote against Alberto Gonzales' Attorney General nomination were preparing for this. They see him as a somewhat safe option (as he is not an extremist) and felt that if they kept him clean through the nomination process then he'd be safe for Bush to nominate for the Supreme Court. I really appreciate the principled opposition that came from Boxer to oppose his nomination, but he might have to be what we have to settle for.

We'll have to take what we can get.

Nazis Are Bad

2005-05-20T10:36:00.000-04:00

So I’ve been chastised in the past by my comparisons of the Bush administration’s tactics to those of Hitler prior to the holocaust. I recognize that evoking Hitler and/or Nazis is inherently inflammatory and a loaded reference, and this automatically undermines my intended meaning.

With the current Senate impasse, I'm now able to better articulate what I was thinking of by way of the idiotic Senator Santorum (who compared Democrats to Hitler in a bizarre reference to bombing Paris) and Senator Byrd (who spoke of the Nazis as totalitarians and compared their actions to those of the Republicans). This is where my comparison lies, not in the actors but in the state they sought, a totalitarian regime. Thanks to Hullabaloo for the link and helping me to put this in perspective. The following is a quote by Sen. Byrd:

But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends. Historian Alan Bullock writes that Hitler’s dictatorship rested on the constitutional foundation of a single law, the Enabling Law. Hitler needed a two-thirds vote to pass that law, and he cajoled his opposition in the Reichstag to support it. Bullock writes that “Hitler was prepared to promise anything to get his bill through, with the appearances of legality preserved intact.” And he succeeded.

Hitler’s originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions, in modern conditions, are carried out with, and not against, the power of the State: the correct order of events was first to secure access to that power and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal.

People want to see Hitler as pure evil and beyond the pale so they are inherently reluctant to equate anyone with his reputation as they feel it exaggerates the person being attacked and minimizes the evil of Hitler. This is a fair point. In fact, people who are active in online forums mention how any Internet debates inevitably degenerate into name calling with the argument being lost by the first to resort to calling their opponents Nazis.

So perhaps we should call Nazis totalitarians and point out how they created a totalitarian state.

I could go on and on about the similarities, but the bottom line here is that Totalitarians consolidate power by appearing to act within the rule of law while subverting the rule of law. Saying that the Senate should break the rules in order to enforce the rules shows just the sort of capriciousness that has typified the current Right Wing. The only important rules are the ones that support their worldview.

So what’s the point, don’t believe the rhetoric – these people will not stop until they get their way. The centrists in the Senate are seeking to strike a bargain – whereby 5 of the 7 contested judges would get to serve as long as the Republicans removed the nuclear option from the table. And what do the Young Turks on the Right do? They claim that the fact that we’ll compromise shows that our motivation is solely political and shows the Dems hypocrisy. There are a responsible group of centrists (on both sides) looking for a solution and everyone knows in a compromise both sides sacrifice. But the mainstream on the Right sees weakness in compromise, and try to take advantage of it.

These people want nothing less than control of everything in government, yet they’re savvy enough to know they must use a pretense of legality in order to keep the public pacified. We must deny them the right to use that pretense.

It's about checks and balances

2005-05-19T10:27:00.000-04:00

I have never been prouder of a politician who represents me than I was with Chuck Schumer yesterday. Taking the floor of the Senate yesterday, our senior Senator took up the debate.

The most salient point that the Senator made was about the Republican Senators’ voting record on Bush’s Appeal Court nominees. Sen. Schumer put up a sign that read 2703-1, and explained that this is the cumulative voting record for every Republican Senator on Bush’s Appeals Court nominees.

He went on to explain who the one down vote was from, Trent Lott. The down vote was in response to a black judge that Clinton had nominated to the 4th Circuit but had never had an ’up or down vote’ when Bush took power. Bush renominated, and Lott voted against the nomination. This is not advice and consent; as Schumer said, this is a RubberStamp.

Is there not one Republican Senator who had any qualms about any of the nominees? Or is the party machinery so strong that no one would commit the political suicide of speaking out? Or are Bush’s nominees really that perfect?

Speaking after Senator Schumer was Senator Conrad Burns from Oklahoma who has a stunning 4 months in office that clearly qualifies him to obliterate the rights of the minority in the Senate. Burns went on to tell us that all of Bush’s nominees were eminently qualified to serve and that every single Republican has supported them as they reviewed their record and decided they wanted them to serve. This is not about 55 drones taking marching orders from Karl Rove, but 55 principled men and women who are so principled that they have identical principles. In fact, if 55 of our ‘leaders’ think the same, I guess we can imply we should all think the same.

How are we to know that these Senators are doing their job, actually considering the candidates?

I guess we’re to presume that since Bush deigned to nominate them, and he was elected president by an overwhelming 1% margin (dripping with sarcasm), he made sure these candidates really represented the values of this nation.

Or maybe, just maybe, the Senate has lost its spine and is about to hand over its constitutional authority to advise and review to the White House. I’m sure they’ll be rewarded by more money from the fundamentalists – and be even more beholden to them next time they ask for a favor.

You've heard the talk about the nuclear option?

2005-05-18T17:29:00.000-04:00

UPDATE: I've anchored this post at the top of the page since it is giving a background to the posts that follow it, after we see how things play out, I will let it move down the page. If you've already read this post, please check below for newer posts.

Basically, Bush renominated 5 very conservative Appeals and District court judges that the Dems filibustered last session. They passed in committee and now they are being debated on the floor.

After the standard debate time of 50 hours (they're working on two nominees right now so it'll be 100), Frist will call for a vote of cloture. When the Dems attempt to filibuster, he's going to claim that the filibustering of nominees is unconstitutional as Senate has the right to 'advise and consent'. He's claiming this means that each candidate needs a vote as per the constitution.

