Everywhere in America, liberals are awakening to sunrise after eight cold years of darkest night. They celebrate. They dream. But they should also reflect.
Euphoria on the left is understandable given the failures of the Bush regime and the rancor of the political season. It is the latter factor that fuels the left’s sense of triumph as well as its sense of grievance.
Do you remember the campaigns of President Reagan? His critique of the left was very different than that of his heirs. Reagan and his disciples believed liberals were weak, misguided and naïve, but not treasonous. Reagan desired victory but had no need to demonize his adversaries.
Twenty years later, a candidate for Vice-President accuses her opponent of “palling around with terrorists” and praises the “pro-America areas of this great nation.” When President Bush said, “You are with us or you are with the terrorists,” his statement was intended for foreign governments. Governor Palin has directed that sentiment at the American people. We will never forget that.
This is part of a pattern extending back to the election of 2000. Karl Rove taught us that victory was not enough; permanent domination and humiliation of the other side was the real goal. In the Rovian world, the victors gloat insufferably, indulging themselves in the gleeful excesses of power. The losers sulk in vengeful fury, vowing retribution. This is not the America of my childhood. And I hope it is not the America of my old age.
As for John McCain, he is a decent man who succumbed to the pressures of an intense campaign. He is not the first politician to do so and he will not be the last. But let us remember the good in this son of America who spent much of his youth in North Vietnamese jails. When I recall Senator McCain in future years, I will remember the man who refused to leave captivity until POWs held longer than him were released. I will remember the man who made common cause with Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold. I will remember the man who relentlessly pursued corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff in the face of great embarrassment to his own party. But most of all, I will remember the man who stood up to President Bush and told him that torture was wrong.
Look around the country! Nearly half of our fellow citizens voted for Senator McCain. Are they all deluded, racist, nativist or ignorant? Of course not. Just like us, they are anxious about the future. They do not want failure. Neither do we. Many of them recognize that George W. Bush has accomplished something unique in American history: he has bequeathed to his successor two raging wars, an apocalyptic economic crisis and diminished standing in the world. All of us, Obama voters and McCain voters, have to live with the smoldering devastation of that legacy. That alone provides cause for alliance.
So put away those champagne bottles. Put on your hardhats. Strap on your toolbelts. Report to the jobsite and take your place with moderates, independents and conservatives. It’s time to leave the strong words of Election 2008 in the past. It’s time to rebuild America.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
On Election 2008
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
As the Polls Close
Here's a handy timeline from the Glover Park Group for evaluating the election as the polls close.
MPW Election Predictions
For the entertainment of our readers, MPW has assembled an all-star panel to make predictions in the Presidential and U.S. Senate races as well as several ballots in Maryland. Let's see who gets it right and who gets it wrong!
The following individuals have the courage (or perhaps the foolishness) to participate in our exercise:
Alan Banov, Vice-Chairman, MCDCC
Delegate Bill Bronrott (D-16)
Sharon Dooley, UpCounty Action
Delegate Brian Feldman (D-15)
Pete Fosselman, Mayor of Kensington
Delegate Bill Frick (D-16)
Marc Korman, Member, MCDCC
George Leventhal, Montgomery County Council Member
David Lublin, MPW Founder and American University Professor of Government
Eric Luedtke, MCEA Board Member and FSP Blogger
David Moon, Former Raskin and Navarro Campaign Manager
Adam Pagnucco, Rogue of MoCo
Jerry Pasternak, Garson and Claxton
Kim Propeack, Casa de Maryland
Senator Jamie Raskin (D-20)
Here's our picks:
President by State
Arizona
The panel calls this state for McCain.
Colorado
The panel calls this state for Obama.
Florida
Obama: Banov, Bronrott, Dooley, Feldman, Frick, Leventhal, Lublin, Luedtke, Moon, Pagnucco, Pasternak, Propeack, Raskin
McCain: Fosselman, Korman
Georgia
The panel calls this state for McCain.
Indiana
Obama: Fosselman, Korman, Luedtke, Raskin
McCain: Banov, Bronrott, Dooley, Feldman, Frick, Leventhal, Lublin, Moon, Pagnucco, Pasternak, Propeack
Missouri
Obama: Bronrott, Korman, Luedtke, Moon, Pasternak
McCain: Banov, Dooley, Feldman, Fosselman, Frick, Leventhal, Lublin, Pagnucco, Propeack, Raskin
Montana
Obama: Fosselman
McCain: Banov, Bronrott, Dooley, Feldman, Frick, Korman, Leventhal, Lublin, Luedtke, Moon, Pagnucco, Pasternak, Propeack, Raskin
Nevada
Obama: Banov, Bronrott, Dooley, Feldman, Frick, Korman, Leventhal, Lublin, Luedtke, Moon, Pagnucco, Pasternak, Propeack, Raskin
McCain: Fosselman
North Carolina
Obama: Banov, Dooley, Fosselman, Frick, Korman, Lublin, Luedtke, Moon, Pasternak, Propeack, Raskin
McCain: Bronrott, Feldman, Leventhal, Pagnucco
North Dakota
Obama: Banov, Dooley, Raskin
McCain: Bronrott, Feldman, Fosselman, Frick, Korman, Leventhal, Lublin, Luedtke, Moon, Pagnucco, Pasternak, Propeack
Ohio
Obama: Banov, Bronrott, Dooley, Feldman, Frick, Korman, Leventhal, Lublin, Luedtke, Moon, Pagnucco, Pasternak, Propeack, Raskin
McCain: Fosselman
Pennsylvania
The panel calls this state for Obama.
