TwoPennies

Some people just don't get it...

Saw this headline on my Google News this morning:

French Workers Strike to Protest Economy

Friggin' brilliant.  Struggling economy got you down?  Stop working, that'll fix things!

 

Day of Reckoning

So election day is finally here.  At last, our long national nightmare is about to be over.

And a new long national nightmare is about to begin.  No matter who ends up being elected today.

Assuming, of course, that the election is actually over today.

For some time now I've been checking and re-checking the electoral college map for some way that McCain can pull this off.  His chances are grim, indeed, but not completely lost.

The most optimistic (yet still halfway reasonable) scenario that I've been able to come up with has McCain tied with Obama 269-269 at the end of the day.  That would, of course, throw the election to the House of Representatives, in the new Congress, wherein each state delegation would get one vote.  So everything there would depend upon how many states have majority-Republican delegations.  And we won't know that until after the election, as well.

As I said, that's the optimistic but reasonable assumption about everything breaking McCain's way, and it ends in a tie.  But, that scenario leaves out a few key states that are leaning Blue but just might break Red after all.

Including my own state of Nevada, where I'm about to go cast my vote.

I've struggled with this since the convention over the summer.  The imperative for me is that the Democrats not hold power throughout the government -- as I've said before, mixed government is best for the country.  Congress is hopelessly lost to the Democrats, so Obama can't be elected without, as I said above, a new long national nightmare to begin.

But, as much as I admired McCain 2000, can I really vote for McCain 2008?  He's a different candidate than he was 8 years ago.

In discussing this with my boss a few weeks back, when I told him I couldn't vote for Obama, he asked if I was then just not going to vote.  It's an interesting thought.  Nevada offers a choice of "None of the Above" in our elections, so I could actually vote against Obama without voting for anyone else.  It's an intriguing possibility.

But, fundamentally, it'd be a selfish choice.  Voting "None of the Above" might ease my conscience, but it's as bad (or worse) than Obama voting "Present" on all those tough decisions.  Yes, the choices this year suck, but "None of the Above" isn't a viable option.  "None of the Above" has less chance than Bob Barr or Ralph Nader of being elected President.

One way or another, either Barack Obama or John McCain is going to be the next President of the United States.  Voting for anyone (or anything) other than those two is voting to have someone else make the call, period.

I wasn't going to vote for Obama in any event, so voting "Nobody" doesn't hurt his chances in any way.  Withholding my vote for McCain in fact would help Obama's chances.

As I said, the choices this year suck, as they have for many years past.  The next few years are going to suck, no matter who is ultimately elected.  But who in the next four years has the greater potential to do more long-term damage to the country?  With a compliant Congress, there's no question that Obama is that man.  I may not be able to stop him, but I'll be damned if I'm going to help him into office.

So, I'll be holding my nose and voting for McCain regardless.  I don't think it'll make much difference in the big picture, but it might.  And at least I'll have done whatever I could to try to prevent that new nightmare from happening, however futile the attempt.

Who's your man?

A friend passed this link along to me this afternoon (thanks Kelley!), it's an interesting little quickie barometer for figuring out how closely aligned you are with the two major Presidential candidates' quotes on certain key issues.

No surprise for me, I came out favoring McCain on more than 60% of the statements.  But of course, that means that I favor Obama on the other 40% -- a decisive edge to McCain, but not a hyper-partisan one (though to be fair, a couple of questions were tough calls for picking only one statement to agree with, and those both came out as Obama points... so my "support" for Obama is weaker than the quiz would indicate).

There's lots more political stuff to talk about when I get a chance, but hopefully this will spark some discussion in the mean time.  Who did you come out most in favor of, and by how much? 

Were you surprised by the author of any particular statements?  The illegal immigration quotes were a bit unexpected for me.

Feel free to leave your observations/results in the comments below...

What's this? Enthusiasm!?!?

As discussed yesterday, and continued a bit elsewhere today, I didn't think that John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin was necessarily a great choice, but an understandable sop to the social conservatives of his party.  I resigned myself to grudgingly cast my vote for McCain despite his VP.

I caught a bit of the end of Mitt Romney's speech this evening from work, and thought this guy's positioning himself to be the next traditional Republican candidate in 2012, with a lame run-down of all the standard talking points and using the term "liberal" as an insult in and of itself (no need to justify why "liberal" is a bad thing, after all, any God-fearing, America-loving, French-hating patriot just knows in his bones that this is so!)

Then later I caught most of Rudy Giuliani's speech, which was delivered much more engagingly and with humor, but was just kind of mean.  Oh, and somebody please tell this man that while national security is important, and 9/11 was a tragedy, there are many other important issues as well and it's time to move forward.

Then I watched Sarah Palin speak.

Wow.

Just... Wow.

Granted, expectations were set a bit low -- she benefits from some of that "misunderestimation" I mentioned in my last post.  From the few public remarks of hers that I'd seen, I was concerned that she would come off as being way out of her depth in the political arena.

I figured she'd either have the deer-in-the-headlights thing going on, or else fall into the creepy Stepford Wife category that so many Republican political spouses have perfected.