Cheney will make a motion as President of the Senate that this is correct and then there will be a vote as to the Constitutionality of the filibuster. Simple majority wins, so the Dems need to get 6 GOP Sens to vote against it. Currently, the count is at 8 or 9 that may vote with the Dems, I think that McCain and Chafee are the only ones on record that they'll vote against, but McCain sounds like he's backtracking.

If the rule is found unconstitutional, then a simple majority will be able to place any nominee. Traditionally, rule changes require a 2/3 majority, but this is a move to work around it. If the change occurs, the Dems are threatening to slow or halt all unnecessary legislation by taking advantage of their right to each speak an hour before each vote. Every minor bill will therefore have to sit on the floor of the Senate for at least 22 hours, grinding things to a halt.

While this will supposedly only apply to judicial nominees, who's to say it stops there (a la Lakoff's 'Right Wing Power Grab'). This will essentially turn the Senate into the House of Representatives where a simple majority will rule.

The debate over the two nominees (two women, one black - look how inclusive the GOP is!!!) started today and there is going to be a lot of angry rhetoric before the moment of truth comes next Tuesday or Wednesday - check out CSPAN when you have some time, it's pretty fascinating.

Bottom line, Frist is taking his marching orders from James Dobson of Focus on the Family on this one, with the implicit understanding that this will ensure him the fundamentalist vote when he runs for Prez in 08.

Travelling

2005-03-12T09:31:00.000-05:00

Chicken Travels

The New Swindle

2005-03-07T21:08:00.000-05:00

Inspired by a post at DailyKos by Armando

I thought it was pretty well established that the New Deal’s legacy of ensuring that those who have least among us will be protected by the government. What’s more is that the safety nets put into place by FDR’s overhauls made sure that should we befall some bad luck, we would not be left to fend on our own. Apparently, most Americans agree with this understanding as FDR is recognized as one of the greatest presidents of all time.

It is increasingly apparent that Republicans on the Hill will stop at nothing short of erasing FDR from history. There was a minor outcry last year when a Representative proposed replacing FDR’s appearance on the dime with Ronald Reagan. This was just the first step in removing FDR from our history.

Everyone should be familiar by now with the Administration’s goal of partial privatization of Social Security. While they would have us believe that the goal of the proposal is strengthening Social Security there are many contradictions that belie their true goals – the destruction of Social Security. The government is using a technique they perfected in the lead-up to Iraq – create a sense of crisis and stampede all objections. If the War in Iraq is any model for what will happen with privatization, we can expect millions of bankrupt senior citizens – with the Bushies claiming that the program is working.

This week the Senate will pass a bill, which overhauls bankruptcy laws. While I’m not an expert on this issue, there are some major aspects that everyone should be aware of. First off, this is a step that will make personal bankruptcy much more difficult to declare. As things currently stand, a bankrupted individual can protect certain vital assets. This law will severely limit one’s ability to do this. While there may be need to have a reexamination of bankruptcy laws (from personal experience: my dad recently had a contract broken by someone who only wanted to get out of said obligations – so he filed for bankruptcy), the amendments that have been refused to be considered give us a true indication of the purpose of this bill. Among Democratic amendments that have been defeated are proposals to defend people who declare bankruptcy due to medical calamities. This is a continued erosion of the social safety net.

Another new proposal arose this week, with the great Senator from Pennsylvania (that’s sarcasm talking about Santorum) suggesting that we raise the minimum wage $1.10. That’s great right? Well, he also included in his proposal that companies be exempted from minimum wage requirements if they make under $1 million a year, up from the current standard of $500,000. This bill would also include provisions that would deregulate companies under $7 million a year - exempting them from all sorts of security, health and labor laws.

Can even the Republicans lie their way out of what their goals are here? Can the Democrats call them on it?

Perils for the GOP

2005-01-25T13:23:00.000-05:00

Interesting article in the Times(registration required) today that talks about challenges that are in store for Republicans as such a large majority.

First off, let’s not delude ourselves. There are some positives to the situation, but there are not many and the alternative would be much preferred (Dems with all the power).

That said, derailing the Privatization of our Social Security and Tort Reform (we need a more proactive term for this farce) may allow us to block the Bush agenda for the entire term.

There are several major difficulties to Bush hegemony before he even started overreaching with Social Security and Torts. These posts came out pretty long, so I’m breaking them up into separate posts below. I hope to put up a few posts next week about how Dems can exacerbate these divides.

1) What Mandate?

2005-01-25T13:00:00.000-05:00

Bush is still spouting off about his ‘mandate’ from the American people. This is patently false and offensive. Bush has tried to make his mandate become a foregone conclusion by repeating it. But 51% is not a mandate. And all the more recent polls show Bush’s approval dropping into the 40s%. This doesn’t help us now, but it shows that the American people do not support the Bush Agenda. It seems to me a bigger problem is that neither candidate really had to talk about concrete policies (beyond abortion rights and our role in the international community), so now when confronted with what this president wants to do, they realize they don’t like him.

2) Lame Ducks and the Mid-Term Elections

2005-01-25T11:59:00.000-05:00

2005- Historically, the most productive year of a presidency is the first year. Even more so when it is the first year of a second term, as the President’s staff has experience moving legislation and the President has passed a vote of confidence by the public.

2006- After the first year in power, you start approaching the mid-term elections and the House gets conservative on passing major legislation as politicians look to avoid issues that their opponents can use against them. The flip-side to this generality is that Bush and Rove took the Dems to school in 2002 by forcing them to take a stand on the Iraq Resolution just before the mid-terms.

2007- It’s a decent bet that Dems will take back a few seats in both Houses of Congress – though they will probably still be in the minority. That said, an ascendant Democratic Party is likely to form a stronger coalition than it recently has and will find it relatively easy to pick off Moderate Republicans on the more expansive legislation.

2008- As the election year gets into full swing, policy divides within each party get exacerbated. You also get many egos looking for different things. As Bush scurries to solidify his legacy, the ideological divides within the Republican party rise to the surface.