Virginia
Obama: Banov, Bronrott, Dooley, Feldman, Frick, Korman, Leventhal, Lublin, Luedtke, Moon, Pagnucco, Pasternak, Propeack, Raskin
McCain: Fosselman
The panel's consensus is that Obama will defeat McCain in the electoral count by a 353-185 margin.
Question for the Panel: The identity of the next President of the U.S. will be obvious as soon as the following info comes in on election night.
Banov: If Virginia goes for Obama, he wins. If he gets North Carolina, Missouri, or Montana, it’s a landslide. If Pennsylvania goes for McCain, we’re in trouble. If he takes Ohio, too, it is looking bad. If he takes Nevada, too, it’s kvetching time!
Bronrott: We will know as soon as the winners are called in the East-of-the-Mississippi states plus the Gateway-to-the-West state of Missouri.
Dooley: As soon as we know if the expected youth vote turnout has exceeded predictions.
Feldman: When the networks call Virginia for Obama after the polls close there at 7:00 PM.
Fosselman: Whoever wins Ohio.
Frick: I would say Ohio turnout figures. Mahoning Valley and Southeast Ohio in particular. If Obama can avoid a huge rout in East and Southeast Ohio, he wins Ohio and wins the presidency.
Korman: As Virginia goes, so goes the nation.
Leventhal: Who wins Virginia. The polls will close early (7 p.m.) and if Obama wins it, there really isn't any clear way for McCain to get 270 votes.
Lublin: The results from Virginia are among the earliest to come in. Obama's victory in Virginia will signal he has many roads to victory nationally and is doing well.
Luedtke: As soon as Pennsylvania votes strongly for Obama and McCain's only hope for an electoral college victory proves to have been far out of reach.
Moon: If NC or IN goes for Obama or McConnell goes down in KY, I think this race is over in a landslide.
Pagnucco: It's all about Virginia. If Obama's margin is large there, that will signify heavy African-American and youth turnout around the country.
Pasternak: It's 7:30 PM and the polls are closed in Ohio.
Raskin: As soon as we learn that Obama has won Virginia, Pennsylvania and Florida, we will know it’s over. If he loses one of those, we will have to wait to learn that he has won Ohio to know he will be president.
U.S. Senate
Alaska
Begich: Banov, Bronrott, Dooley, Feldman, Fosselman, Frick, Korman, Leventhal, Lublin, Luedtke, Moon, Pagnucco, Pasternak, Propeack
Stevens: Raskin
Colorado
Schaffer: Fosselman
Udall: Banov, Bronrott, Dooley, Feldman, Frick, Korman, Leventhal, Lublin, Luedtke, Moon, Pagnucco, Pasternak, Propeack, Raskin
Georgia
Chambliss: Banov, Bronrott, Dooley, Feldman, Fosselman, Frick (after run-off), Korman, Leventhal, Luedtke (after run-off), Moon, Pagnucco, Pasternak, Propeack
Martin: Lublin, Raskin
Kentucky
Lunsford: Fosselman, Lublin
McConnell: Banov, Bronrott, Dooley ("Drat!"), Feldman, Frick, Korman, Leventhal, Luedtke, Moon, Pagnucco, Pasternak, Propeack, Raskin
Minnesota
Coleman: Bronrott, Banov, Feldman, Moon, Pagnucco, Pasternak, Propeack
Franken: Dooley, Fosselman, Frick, Korman, Leventhal, Lublin, Luedtke, Raskin
Note from Frick: "I think this comes down to the wire. Al is good enough, smart enough, and gosh darnit, people like him. But most of those people live in New York."
Mississippi
Musgrove: Fosselman
Wicker: Banov, Bronrott, Dooley, Feldman, Frick, Korman, Leventhal, Lublin, Luedtke, Moon, Pagnucco, Pasternak, Propeack, Raskin
New Hampshire
The panel calls this race for Shaheen.
New Mexico
The panel calls this race for Udall.
North Carolina
Dole: Fosselman
Hagan: Banov, Bronrott, Dooley, Feldman, Frick, Korman, Leventhal, Lublin, Luedtke, Moon, Pagnucco, Pasternak, Propeack, Raskin
Note from Frick: "I think Obama has spent more time in North Carolina in the last 6 years than Liddy Dole has."
Virginia
The panel calls this race for Warner.
The panel's consensus is that the Democrats will pick up at least seven seats, eight assuming that Oregon turns over. This would give them a total of 59 Senators (or 58 if Joe Lieberman is expelled from the caucus).
Maryland
U.S. House 1
Harris: Moon, Pagnucco, Pasternak
Kratovil: Banov, Bronrott, Dooley, Feldman, Fosselman, Frick, Korman, Leventhal, Lublin, Luedtke, Propeack, Raskin
U.S. House 6
Bartlett: Banov, Dooley, Feldman, Frick, Korman, Leventhal, Lublin, Luedtke, Moon, Pagnucco, Pasternak, Propeack, Raskin
Dougherty: Fosselman
Toss-Up: Bronrott
Slots
Pass: Banov, Dooley, Feldman, Fosselman, Frick, Korman, Leventhal, Lublin, Luedtke, Moon, Pagnucco, Pasternak, Propeack
Fail: Raskin
Toss-Up: Bronrott
Note: Banov and Leventhal predict the referendum will fail in MoCo.
Ficker Amendment
The panel predicts the measure will fail.
MoCo School Board (At-Large)
The panel calls this race for Kauffman.
MoCo School Board (District 2)
Abrams: Korman, Leventhal, Lublin, Pasternak, Propeack
Berthiaume: Banov, Bronrott, Dooley, Feldman, Fosselman, Frick, Luedtke, Moon, Pagnucco, Raskin
We'll see whose picks are first and whose picks are worst tomorrow!
Update: Fivethirtyeight.com agrees with our Presidential forecast.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Adam P Tips Election to McCain
One of our "fans" sent this video to me. It seems that I am really going to have to vote now.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
The Final Debate
By Sharon Dooley.
John McCain entered the final campaign debate of 2008 in full offensive mode. He came into the evening like an old bull ready for one last outing in the arena, ready to defeat his younger, less tested opponent. He was unprepared for the matador known as Barack Obama. At first Barack seemed surprised by this aggressive manner, but soon, he shook his head, showed a smile and crafted careful answers without even brandishing his red cape.
McCain appeared angry and seemed to frequently be in a struggle to control his emotions as his eyes blinked, his eyebrows twitched, and he frowned again and again. He charged into the debate with all of his weapons at hand: his tax policy, foreclosure scheme, healthcare policy ideas, abortion and “Joe the plumber”. He threw in ‘the tired ole terrorist – Bill Ayers’ (a man younger than he is, if facts are considered), but his punch was parried and the charge missed its target. Time and time again Obama corrected statements made during these explosive attacks, while McCain interrupted frequently and sputtered in the background. Obama countered with the occasional remarks about McCain and Bush being buddies and McCain got off one of his best lines of the evening claiming that if Obama wanted to run against Bush, he should have run 4 years ago.
The moderator, Bob Schieffer, was a bland, but effective host and did try to get the two candidates to engage, particularly over the issues of negative campaigning, and choice of running mates, without a great deal of success. McCain defended his selection of Sarah Palin in an odd manner and seemed to not understand the differences between Downs Syndrome, a congenital condition and autism, which develops later, after birth. McCain would not disavow Palins’ negative characterizations of Obama. Obama noted the strengths and appropriateness of his pick of Joe Biden and claimed the vast majority of his ads were positive.
Most telling, perhaps, was an exchange when Obama was trying to explain his vote in the Illinois legislature against a bill about late-term abortions, which was also opposed by the local medical societies as restrictive and redundant, and which did not include protections for the health of the mother. As Obama was explaining there were other laws addressing this matter that sufficed, McCain was actively interrupting, gesturing that the term ‘health of the mother’ was a false issue.
(Aside: Perhaps in the storied, overly macho world of the Top Gun pilots, pregnant women are not players, but from my health care perspective – they DO count. In a NY Times article, Cindy McCain was said to have suffered several miscarriages alone – how utterly sad that must have been.)
Throughout the evening Barack Obama seemed bemused as if to say – ‘is that the best that you can show me?’ Initially placed on the defensive, he settled in and calmly made his way through the debate, although he was thrown off track several times and neglected to make his better arguments. For McCain, the evening seemed to be surreal. The “Joe the Plumber” symbolism was a hook that by the end of the evening he was clinging to like a life-line. Far better it would seem for McCain to have reached out to women, the Madge the manicurist, Alice the waitress – women in the service economy whose wages and tips disappear in times of economic downturn. These are the women McCain seems to be trying to scare with tales of terrorists, a known Rovian tactic. These are the women, formerly loyal to Hillary, who are appearing to turn toward Obama in the closing days of the campaign. Consider the frequent mention by Obama on the campaign trail of Lilly Ledbetter, the female factory worker disdained by the current Supreme Court on an equal pay dispute. During the debate, Barack seemed to indicate that while he would have no litmus test for judges, the process could be improved. McCain – far from reaching out – seems to be falling back toward his base and reinforced his support for decisions of the current Court.
It looks to me, that by the end of the debate the old bull had stumbled, but the matador, respecting his opponent unilaterally, chose valor over vengeance and walked away from the ring.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Mr. Cool vs. the Prowler
By Sharon Dooley.
Tuesday's debate featured Senators Barack Obama and John McCain in a so-called Town Hall Meeting. This event was far more structured than the ones in previous years, as the moderator, Tom Brokaw, screened all questions and questioners in advance. He determined the order of the questions and chose who was to answer first on each one. Internet viewers also sent in a few questions. Politico's John Harris has called it the "worst debate ever"; while I am not certain I would echo that label, it was odd – a debate that had no interactions between the two candidates. Although this was supposed to be the realm in which McCain was most comfortable, he frequently seemed anxious for it to end. As the debate went on, the body language of the two candidates seemed to say a lot. Obama appeared relaxed and comfortable with the format; McCain prowled the stage, frequently charging toward the seated audience and rarely smiled.
As for content, there was little new that was said or learned as the candidates kept to the standard lines they have been expressing on the stump. The questions were not exactly breaking new ground, either, as the few chosen topics were along familiar subjects such as the economy, taxes and health care. McCain came out with an initiative about home mortgage assistance that was poorly described and not adequately explored. Both candidates were being careful to speak with cautious, measured words that would not make negative headlines the next day. There was also some discussion about Russia and other foreign policy areas as well as energy sources and options for the future. One of Obama's best moments came when he discussed health care and the problems his dying mother had experienced with insurance companies. McCain did appear more confident when he answered questions about foreign affairs
Tom Brokaw did not encourage discussion, follow-up questions or answers between the candidates and was flexible about the allotted times for answers, which sometimes led to confusion. (Much of this was attributed to the draconian rules that were extensively negotiated by the campaigns' pre-debate teams.) The lack of follow-up questions and inability to query previous statements made much of the spontaneity and exchange of ideas, usually seen in such forums, impossible. Brokaw did get some interesting responses to his question about health care asking if it was a responsibility, a privilege or a right. McCain asserted that it was a responsibility that the government held; Obama stated that it was a right that should be fulfilled for all. This again shows the differences in long- range philosophies between the two. In a strange conversation, when asked who his candidates for Treasury Secretary might be, McCain first said, "Well, not you Tom!" to the moderator, who would indeed have been an odd selection. Neither candidate voiced a firm solution for the financial recovery of the nation, nor for the looming problem of entitlements, which were mentioned but not addressed in any depth.