3) What's A Republican?

2005-01-25T11:58:00.000-05:00

It’s much easier to build a coalition than to maintain one and the Republicans are going to quickly realize this. As Bush begins to push his legislative agenda he will be haunted by demands from the Christian Right who try to claim credit for his victory and want retribution.

There’s also a large divide among the neo-cons, conservatives, libertarians and the Christian Right (ignoring that dying breed of Moderate Republican). Libertarians are isolationist and small government. Neo-Cons think it’s America’s right to save the world and meddle wherever they want. And the Christian right wants their religion integrated into the government.

Sure, there’s a lot they agree about, but they all think they have a monopoly on the party. There will be major rifts as the various factions circle the wagons for the 2008 primaries. If the President overreaches too far in any direction, the other factions are not likely to go along.

Back on track

2005-01-13T17:42:00.000-05:00

So it's been almost a month since I posted and I've got no excuses.

I started law school a week ago at Cardozo Law School in NYC. It should be fun, and it's already pretty interesting.

I'm just going to throw out a few very brief thoughts on the major issues going on and hopefully I'll get to revisit some of these in more depth. Please comment if you have any thoughts or opinions on these issues, so I know which ones are worth revisiting.

Social Security Privitization: This is a huge opportunity for the Democrats to solidify our party and define ourselves in light of our huge minority in DC. It looks like the Democratic caucus is standing together pretty strong on this issue. Minority Leader Reid is doing a good job of keeping our Senators united on this issue and Pelosi is showing herself to be a pretty strong leader.

Bush is trying his favorite strategy of creating a crisis (see Iraq) to make the public feel that reform is inevitable. The fact is that Social Security is safe for 50+ years according to various accounts. While there are some major issues with Social Security, it is no risk of collapse.

I personally feel that a better plan would be to change the age that benefits kick in to better reflect our longer lives, but the Republicans are not interested in ever discussing this. Their issue is not fixing Social Security, but instead finding a new way to give people a tax-free savings account and to drive business to Wall Street and inject life into the stock market.

We can not budge on this.

The best coverage I've seen of this has been at Talking Points Memo

DNC Elections: For the first time ever, there is a ton of attention being focused on the 400+ voters who will determine who is the next head of the DNC.

The current favorite for the nomination is probably Howard Dean who announced his candidacy this week. The former Governor got an unjust rap as an Uber-Liberal during the Democratic primaries, when he is much more of a centrist.

The top centrist candidate is probably former Congressman Tim Roemer of Ohio who has a lot of experience in DC - not always a benefit. Roemer seems to be a 'career politician' and does not seem to be getting a lot of support outside of the Beltway.

Other top candidates are: Simon Rosenberg of the New Democrat Network, Howard Ickes an side to Bill Clinton, Donny Fowler (his father used to run the DNC), Coloradoan Wellington Webb and some other names we'll never hear again after next month.

On a personal note, I met Simon Rosenberg several times when I was working in DC and he was one of the first powerful people in DC to see the Dean campaign as a positive grassroots thing despite his difference over politics. I think he would make an excellent candidate uniting many wings of the party.

I think Rosenberg makes an excellent case study. There are two ways to look at people. Howard Dean as DNC Chair would not be about his policies but about his campaigning - same thing for Rosenberg. They come from opposite sides of the Democratic party but they both represent reform - as does Donny Fowler (though I have some issues with him trashing the Clark campaign when he left). The status quo doesn't work, these guys will expand the party regardless of politics.

I've been getting a lot of good info from Chris and Jerome over at MyDD

I was also going to touch briefly on Payolagate and Voting Irregularities, but I'm tapped out for today.

Please check out Oliver Willis for more info on Payolagate.

Democrats head West

2004-12-16T15:00:00.000-05:00

Interesting post over at Kos that talks about a growing Democratic presence in the West (both Mountain and Southwest).

It's intriguing to note the potential for large Democratic appeal in states that are thought of as inherently Republican, such as Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. The Republican ideals that have long appealed out West have been the Libertarian way. These are people who want small government and big guns (ie Ruby Ridge) and for a long time Republicans kept the Libertarian vote in the coalition. Perhaps the only issue that the Dems really had out West was the environment. In the past few years, the environemental issue has become an even stronger Democratic issue as Bush gutted the EPA.

So why does this bode well for Democrats? There are two main forces working against the Republicans right now and both are a result of their large power. 1) They view their main support as the Bible Belt and 2) Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It's very hard to keep a large coalition happy. The fundamentalist base wants to use their power over governement to exercise control over culture. The FCC is inherently opposed to Libertarian ideals of limited government. Every time that the government tries to exercise control over free speech they let down their Libertarian supporters while rallying their base.

Additionally, they're the ones in control. The Patriot Act is fraught with problems but it is a necessary piece of legislation and would have been passed (in similar form) no matter who was in control of Washington. However, as the opposition party, the Dems have more freedom to dissent against the elements of the Patriot Act they oppose. As the outsider party, the Democrats are beginning to shake their reputation as the party of big government as they challenge Republican abuses. Which brings us to the second point:

Absolute power corrupts... As Republicans become more and more entrenched in DC they have a larger stake in preserving the status quo and even expanding the government. It is becoming increasingly difficult for Republicans to claim that they believe in small government when they've now controlled all three branches for 4 years and the government continues to grow. This is not to say that they're all corrupt or evil or lied about their intentions - but it does give the opportunity to shift the paradigm of the tax and spend liberal to debt spending conservatives.

Additionally, the current state of DC allows the Democrats to become real reformers. Challenging the ways of the government and the inherent corruption and abuses. They can be mavericks on this, a character that appeals out West and throughout the NorthEast.

It's very hard to keep a large coalition happy and the Republicans seem to have cast their lot with the fundamentalists which gives the Democrats a great opportunity to move towards the Libertarians and the West to pick them off. Additionally, I feel that the Libertarian ideals really coincides with so called 'financially conservative dems' - no longer a small faction.

Bernard, Rudy, George and Joe

2004-12-13T13:01:00.000-05:00

It appears that conflicts of interest with Bernard Kerik were the tip of the iceberg. Kerik didn't pull out because of a 'nanny' problem. He's got ties to mobsters, sexual harassment allegations, and a defaulted loan - all in his recent past. Nanny is a code word. Not to mention, she 'left' the country 2 weeks ago, which tells me that he thought that by sending her away - he could weather the storm.

So assuming this was Rudy's call, and it clearly had his support - where does it leave him? Bush (if nothing else) is a loyal guy - so I don't expect to see him bansihed during this administration, but I think this effectively ends Rudy's political career. For one, this gives more fodder to the Conservatives to attack him with during any Republican primary. And two, if this is one of Rudy's best friends - do you really believe that Rudy doesn't have similar skeletons in his closet? At the least, Rudy's business partner was a known associate of mobsters. Unsavory to say the least.

And where does this leave the President? First off, it was Alberto Gonzales who is supposed to vet all cabinet level appointments. If this was any indication, I don't expect to see Gonzales to be any more effective at Attorney General than Ashcroft was. However, I don't think you can really blame Gonzales for this oversight - this is just symptomatic of the way Bush has always done business. He doesn't just value his own judgement of friends/associates over what others say - he values his judgements to the exclusion of what other say. 'Loyalty' , 'character' and character type are his chief concerns and then he tries to bend reality to fit his judgements. Kerik definitely had the loyalty and character type that Bush wanted.

So this brings us to the recircling rumors about Joe Lieberman taking the post of Director of Homeland Security. Lieberman has always taken an interest in national defense (perhaps above all other issues), he is a Democratic Senator from a state with a Republican Governor, and he's up for a shoo-in re-election in 2 years. Appointing Lieberman to be the Director would allow Connecticut to get a Republican Senator (via Gubernatorial appointment), shifting the balance even further Republican in the Senate and giving the Republicans a chance to hold the seat in 2006 (power of incumbency). Not to mention, Lieberman is eminently qualified. However, Bush doesn't care about such things as qualifications, and he's so confident in his 'mandate' that he probably won't be too concerned with one vote here or there. He wants a buddy to run this department. Someone who speaks his language. Not a Jew from the Northeast.

Giuliani's Payback?

2004-12-03T10:57:00.000-05:00

Hmmmm.....

Being in New York, I've run into a lot of people who are surprised at how completely Rudy Giuliani bent over for the Bush campaign and totally compromised himself in the eyes of many moderates. Especially given the fact that Giuliani will never be a Republican candidate for president (being pro-choice and living with a gay couple are enough to eliminate anyone from viability), it was hard to figure why he was such a cheap whore. Ahhh, but he wasn't cheap.

Yesterday we learned the news that Bernard Kerik will be the next head of Homeland Security. This would be the same Bernard Kerik who is a Senior VP at Giuliani Partners. Ahh, the same Kerik who ran Iraq police and we know what a good job he did there. (Do you even need me to link to the articles?)

Interesting timing that Kerik gets his appointment the same day Giuliani opens a new financial consulting branch to his company.

UPDATED: Just found this nugget regarding an investment by Giuliani and co: "Giuliani Partners said it hopes to help build new markets for the products in the homeland security, law enforcement and first-responder markets."

GWB: You're welcome, Rudy!

What happened - Part 1

2004-11-10T17:14:00.000-05:00

I took a week off from the Chicken as I regrouped and rethought. It seems pretty clear that we didn't have the right combo this time. While Bush might not have the Mandate he claims, that was a pretty decisive victory.

This post will throw out some ideas about what went wrong and how in 2004, and the next post will be about what we can do going forward. I'm not one to cry over spilt milk so the next post will be longer than this one.

I think Atrios said that looking at an election result is like reading a Rohrschact Test, whatever your pet peeve was becomes the reason we lost. You can make a convincing case for a number of different issues costing us this election including (but not limited to) gays, abortion, guns, taxes, terror or that people don't want to change captains in midstream. Whatever your tendency you can highlight your cause as the deciding factor. This doesn't give us an answer.

We didn't lose for a single cause.

We didn't lose for lack of voter mobilization

We didn't lose for John Kerry. We won because of Bill Clinton, but he didn't fix the party's ills.

We lost because Democrats were the anti-Republicans.

We lost because our base isn't as strong as the Republican base.

We lost because 42% of Americans claim to be Evangelicals, and about 80% of them vote for Bush.

We lost because the rhetoric from the Right has convinced these 42% of Americans that the party of tax cuts for the rich, no pity for the weak, old or ill, destroyers of the environment, hubris internationally is the party of God. I may not be a man of the cloth, but I'm pretty sure that Jesus had pretty strong feelings about issues other than abortion and gays. The Republicans have done a brilliant job of obscuring those issues. But this is just one aspect.

Because in addition to being able to rely on his base, Bush was able to put on the moderate face in public and go after votes from Kerry's base. And that's because Kerry's base didn't have an identity. There was no unifying thought, theme or concept with Kerry and the Dems to compare to Bush's Principled Driven Leadership.

We used to have an identity. Roosevelt's party had an identity. The party of JFK, LBJ and RFK had an identity. But now, we're without an identity.

Look at the nominating process. 9 men, 1 woman. Nothing unifying among them. No victory of one 'Democratic' vision over another. We didn't pick someone who had an identity, because we don't have an identity.

An Idea

2004-11-03T16:33:00.000-05:00

Rise up fallen fighters

2004-11-03T11:24:00.000-05:00

Rise and take your stance again.
'Tis he who fight and run away
Live to fight another day.
With the heathen back upon de wall!
...
As a man sow, shall he reap
And I know that talk is cheap.
But the hotter the battle
Is the sweeter the victory.