Again in this outing as before, McCain did not show respect for his opponent, once pointing and referring to him derisively as "that one". He rarely looked at him. He again tried to make it seem that Barack Obama was not ready to assume the office of the Presidency, when the viewer saw much the opposite in tone and manner. In his attempt to appear forceful and decisive, McCain actually acted out the role of the underdog, and instead appeared to be grumpy and angry. Planned jokes fell flat; McCain's' own laughter seemed forced. The Washington Post called this a better performance by McCain and it was, by a bit – but his best was not good enough. This debate was not a draw in any aspect. Repetitive uses of his talisman phrase - "my friends" -seemed almost pejorative near the end of the time when he did not appear at all friendly. John McCain's' best moment came at the end when a fellow Navy veteran asked a question – he related, touched the man's shoulder and shook his hand, making that human connection that had eluded him all evening. Barack was at his most relaxed when asked a Zen like question about his faults near the end of the evening and laughingly indicated that his wife – who was in the audience - was probably the best source for that information. After the debate ended, their wives joined the candidates on stage. John and Cindy McCain briefly greeted Barack Obama and some in the audience then left abruptly. Barack and Michelle Obama stayed and talked at length with members of the studio audience.
What was leaned from this evening? Well, the pundits have spoken and given the evening to Obama. The polled voters, also by a wide margin, selected Obama as the winner. Was any new ground broken, any new initiative revealed, any major gaffe expressed – no. Did the country get another chance to watch the candidates think and speak on their feet? Yes. Was there an overt appeal to the woman voter – a known swing factor? None were obvious on the surface of the discussions; no particular topic relating to family issues was even asked, so possibly an opportunity was missed. When looking under the words of the stump speeches, were we able to see the candidate beneath the rhetoric? Perhaps. If there were truly any undecided voters out there, would this discussion have been the tipping point for any one? In my opinion, if the undecided voters thought about who looked Presidential, who seemed knowledgeable, who acted as if he could handle any crises with a focused and calm demeanor, the only answer could be Barack Obama.
Is the race going to get ugly - it already has - so hold onto your hats! With every point up in the polls by Obama, the negatives on the stump have increased. NPR announced that in most markets now, McCain is running 100% negative ads. Supposedly they are an effective tool and turn out the base, but they also can turn away independents from the candidate who supports this negativity. We have less than 4 weeks to go and a lot can happen in that time, so while my crystal ball is not currently being consulted, my fingers remain crossed.
Note from Adam: Here's an example of how incredibly ugly this race is getting. We knew some of the GOP faithful was capable of this behavior, but to actually see it is chilling.
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Palin Swift-Boats Obama
This is the first step in what the Washington Post describes as a "fiercer strategy" by the McCain campaign against Barack Obama. Even the Associated Press says this tactic carries a "racial tinge." Apparently, Senator McCain and Governor Palin have nothing left to say to the American people other than these kinds of statements. Are we going to let them get away with it?
Update: Red Maryland blogger Mark Newgent says that the Obama-Ayers relationship is "a legitimate concern." It's going to be a wild month, people!
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Obama Opening Gigantic Lead in Maryland
It's not exactly news that Senator Barack Obama is leading Senator John McCain in Maryland. But his margin is growing so rapidly that it could culminate in a historic blowout.
According to Real Clear Politics, there have been three presidential polls in Maryland this summer.
On 8/18/08, Rasmussen polled 500 likely voters who gave a 10-point edge (53-43) to Obama.
On 8/29/08-9/5/08, Gonzalez Research polled 833 likely voters who gave a 14-point edge (52-38) to Obama.
And on 9/20/08, Rasmussen polled 500 likely voters who gave a 23-point edge (60-37) to Obama.
Now sure, there's over a month to go in this campaign and Maryland has been a consistently Democratic state for a long time. But Obama's lead is approaching Biblical proportions. Consider the margins by which Democratic candidates won the last four presidential elections in Maryland:
1992: Bill Clinton 50%, George H.W. Bush 36%, Ross Perot 14% - Margin of 14 points
1996: Bill Clinton 54%, Bob Dole 38%, Ross Perot 7% - Margin of 16 points
2000: Al Gore 57%, George W. Bush 40% - Margin of 17 points
2004: John Kerry 56%, George W. Bush 43% - Margin of 13 points
Is Obama going to break a record here? And if he does, what does that say about the state of Maryland's GOP?
Free-State Reflections from the Debate
By Sharon Dooley.
Watching the debate on Friday evening with a crowd of fellow-Obama supporters was a bonding experience for this Democratic voter. Over 50 people crowded into DISH, (a Sandy Spring supper club whose Grand Opening is today) to listen to the Presidential candidates. Conversation was minimal as guests gave the debate undivided attention.
Neither candidate appeared to solve the financial crisis by their careful comments, but few in this group seemed to support McCain’s idea of a freeze on government spending. In my opinion, Obama did try to reach out to Main Street more by speaking of the teacher, nurse or firefighter who is struggling. Neither addressed any steps to take to prohibit such a crisis from reoccurring; such reflections would appear to be a requisite first step to forestall future crises. The out of balance compensation for Wall Street executives, who are paid whether or not their companies profit, was a topic I would have liked to have seen explored more. Tax breaks for this group seemed to be an important issue still for McCain. Additionally, on the domestic front, Obama’s health plan description seemed to be presented as the more comprehensive and affordable option for the middle class.