- Bob Marley, The Heathen

Too bitter for a longer post right now, but we've got a lot of work to do and self pity and hatred aren't going to help us in the long run.

What's left to say?

2004-11-01T20:54:00.000-05:00

It's the final hours...Sure, I'm a little nervous - you have to be.

I want to thank everyone who's visited me for the past 4 (5) months. I've really enjoyed being able to share my thoughts with you, and I think the fact that I've kept this blog going as long as I have is a testament to the fact that I knew you were reading. And that's a testament to all of us.

Compared to what I know now, I knew nothing back in 2000. And you all seem to have taken the same ride. Think about it for a minute...We've become a better informed electorate and for whatever this is, it is a hugely positive thing.

This isn't a going away note, and the Chicken will probably be supremely critical of a Kerry administration, but you all deserve a pat on the back - you've made the choice to be more engaged and I applaud you.

Who remembers Iowa

2004-10-31T13:42:00.000-05:00

Who remembers Sunday, January 17th?

We saw the numbers, saw Kerry and Edwards rallying - but I didn't believe it. The indicators - endorsements, money - were Dean, and we thought that'd deliver the race.

Flashback to today, the press sees Kerry's poll numbers creeping up - yet they're stuck on the other indicators, incumbency,war-time president, etc.

Remember how you felt on January 20th? A little stunned. Most of you, like me, thought we had gotten too safe of a choice. We questioned the wiseness of the caucuses. And yes, I was a bit disappointed.

Now who remembers February? All of a sudden we looked our candidate in the eyes - and I saw everything in Kerry that voters who got to know him (Iowans, New Hampshirites(?)) voted for.

And now, I feel like a lot of the country will be looking at the papers Wednesday morning (yes Wednesday) with the same sense of hope, fear, questioning and curiosity about our next president.

And I know, that before January - this country will recognize how lucky they are to have a committed, intelligent, introspective leader who has dedicated himself to this country like John Kerry.

Brrrrrr....Scary!

2004-10-29T11:27:00.000-04:00

Costume ideas!

380 Tons of Weapons

2004-10-27T14:32:00.000-04:00

I could care less what the 380 tons are - they're gone and a lot of them have already been used to attack our troops. What this incident should illustrate for the public is the lack of reponsibility and culpability that the Bush administration has repeatedly shown. Let's review the facts:

380 tons of high grade explosives were known to be stored at Al QaaQa as recently as January 2003.

In a report that surfaced this week, those weapons are missing and believed to have been missing for 18 months.

How does Bush respond? Essentially three answers:

1. They were gone before we arrived (this has been contradicted by press reports)

2. This is a smear by the liberal media (while the timing is suspect, this doesn't address the issue)

3. John Kerry only has complaints, no answers (I'd say voting for John Kerry is a pretty good solution)

This is why John Kerry will be our next president. The President claims that he never made a mistake - yet day after day we see his mistakes on the cover of our newspapers. Confidence is nice, but blissful ignorance can only last so long - and the fuse that Bush lit in Iraq is something my grandkids will likely be living down.

The American people have had enough. This administration is like a satire - nothing is true - the bigger the lie the better. I find it ironic that Bush decries relativism, yet many of his claims require rejecting objective reality and taking his view - no questions asked. So long to the Enron president!

(And yes, that was my official prediction - Kerry with 290+ EV)

Don't we deserve an Eagle?

2004-10-22T15:50:00.000-04:00

What a Great video (RealPlayer) from the DNC. Look how effective this is without mentioning either candidate or any positions.

Out For Blood

2004-10-19T17:33:00.000-04:00

My inspirations have struck again with ChickenFight.com, where you can see Tender and Spicy face off in a winner take all combat.

Version 2 will feature the Angry Chicken as a combatant.

Jon Stewart Speaks the Truth

2004-10-15T22:51:00.000-04:00

Gotta check this clip of Jon Stewart on Crossfire this afternoon(WIndows Media File). Watch the whole 5 minutes - and tell me that we don't need a new word to express super-irony.

I'd say that he's hurting his sales...

2004-10-15T20:36:00.000-04:00

But I don't think he sells any albums.

This article in today's Daily News, quotes KRS One as saying:

"I say that proudly," the Boogie Down Productions founder went on, insisting that, before the attack, security guards kept black people out of the Trade Center "because of the way we talk and dress.

"So when the planes hit the building, we were like, 'Mmmm - justice.'"

The atrocity of 9/11 "doesn't affect us [the hip-hop community]," he said. "9/11 happened to them, not us," he added, explaining that by "them" he meant "the rich ... those who are oppressing us. RCA or BMG, Universal, the radio stations."

Where my money goes

2004-10-13T13:02:00.000-04:00

Just made a couple of donations this week, and they should be my last donations before the elections.

I gave some money today to Operation Truth, a veterans organization that is looking to air advertisements to make sure they're not forgotten. Watch the ad here.

Earlier this week I gave money to Jan Schneider who is running against Katherine Harris in Florida for a Congressional seat. This race is important because (aside from knocking off the corrupt Ms. Harris who contributed to our losing the 2000 election) we'll be effectively ending her political career, before she becomes a front-runner as the Republican challenger for Bill Nelson's Senate seat. The Congressional race is close, as will be the 2006 senate race. We can laso help to recliam the house from the corrupt exterminator DeLay.

I strongly suggest that you make your voice heard with whatever you can afford to give this cycle, as time is running out. A great site that handles donations for all Dem candidates is ActBlue, if you have someone else in mind.

It's unfortunate that politics often comes down to who has more money, but at least average citizens can now take advantage of that power through the internet.

Setting the Tone

2004-10-09T18:42:00.000-04:00

I think most people feel that last night's debate was a draw - which is fine. The most important thing that happened last night was that Kerry seemed to take the mantle of 'incumbent'.