Many found McCain disrespectful of Obama as he neither looked nor spoke directly toward him. Perhaps that was some type of a tactic – or maybe it was a strategy, whatever, it did not appear to enhance his performance as a debater. Obama seemed formal, but open, his smiles seemed natural and not forced as did those of McCain, as Barack appeared to reach out more to his audience both in the room and in the national TV audience. That audience has been estimated to exceed 70 million viewers, showing that interest in this election remains high.
McCain was definitely the aggressor and attempted to portray his position as one of strength. Certain sound bites were peppered throughout his position answers and at times repeated, even though they did not always appear relevant. To his credit, Obama let few charges pass by without attempting to defuse them. One of Obama’s strong points was his repetitive use of the phrase “you were wrong” when he discussed the Iraq war. In my consideration of this debate, perhaps Obama over used the phrase - “I agree with John” as I thought he needed to contrast his positions forcefully. But the post debate pundits felt that this was a conciliatory tactic designed to reach the undecided independent voters, who prefer consensus to conflict.
By attempting to tie Obama to naïve thinking about Ahmadinejad of Iran, McCain was raising fears about the strength of Obama’s commitment to Israel, and his global understanding of the complex issues in the Middle East and nations of near Asia. This repetitive assault on Obama’s supposed lack of experience was skillfully parried in a dignified and intelligent manner belying the insult. It seemed that McCain was also calling out to his base by repeatedly invoking Republican heroes of the past, such as Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower, although he may have at the same time been distancing himself from the younger voters who are thought to be playing such an important role in the election this year. At the same time, Obama who showed emotion, but not the same passion of his convention oratory, was professorial sharing views looking toward the future.
Were there topics not addressed? Certainly I would liked to have heard more about global warming and international accord in that area, as well as how this financial crisis is affecting our international trade and ability to have a strong dollar. What do the two candidates think about international nuclear policies or multi-national efforts in space? We do not yet know and these are among many other topics that were not illuminated by this foreign policy discussion. But 90 minutes is not a very long time to cover topics in depth. We, as voters will have to go to campaign sites to learn more and tune in to the next two debates.
Jim Lehrer was a skillful moderator as he attempted to provoke a dialogue rather than allow a stump speech to be revisited. Unfortunately he was unsuccessful in spurring a conversation on the stage. He was flexible and moved nimbly from one topic to the next, pulling the audience along. I was struck that in our group, aside from the partisan cheers and occasional boo, the exchanges held the attention over the food and drink and camaraderie of the gathering. Discussions were left to the post debate reviews.
I do not have the same expectations for the Vice-Presidential debate next week as recent interviews have shown Sarah Palin to be out of her depth, once she cannot answer in memorized phrases. Will there be any substantive discussions? I worry that Joe Biden may be too verbose and seem boring or boorish, while she may be perky, if irrelevant, and be considered to have held her own edge if she survives without significant gaffes. In my opinion, she is totally unqualified to be a heart beat away from the Presidency.
Sharon Dooley is a Montgomery County Democratic Precinct coordinator.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Enough With the Commissions!
By Marc Korman.
“Blue-ribbon commissions,” usually bipartisan groups studying a specific problem outside of the normal legislative system, have taken on mythic status in government. Although they have existed at least since the Roberts Commission that investigated Pearl Harbor, their reputation and demand has soared in more recent decades. The premiere examples are the Greenspan Commission on Social Security Reform and the 9/11 Commission.
Undeniably, these commissions can have value in coming up with bipartisan solutions that focus the public, the press, and politicians. But the appointment of a commission can also be a crutch for inaction. The reports these commissions issue usually just gather dust and do nothing to fight chronic inaction on intractable issues. Remember the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform? How about the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission? The National War Powers Commission?
Recently, John McCain called for a bipartisan commission to investigate the current economic crisis. I cannot go online or open a newspaper without reading about the causes of the economic crisis: too much credit and too little oversight. Are there complexities? There sure are, but the Secretary of the Treasury, Council of Economic Advisors, Federal Reserve, Congress and other elected and appointed government officials can perform the investigation needed to figure out legislative solutions. John McCain, should he be elected president, may also want to study up on economics a bit. But the job does not need to be outsourced to a “blue-ribbon commission.”
Maryland is not immune to the trend of over reliance on these commissions. A prominent example is the Thornton Commission on education reform. Task forces are common in the General Assembly as a starting off point for legislative reforms. Now, Comptroller Peter Franchot has hopped on the bandwagon and called for a “blue-ribbon panel” to determine where the state can cut spending. But isn’t that exactly what our state legislators and other elected officials should be doing?
Article VI of the Maryland Constitution defines some of the Comptroller’s duties:The Comptroller shall have the general superintendence of the fiscal affairs of the State; he shall digest and prepare plans for the improvement and management of the revenue, and for the support of the public credit; prepare and report estimates of the revenue and expenditures of the State;
Since that is the Comptroller’s responsibility, perhaps he could start making a few recommendations instead of calling for another panel or commission. If the Comptroller needs some commission provided suggestions, he can take a look at the Commission on Maryland’s Fiscal Structure from 2002 for ideas. But the last thing the situation needs is a new bipartisan panel to kick the can further down the road.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Maryland Right-Wing Hypocrisy Never Ends
It was bad enough that Maryland conservatives reacted with rank hypocrisy to the recent state police spying scandal. But they have topped that performance with their praise of Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin.
The chief line of attack by national Republicans against Senator Obama is that he is inexperienced and not ready to be President. Maryland Republican Party Chairman Jim Pelura adopted this argument in a press release during the Democratic convention. Pelura commented, “...The Democrats’ cure for what they say ails our country is to elect a man that has served less than one term in the U.S. Senate…” and followed with, “Throughout this campaign, Barack Obama has shown the kind of weak judgment Americans cannot afford in our next commander-in-chief.” But in assessing Sarah Palin, Pelura gushes, “As the head of Alaska 's National Guard and as the mother of a soldier herself, Governor Palin understands what it takes to lead our nation and she understands the sacrifice of our troops and their families.” So according to Maryland Republicans, Senator Obama, with nearly four years experience on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is not ready for the White House. But Governor Palin, with two years experience supervising Alaska’s National Guard, is ready. Such are the arguments we would expect from paid political hacks.
And so I turned to the Free State’s conservative blogosphere and its leader, Brian Griffiths. Agree with him or not, Griffiths has a history of going after fellow Republicans, whether skewering Anne Arundel County Executive John Leopold or hounding former Maryland GOP Executive Director John Flynn out of his job. But even Griffiths fails the consistency test when it comes to Governor Palin.
After Senator Obama picked Senator Joe Biden as his running mate, Griffiths wrote: Obama selected Biden from a position of weakness, not a position of strength. Biden was picked to overcome Obama's noticeable shortcomings in experience and knowledge. And Biden was selected in an effort to stop the bleeding. Somebody in Obama's campaign thinks that the selection of Biden is going to shore up concerns with Obama's inexperience, and that the selection is going to reinforce the ticket's foreign policy credentials. Problem is, the selection only accentuates the weaknesses the American people already knows Barack Obama has.
And after Senator McCain picked Governor Palin as his running mate, Griffiths wrote:
Sarah Palin has more experience in government than Barack Obama does. She has no less foreign policy experience than he does. And, unlike Obama, she is the # 2 on the ticket. Obama's glaring lack of experience to be President still shines through. Friends, this is what we have been waiting for. This is what we have wanted to see all along.
The contention that Senator Obama and Governor Palin have similar levels of foreign policy experience is factually wrong. Senator Obama has worked with respected Republican Senator Dick Lugar to reduce conventional weapons stockpiles, sponsored a measure to encourage public pension funds to divest from companies connected to Iran and co-sponsored the 2006 Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act along with Senator McCain. This does not match Senator Biden’s record, but it is hardly equivalent to the “experience” of Governor Palin.
The point of this post is not to criticize the selection of Governor Palin as a Vice-Presidential nominee. Jackie Lichter handled that very well. Rather, the Orwellian reasoning of Maryland conservatives is the real issue here. According to them, Senator McCain is superior to Senator Obama because of his vast experience. But that is suddenly irrelevant in evaluating Senator McCain’s choice for Vice-President, a novice whose primary role in public service has been as mayor of a town less than half the size of Takoma Park. I am always amazed by people who believe totally opposite things at the same time with equal fervor. Such is now the case for many Maryland conservatives.
Barry Rascovar has an excellent piece in the Gazette detailing the irrelevance of the Maryland Republican Party. If Free State conservatives would like to turn around their misfortune, here’s a bit of advice: stop the hypocrisy. Maybe then your opinions will be respected by the independents and moderate Democrats you need to win elections.
Update: Brian Griffiths responds here. Among other things, he says:The argument that Obama is more prepared than Governor Palin to be President is absurd. And the idea that the right, particularly me, is being hypocritical on the Biden/Palin issue is equally absurd. Senator McCain, in selecting Governor Palin, selected somebody who will be a partner in change and in reform. Somebody who can lead on day one, without the training wheels.
Alaska state legislator Mike Doogan, who has had much more contact with Governor Palin than has Brian Griffiths, begs to differ with that last statement.
Professor Richard Vatz of Towson University stands out as the only honest conservative on Red Maryland, deploring inexperience on both sides. Whether you agree with Professor Vatz or not, he is at least consistent.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Guest Blog: Jackie Lichter on Sarah Palin
By Jackie Lichter.
So, it’s been four days since McCain announced his VP choice – Governor Sarah Palin – and I’ve had some time to think about what this choice means to me as a politically active woman. I was struck by what McCain’s pick means in terms of the glass ceiling and the GOP ticket – it’s an important precedent. That said, I have some grave concerns about Palin’s record and lack thereof, and I believe these concerns will be echoed in the minds of other women voters. Let’s examine why...
First, Palin is staunchly anti-abortion. She believes that abortion should be illegal unless a woman’s life is considered to be at risk. This includes instances of rape or incest [Juneau Empire, "Abortion Draws Clear Divide in State Races," accessed 8/29/08 and Anchorage Daily News, "Governor’s Race: Top contenders meet one last time to debate," 11/03/06.] She’s a member of Feminists for Life, a group whose website brandishes the slogan, “Refuse to Choose – Women Deserve Better than Abortion” and uses traditional scare tactics to frighten women away from abortion services, like a section titled “We Remember” that “commemorate[s] the lives of women lost to legal abortion.”
Governor Palin also believes that Sex Ed in schools should be confined to “abstinence only.” Yet, according to recent reports, her 17-year-old daughter is 5 months pregnant. You can’t help but be struck by the hypocrisy: she’s not able to keep her own child on the straight and narrow abstinence-only path, yet she thinks everyone else’s kids should be held to it and not be taught about how to stay healthy and safe if they stray?
So, will women and other rational voters be able to look past all this? I don’t think so. Women are not going to vote for a woman just because she’s a woman. One of the first factors women look at is a candidate’s position on choice. NARAL recently published a study that shows an anti-abortion candidate will draw pro-choice Republican and Independent women to Obama. I believe McCain will lose more pro-choice Republican and Independent women that will reject the now firmly anti-choice GOP ticket than he’ll pick up staunch conservatives who favor Palin’s political views.