Senator Kerry was Senatorial - even Presidential - last night. He exuded confidence and maturity. Confidence in the rightness of positions, which he has begun to define with more clarity (check out the article in tomorrow's NY Times Mag for a great piece on his approach to the War on Terrorism). Maturity in knowing that he is the bigger man and showing the respect he had to show to OUR president (whether we like it or not).

I think that, in part, Bush's temper and anger last night were intended to rattle Kerry. To elicit name-calling. To get Kerry to disrespect the office of the President. Kerry didn't. Now we need to take his lead.

Don't tell me about all the reasons why Bush is venal, stupid, immature, etc. It's irrelevant for 3 more weeks. For 3 more weeks he's our President, and any vituperation we send his way will be turned on us. We need to start showing respect - and stop calling names. If anything, I'd feel pity for the President, which reinforces the fact that he is going to lose. The tone is pity - not scorn. Empathize with a guy who's been out of his league for 4 years. We're doing him a favor by helping to retire him.

Don't be petty - we're entering the home stretch. Let's be as graceful as the 44th President was last night.

I shudder to think of a second term

2004-10-09T11:07:00.000-04:00

When they wouldn't have to care what the electorate thinks.

Check out this Quicktime clip. Via Kos

Predictable

2004-10-07T15:35:00.000-04:00

Within two hours of my previous post we get this, via JMM:

"AP: "The Education Department has advised school leaders nationwide to watch for people spying on their buildings or buses to help detect any possibility of terrorism like the deadly school siege in Russia. The warning follows an analysis by the FBI and the Homeland Security Department of the siege that killed nearly 340 people, many of them students, in the city of Beslan last month.

'The horror of this attack may have created significant anxiety in our own country among parents, students, faculty staff and other community members,' Deputy Education Secretary Eugene Hickok said in a letter to schools and education groups ...

The Education Department sent its letter by e-mail Wednesday to school police, state school officers, school boards, groups representing principals and many other organizations." (emphasis added)"

Typical!

Countdown to Terror Warnings

2004-10-07T14:25:00.000-04:00

The Bushies are running out of magic bullets. They used one yesterday when announcing a major policy address which was actually just an hour-long infomercial on the President that the idiots at CNN and MSNBC aired for free. Fox aired it willingly.

Things are really in free-fall for Bush - he seemed petty and defensive during the debate (and the spin has definitely beeen all Kerry's. Iraq is in bad shape and he can't admit it. The rising oil prices are continuing to have a stifling effect on the economy. It's almost as if he's finally being exposed as not deep enough for the job.

Time to trot out Tom Ridge...

The Bowl-Off is coming

2004-10-04T14:14:00.005-04:00

Hey all-

Those of you I know have heard about the Great American Meetup Bowl-Off by now. But most of you haven't signed up!

The Bowl-Off will feature Bush Supporters and Kerry Supporters facing off for fun in bowling centers all across the country. The Bowl-Off is scheduled for Thursday night at 9 PM.

Hope to see you there!

Propaganda 101

2004-10-04T10:32:00.000-04:00

This video shows how the Republican party has ~~scared the bejeezus out of~~ made it's opinions on Terrorism known to the American public.

via Joi Ito.

What to expect at tonight's debate.

2004-09-30T10:27:00.001-04:00

Short answer: Not Much. Longer Answer: Lots of Spin.

The debates have essentially turned into a rapid-fire exchange of soundbites between the candidates. A great organization looking to change this Open Debate, who advocates for unbiased debates. This is not a partisan abuse - this is a bipartisan abuse - where the Republicans and Democrats have worked together to stifle debates from being real forums.

As far as tonight goes, I think Kerry really needs to point out Bush's inconsistencies and delusions. One point that I can't wait for him to make is his response to Bush accusing him of flip-flopping on the war. "You told me that we were voting for a resolution to maintain peace, that's what I voted for. When it became that I couldn't trust you, then I had to run against you. Now you accuse me of voting for the war. Are you lying now, or were you lying then, Mr. President?"

Also, I'm rather concerned that Fox News is editing the feeds for all the networks. Whenever Fox feels it is important to cut away from Bush or to Kerry, we all need to watch. This is absurd. They are clearly partisan, yet they control what the whole country sees.

This is very alarming.

He's Got Bush's Kids, We've Got Reagan's, and Eisenhower's

2004-09-29T20:28:00.000-04:00

Joining Michael Reagan in the Right-Wing Hall Of Shame, John Eisenhower wrote an article for yesterday's Manchester (NH) Union Leader. While it's cool to have their descendants supporting Kerry, I was really impressed by this line:

"The fact is that today’s “Republican” Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word “Republican” has always been synonymous with the word “responsibility,”"

Also liked this, hopefully there are more like him:

"As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry."

What we're all fighting about

2004-09-26T18:56:00.000-04:00

Last night we observed Yom Kippur - a time to think about our sins and reflect on them - as well as think about how we can avoid those sins again. Pride, intolerance, among others were on that list. One theme that most of the sins discussed in temple had in common was the failure to consider the people that you effect.

Later at my parents place we gathered together to 'break fast'. I entered into a recurring debate that I've had with a family friend about politics. He is one of those people who believes that foreign policy trumps all the travesties that Bush is committing here, and he believes that Bush is in the right on his foreign policies. While I strongly disagree with him, he is among the most effective debaters I have ever met, and I always enjoy discussing current affairs with him. The point for me is that we both share a common interest in the fate of our country and we both are interested in testing out and arguing our beliefs - to see if they stand up. At the end of the day, the fate of our country is where we both derive our passion from, we just differ on the best means to strengthen this country. This was civil.

Later, I went out to the San Gennaro Feast and stopped at a bar. While the mood was very friendly, all of a sudden this loudmouth starts screaming about how Bush is right, Bush is the greatest, let's kill all Muslims, etc. Very ignorant, very loud and very offensive - just as he intended. And he was 'talking' to his friends. It just blows my mind to see people fighting with other Americans over politics. I hate to quote Jarvis, but this is really how we will lose the war.

Now, mind you, this is not a Republican phenomenon. Later in the evening, we went to another bar and my friend was speaking to a girl. She asked him if he was voting for Kerry. He said no, and she told him he was living in the wrong city - the conversation ended there. This is beyond me. I find it very hard to understand Bush's popularity - but that makes me want to understand how people can support him. However, most Democrats seem to not give a damn about the 49% of Americans who will be voting for Bush. It's sad.

And the truth is, this is what the parties want from us. They don't want nuance, understanding or analysis of the candidates. They want to lock up their 'base' by painting the opposition as illogical or worse. If you convince someone that they can't support a candidate because of ___________(Abortion rights, gay marriage, their obstinance, or their inconsistency), you never need to discuss how both candidates are compromised by corporate donors.

Of course, Bush still sucks and has put us firmly on a course towards World War III and I'll do everything I can to keep him from getting re-elected - I just wish more people were willing to discuss why they have different opinions, we're all in the same boat here we just have different solutions.

Biking Uphill

2004-09-22T22:54:00.000-04:00

So given that another well-known chicken has announced that he will not be running for the cure, this Chicken is stepping up to bike for the cure!

I'll be riding with the legendary Los Demonios de Bicicleta, So please! Donate Here!

Also, we're looking for new recruits, so if you bike like the wind please feel free to join the team at the above link. It's a 30 mile trip all around the city - and it really isn't as tough as it sounds!

Thanks,

Will

What if America was like Iraq?

2004-09-22T22:40:00.000-04:00

Juan Cole has an awesome piece today comparing what's really happening in Iraq to what would be comparable within the US:

"President Bush said Tuesday that the Iraqis are refuting the pessimists and implied that things are improving in that country.

What would America look like if it were in Iraq's current situation? The population of the US is over 11 times that of Iraq, so a lot of statistics would have to be multiplied by that number.

Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately of 3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll. "

...

"What if the leader of the European Union maintained that the citizens of the United States are, under these conditions, refuting pessimism and that freedom and democracy are just around the corner?"

No More Terror

2004-09-20T14:16:00.000-04:00

Apparently the fact that the polls show support for President Bush has caused a decline in the threat of terrorism, from the Daily Kos.

Now what I want to understand is which of the following the Bushies will cop to, either:

a)The terror alerts are politically motivated to distract the public

or

b)The 'evildoers' want Bush to win, so they increase the chatter when it looks like he's in trouble

Either way, I want an answer

Ten Cuidado del Nombre Bush

2004-09-19T18:07:00.000-04:00

This is great!

The guys over at the New Democrat Network have been producing great Spanish commercials all cycle. But has to be the best yet. While the ad is in Spanish, it's subtitled in English.

Nothing like a mariachi song warning you to beware of Bush!

How do we get them to run this on tv? I think this would even be effective on English tv if you ran the subtitles.

If only everything, were as

2004-09-17T15:52:00.000-04:00

simple and correct as this!

What's the Matter with Kansas?

2004-09-11T15:07:00.000-04:00

Ok, so I did make you all wait a little while for this post, but here it is:

This book is very interesting and I think more than anything points to the future of how politics are going. The general notion of this story is that Republicans have convinced poor and lower-middle class Kansans to support them based on social issues while the Republicans screw them on financial issues. However, this isn't nearly the complete argument. Frank just helps identify the trend within the state he grew up in, but this is a larger nationwide issue.

You have Republicans passing law after law that destroys the 'homeland' by turning independent farmers into sharecroppers or by having to sell out to conglomerates. Time after time, pursuing an open market or the global market has undermined the traditional blue collar workers that have defined middle America. Yet middle America keeps re-electing Conservatives to fight the 'liberal establishment'. Is this the same 'Liberal Establishment' that doesn't control the House, the Senate, the White House or the Supreme Court? Of course. The Conservatives get elected on social issues then do nothing but undermine their own supporters. It really is an amazing feat.

What we really have is some of the conservatives largest supporters being responsible for things that incense the conservatives solidifying their power. I think the perfect example of this would be Coors. They are huge benefactors of the Conservative establishment (not in Kansas but in general) yet at the same time run commercials that revolve around drunken behavior and twins with big breasts. Viewers get so outraged by these lack of morals they donate to Conservative candidates who cater public policy to fit their large benefactor, Coors. This is not a rare trend. Look at Fox TV, the lowest moral standards on the networks yet they tell people to support Conservatives. Where is the outrage? Why doesn't the 'Liberal Establishment' do something?

Frank is very liberal (borderline socialist in my opinion) which helps him to identify just how centrist the Dems have become. Democratic economic policy has become nearly indistinguishable from the Republicans, leaving the only real issue they differ on is how much we will underfund the state. Frank is particularly alarmed by the decline of unions which has helped to decimate the middle class. The trend that appears to be emerging is that traditional Republicans might start turning toward the Dems to balance the attacks on their social rights. Many 'Rockefeller' or fiscal Republicans are becoming alarmed at the erosion of their civil liberties. I foresee them moving to the left over the coming decade and we'll be looking at a country where the entire middle class and educated lower class move to the left for social rights while the lower class by and large gravitate to a Right wing that is underwritten by the elite of the elite. This will put us in a position where nobody at all represents workers' rights and labor rights, a very scary thought that shows just how effective the super-rich have been at using social issues as a wedge to consolidate power.

Back in the coop

2004-09-09T13:55:00.000-04:00

The Chicken is back from vacation.

Lots of stuff going on so this can't be a long post, but here's my advice to Kerry supporters - stop freaking out. The polls are still very close and Kerry is actually winning the general election according to the latest Zogby polls. It's a fluid field and the only things we should be worrying about are Bush's approval/disapproval ratings. Right now they're in his favor, but I look forward to the CNN poll tonight.