Besides her position on choice and Sex Ed, Palin just doesn’t seem to be an experienced leader. She has been Governor for less than two years, and while her record on reform is decent, I’m not confident in her ability to lead. Take the following radio interview Palin did with “The Bob and Mark Show” which an op-ed in the Anchorage Daily news called “plain and simple one of the most unprofessional, childish and inexcusable performances I’ve ever seen from a politician.” The radio host called the State Senate President “a cancer and a b****.” He also referred to her being overweight. The Senate President happens to be a cancer survivor – apparently a well-known fact in Alaska (one Palin clearly knew). You can listen to the clip yourself here but be prepared to be appalled. Not only does Palin not condemn the comments, she laughs – actually she giggles, which I think is worse. Now, you could forgive the laughter, but at the end of the interview she goes so far as to tell the radio hosts that she’d be honored to host them at the State Capital anytime. Any leader, let alone a governor, should have the decency to stand up for others when they are being viciously attacked. When that leader is a woman and she’s condoning another woman being called a b****, it’s just disgusting.
Finally, you would imagine that a Vice Presidential candidate should have some understanding of history. When asked if she was offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, she responded, “Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.” Now, it’s possible that she actually intended to name President Eisenhower as a “founding father” but I would say, generally speaking, “our founding fathers” refers to those political leaders who signed the Declaration of Independence. I mean, it must be the case if this is the first hit when googling “Founding Fathers.”
Bottom line is this: Naming an anti-abortion, inexperienced, and historically- challenged woman as McCain’s VP does nothing to change my mind in who I’m supporting for President.
Jackie Lichter has lived in Montgomery County for 28 years. She is a former teacher in MCPS and is currently the Political Director for SEIU Local 500. She serves on the Executive Board for Committee for Montgomery, is the Vice President for the Maryland Legislative Agenda for Women, and is chair of the Policy and Legislation Committee for the Montgomery County Commission for Women. The views posted above are completely independent and not reflective of any of the organizations to which she belongs.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
John McCain's Trash Talk Express
If I were John McCain …
If I had voted to launch a completely unnecessary war on bogus evidence, a war that led to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of servicemen and women, an unnecessary war that was destroying our nation’s economy, an unnecessary war that was stretching our armed forces to the limit and leaving us unable to exercise military force where needed ...
If I’d spent the last eight years cheerleading the president who had the man responsible for 9//11 cornered like a rat in Afghanistan, but then chose to divert our forces to Iraq and let the real enemy get away ...
If I’d supported tax policies that for the past generation had so starved the federal and state governments that our bridges, roads, and levies were crumbling ...
If I’d supported an administration that left the poor of New Orleans to drown when some of those levies finally collapsed ...
If I’d supported the deregulation that led inevitably to today’s housing crisis, knowing that countless Americans were losing their homes because of my policies ...
If I were leading a political party that ran the K Street Project, where lobbying firms knew they had to hire Republicans and be Party members in order to have influence on the Hill ...
If I had spent eight years cheerleading a president who so politicized governance that you had to be Party member to get a government job or contract ...
If my policies and those of my party had caused so much damage to the nation I love, you can bet that I would do anything to talk about something else -- anything else.
If I were responsible for such devastation, you can be sure I’d change the topic to Obama and Paris Hilton, Obama not visiting troops, Obama being a flip-flopper, and Obama being an uppity … candidate.
So it is not surprising that the McCain campaign is engaging in a filthy campaign of lies and misdirection.
Because he and his supporters would do anything to change the subject.
And that’s how everyone who cares about our country should respond every time the Republicans change the topic away from their record and hurl some new piece of garbage from the Trash Talk Express:
“If I were responsible for [pick any of the above], I’d be changing the topic to Paris Hilton [or whatever the latest distraction is], too.”
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
What Do Duct Tape & Kraft Mac and Cheese Have In Common?
You can also include the zip code, Barack Obama's parents, the Minimum Wage, the Golden Gate Bridge and the Lincoln Tunnel. If you don't know and are dying to find out their connection then just click here.
This has nothing to do with our normal focus of MoCo Politics. But it is still fun to think about.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Charlie Cook in Chevy Chase
Councilman Mier Wolf introduces Larry O'Rourke and Charlie CookCharlie Cook has one of my dream jobs: he's a political prognosticator for a living. Although he normally gives his opinions for a living, he kindly shared his views of the political landscape at a community event at the Leland Center tonight. I always knew he had a lot of knowledge about politics on the ground. I hadn't known he was so entertaining--a political Garrison Keillor.
He has a real flair for explaining complex political events with easily understandable analogies and good stories, skills this classroom teacher could only envy. I won't report too much of what he said. It hardly seems fair to steal the political thoughts of someone who sells them as his livelihood. But I thought he shared some interesting views on why Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary and on the upcoming general election.
First, like me and many others, he believes that race does not explain why Obama lost to Clinton in New Hampshire. He argues that the last minute shift among college-educated women in New Hampshire is not plausibly explained by a racial voting. He also thinks that Clinton's moment of choking up in public helped her look more human to the electorate.
He also mentioned something which reflects less well on Sen. Clinton. Apparently, the Clinton campaign sent out a flyer to independent undecided women the weekend before the primary claiming that Obama had failed to stand up for choice in contrast to Clinton. Cook brought and read from a copy of the mailer. Someone also called in on WAMU who was in New Hampshire mentioning this today but I hadn't wanted to give it credence based on one phone call to the radio.
It certainly shows that the Clintons can fight hard and rough--some will undoubtedly also say dirty. I'm not sure how well this will play with Democrats since Obama is clearly pro-choice and the flyer does more than suggest otherwise. On the other hand, the campaign has moved on to the other states so it remains to be seen if this issue will get more press coverage or anyone will care.
On a different note, Charlie Cook explained that he thought it would be a close election even though the fundamentals support the Democrats. He indicated that he thought McCain would be the toughest Republican to beat for either Clinton or Obama, an assessment I share, though Cook noted that McCain is vulnerable on the question of his age.