As promised, I've got a long post on 'What's the Matter with Kansas' in the works. You can expect that on Saturday.

Angry Chicken is Decompressing

2004-08-26T10:51:00.000-04:00

Going on vacation for a week. By the time I get back, I'll probably be no worse than an irritable chicken. If you're interested you can catch up on my travels at:

The Chicken Travels

I Could Have Gotten Some Purple Hearts

2004-08-24T14:14:00.002-04:00

Turns out that my evil twin and I would have had a draft number of 2 had we been eligible to serve during Vietnam. This means that we would have been drafted practically right away(I'm not familiar with all the details). (Thanks to the evil twin for the link)

Good news is, it doesn't look like any of us pacifist pansies will need to ask our daddies to get us into the Texas Air National Guard any time soon, those draft re-instatement rumors appear to be just that, rumors.

I'm so tired of this Bullshit

2004-08-20T08:30:00.000-04:00

What the fuck is going on with this country?

We're about to elect a president based on who served how in the military OVER 30 YEARS AGO!?!?!?!

This is my country and I deserve to know what Mssrs. Bush and Kerry would do to make it better, stronger, safer. Instead, all I get fed is a steady diet of Swift Boat Stories, Philandering Catholics and the fucking swing states. Does anybody realize that over 1,000 Americans have now died in Iraq? Health insurance now costs more than ever before? Gas prices look set to keep rising? Nearly 40,000 people die every year from gun related injuries? Aren't these issues more important than whether John Kerry had a 1 inch or 2 inch piece of shrapnel lodged in his arm 30 FUCKING YEARS AGO!

This is not how you get an informed electorate. This is not how democracy is supposed to work. I am of the personal belief that John Kerry is the better man of the two for the job (not by a large margin, mind you), but I want that notion challenged. I want to hear a real explanation of why Bush thinks the Kerry tax cuts are pipe dreams. I want to hear what scary isolationist ideas Kerry is proposing to counter outsourcing. I want to hear this, and I deserve to hear it. But instead we get fed a steady diet of fluff and the American public gets more disenchanted and more turned off.

This is fucking bullshit and I'm ready to make a stand.

Bush's Newest Ad to Be Pulled?

2004-08-20T08:15:00.000-04:00

According to today's NY Times, the USOC has threatened Bush-Cheney with a cease and desist for improperly using the Olympics in a campaign ad:

"'We haven't actually seen the ad, as we're in Greece,' said Darryl Seibel, a spokesman for the United States Olympic Committee. 'However, we're aware of the ad and today contacted the campaign. We're awaiting a reply.'

The re-election committee did not return a phone call from this newspaper. Its lawyers are being reminded that the brand name and concept of the Olympics belong to the International Olympic Committee in general and to the U.S.O.C. within the 50 states. "

COOL!

Stand up and holla!

2004-08-17T10:16:00.000-04:00

You knew this campaign was going to be hilarious, but come on!

Princella Smith has won the GOP's Stand up and holla contest. And I just want to thank the GOP for scoring off the charts for unintentional comedy.

My personal favorite:

"Mad dash" and "fronts" were put in "quotations", as if to show that the GOP was "down" with the hip urban slang.

She must be so representative of the newmulticultural Republican Party!

Don't Cry for McGreevey

2004-08-13T12:42:00.000-04:00

Please don't give me the sob story of James McGreevey. Let me tell you the story of McGreevey if he had been straight.

McGreevey hired a woman who had no qualifications to be his Homeland Security Advisor at $110,000 per year. She failed miserably and her shortcomings were obvious to everyone. After she left the position, she decided to sue McGreevey for sexual harassment. Do you think we would have seen that press conference yesterday?

For all the 'context' that McGreevey's being closeted may have added to the situation; there is a simple reality here: McGreevey used his position as a politician to get his boyfriend a job. That's all that is relevant here. He is a slimy politician.

In fact, I feel that he has done damage to the Gay cause here. He has put himself in a position where he would hope that the gay rights movement will come to his rescue. As such, he has undermined gay rights; by using his sexuality as an excuse for making himself a victim.

McGreevey is not the victim here. The victims are the residents of New Jersey, Democrats who will get blamed for him and the greater gay community which has one more black-eye from someone using their sexuality as an excuse for their philandering. For shame...

Fuck New York

2004-08-11T18:02:00.000-04:00

So says a young Bush.

Indeed!

Bush's Brain

2004-08-11T10:34:00.000-04:00

Can't wait for Bush's Brain to be released later this month. You should definitely check out one of the film's trailers. This is the story of Karl Rove's influence on the White House.

Now my one question is, if people think that Bush is dumb and that Karl Rove acts as Bush's brain; wouldn't that make Rove kind of dumb?

Any Graphic Designers out there up for a challenge?

2004-08-07T20:03:00.000-04:00

Not sure if any of you know any graphic designers who'd be down to redesign my blog, or create a logo in exchange for a beer.

If you know someone who would be interested in doing it for fun, please let me know.

Thanks,

W

Mouth of the South

2004-08-06T09:51:00.003-04:00

Ok, so I know why everyone is outraged over Eugenics-believer James Hart being the Republican nominee for Congress from TN's 8th district (he ran unopposed because the Republicans have given up on the seat).

I'm more concerned that the Mouth of the South will be wearing those bright jackets into Congress.

This is Awesome

2004-08-05T14:23:00.000-04:00

This is fricking hilarious, a nod to Atrios for catching it.

Bush Insists His Administration Seeking 'new Ways to Harm Our Country'

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," Bush said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

People Against W

2004-08-04T16:53:00.000-04:00

People Against W, Yeah it's just another stupid petition, but you can be one of the first to sign and that will be pretty cool as we watch the numbers soar.

I'm number 90.