Of course, the question remains whether the GOP will be savvy enough to nominate him in the first place. Romney just won the Michigan primary.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Independent New Hampshire
Republicans will no doubt think of tonight as the Night of the Living Dead. They thought Obama has stuck a stake in the heart of Hillary Clinton in Iowa. On their side of the aisle, McCain was given up for lost. As I write this post, Clinton won a two-point victory over Obama, and McCain leads Romney by five points. What happened?
First, I should admit that like many, including Sens. Clinton and Obama, I was utterly surprised by the result. The pre-election night polls had Obama comfortably ahead. Even the New Hampshire exit poll suggested that Obama eked out a one point lead.
Many have pointed to Hillary's moment of welling up, though not actually crying, as a turning point. I agree, though not for the reasons cited by many. I don't think Clinton collected a sympathy or mercy vote. Instead, I think that her exterior, undoubtedly hardened by years of harsh attacks from the Right, was finally pierced. The electorate welcomed a sight of a human Hillary.
Sen. Clinton's victory speech was far more impressive than that of Sen. McCain. McCain's speech was adequate but the energy of the speech contrasted greatly with that of his young supporters. To my not so young eyes, it appeared relatively geriatric. Still, Sen. McCain is clearly a decent man. Like Sen. Clinton, he found his voice in New Hampshire.
Hillary should also continue to answer more questions from voters and the press. She often gives excellent answer to questions--she refuted Charlie Gibson's assertion that the surge in Iraq has worked not just adeptly but with style. By shielding her from the electorate and the press a la Bush, her advisers took away a major Clinton asset. Don't do it again.
Sen. Obama's long history of community organizing served him better in Iowa than in New Hampshire. Iowa is a process of collecting and mobilizing committed supporters to turn out. New Hampshire isn't quite the same affair. I suspect that Obama's ability to mobilize the young had less of an impact in New Hampshire. Clinton's long-term work at building an organization nationwide paid off in New Hampshire tonight.
Next, the Clintons learn fast. Let's be frank: Sen. Clinton gave a sad speech in Iowa, even for an unexpectedly poor finish. Gov. Huckabee (Governor Huckster?) made much more hay out of an eleven percent finish in New Hampshire. In New Hampshire, instead of being flanked by aging establishment figures, she surrounded her television view with energetic under-30s. The speech was far better and more human.
It was a very hard night for Obama. Unlike Clinton in Iowa, he had reason to expect to win in New Hampshire. Just as he has lifted up so many crowds, his supporters gradually lifted him up in New Hampshire and his speech gained its verve towards the end. He began graciously by congratulating Clinton. Still, he might have made more out of his close loss here.
The one off-key aspect of Sen. Clinton's speech was her lumping of Obama and Edwards--two candidates who attracted significant support--at the end of her mention with the rest of the also-rans, including candidates who have already dropped out of the race. She clearly doesn't like the young Senator from Illinois. She'd be advised to be more gracious in victory.
It's the most exciting presidential nomination contest I can recall. An emotional night for all concerned. And it's far from over yet. On to South Carolina.
Early NH Returns and the Republican to Watch
Dixville Notch in New Hampshire's North Country continued its fine tradition of voting just after midnight on primary day and the votes have been counted. McCain lead on the Republican side with 57% of the vote while Obama won an incredible 70% of the vote on the Democratic side.
Oh, and Hillary Clinton failed to win a single vote. Of course, only eight Republicans and ten Democrats voted in Dixville Notch. However, that is beside the point as we must Hear and Obey the momentum coming out of New Hampshire.
It is hard to imagine most of the Republican candidates winning the general election even if they get their party's nomination. Rudy Giuliani still needs to explain his poor judgment in aides and why he had the heroes of 9/11 drive his mistress around NYC. Mitt Romney is the jellyfish of politicians with new opinions as convenient--see today's Washington Post editorial entitled "Mr. Romney vs. Mr. Romney" on immigration for the latest example. Fred Thompson should have kept his well-paying gig on Law & Order instead of hitting the campaign trail.
Mike Huckabee is the Wall Street Journal's worst nightmare--a Republican who not only gives priority to social conservatism but doesn't always toe the line on economics (despite his tax plan). Moreover, unlike his predecessors, Huckabee could win the GOP nomination. His campaign will likely fare much better as it leaves libertarian New Hampshire for the buckle of the Bible Belt in South Carolina.
In contrast, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is a solid conservative and an electable one. His military service and heroism garners him instant respect around the nation and across the political spectrum. He also acts like an adult, giving him a gravitas which is utterly lacking from the rest of the Republican field.
McCain's noted departures from the Bush administration, even as the rest of the Republican Party walked in lockstep, give him the air of a man of conviction. Democrats admire and appreciate his firm stand against torture. Nonetheless, he remains a conservative Republican and broadly acceptable--if not trusted--by the Republican establishment in desperate circumstances.
And for the GOP, these are desperate circumstances. Right now, as their party founders on the shoals of Iraq and the Economy, McCain looks like the only remotely palatable or electable Republican. The Wall Street Journal appears to have figured this out--yesterday they ran one anti-Obama and one pro-McCain piece.
Democrats should also remain concerned as foreign policy will remain a key role in this election. Except for Bill Richardson, none of the leading Democrats has military or foreign policy experience. Even if Americans are tired of being bludgeoned with 9/11 in service to Bush administration, they remain worried about terrorism and threats from abroad.
McCain's embrace of the Iraq War is an albatross but can be cast as loyalty and he has strayed enough from Bush that many will believe he would constitute a real change from the current administration. He looks like a leader. While I don't think he is unbeatable, especially in the current political climate, Democrats should not underestimate McCain in the Fall.