Hot damn, was I wrong.  To quote Michael Palin (whom I referenced earlier):  "The little wascal has spiwit... bwavado... a touch of dewwing-do!"

She has humor, and grace, and genuine down-home likeability.  And she's not afraid to go after the other team, but not in a mean-spirited way to pick on her opponents (like Romney and Giuliani did).  She comes off more as a mama bear -- you poke her with a stick, she'll fight back and tell you what's what.

I'm starting to actually love this choice.  And I think that McCain is now at least partially vindicated for his decision -- you could sense the relief in his voice at the end when he came on to the stage and said something to the effect of (I don't have the actual transcript available):  "Aren't you glad she was our choice for VP?"

I still don't think she was the best available choice. 

I still don't think I would have picked her if I was in McCain's position. 

But he clearly was not insane for selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate, as some across the country have suggested. 

He made a bold, risky move -- a maneuver befitting a fighter pilot (excuse me, "Naval Aviator") -- and I think it might just pay off after all. 

Granted, she hasn't yet had to withstand the direct media onslaught on the campaign trail, so she could still fold up under that pressure.  But she clearly is not just fundamentalist arm candy.  I'm genuinely excited (and significantly more optimistic) to see how she does over the next couple of weeks.

Hell, I might even throw a few bucks their way now.  Enthusiastically.  Which is something I would not have said a week ago.

John McCain, you sly son of a bitch...  you give me hope again.

Political Round-Up

So last week, as I often do, I happened to be skimming headlines on Google.  The link said:

McCain picks Palin for VP

And, I shit you not, my first thought was:  "Michael Palin?  That's kind of a ballsy move."  (Which should give you some idea of how my brain is wired.)

My second thought was:  "Well, of course it isn't Michael Palin.  So who the HELL is that?"  And, the intertubes being all clicky and everything, I followed the link to find out.

Now, I'm no longer the 24/7 political junkie that I was before I moved to Las Vegas and got, you know, (kind of) a life.  I simply have more pressing daily responsibilities than keeping up with every last detail of the political scene. 

But I'm pretty good with names, and I do at least try to pay attention to national figures.  So if I've never heard of someone before, you know they're waaaaaaay off the mainstream radar screen.

If you're reading this page, you're obviously on the internet already so there's no need to explain who Sarah Palin is.  So, here's a few of my quick thoughts on this pick:

• Seriously, WHO?

• Ready to be president on day one:  No.

• Ready to be vice-president on day one:  Maybe.  Depends on how she handles herself over the next couple of weeks.

• Washington outsider?  Good.  It doesn't get much more "outside" than Alaska.

• Governmental experience?  Not-so-good.  Not actually bad, mind you -- even at less than two years in the governor's mansion in Juneau (and six years as the mayor of a tiny town), she's got more executive experience than the other three people on both parties' tickets COMBINED.  So there's that, depressing though that point may be.  But presiding, even as chief executive, over a town of less than 10,000 people just doesn't count for much when faced with the prospect of potentially needing to step up and preside over a country of more than 300,000,000.

• Policy positions?  Who really cares?  With the notable (and highly aberrant) exception of Dick Cheney, no Vice President has had much of an impact on administration policies.  To the extent that they align with McCain's policies, they are redundant.  To the extent that they differ from McCain's policies, they are irrelevant.

• Unwed teenage daughter pregnant?  Irrelevant.  Sucks to be her (Bristol, that is), for sure, but that's properly a private family matter.  Of course the media won't let it be a private family matter, so it doubly sucks to be her.  And the bit about Palin's "abstinence-only sex education" policy being thoroughly discredited because of the example of her own daughter?  Puh-leeze.  As if no teen who ever had the benefit of accurate, explicit sex-ed in school has ever gotten pregnant.  (That's not, by the way, a defense of "abstinence-only", simply a rejection of the argument against it based on a single example, however prominent.)

• Brilliant ploy to snatch up support from Hillary's "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuits"?  UTTERLY LAUGHABLE.  No self-respecting, Hillary-supporting, left-leaning, "feminazi" (as Rush so endearingly calls them) would seriously consider voting for McCain instead of Obama simply because he put a chick on the ticket.  Seriously, where can I get some of THAT crack?

• Former beauty queen and runner-up as Miss Alaska?  What does that have to do with anything?  Sure politics is supposed to be "Show business for ugly people", but that doesn't preclude attractive folks from being successful.  They're awfully easy to misunderestimate, which can certainly work to their advantage.  Simply being easy on the eyes doesn't have any bearing on your ability to do the job.  Seems kind of sexist for people to imply that a (female) beauty queen must only be getting by on her looks, but an attractive dude who is successful might actually have substance.

• Irresponsible parent for taking up the burden of the campaign (and potentially the office) with a young family to raise, including an infant?  Also patently sexist.  Barack Obama has two young daughters, yet nobody even hints that for him to spend the past 20 months campaigning, or (should he be elected) the next 4-8 years of his daughters' lives in the most demanding office in the world, somehow makes him an irresponsible parent.  However, if a woman dares to exhibit ambition for herself, apparently with the full support of her family, she's a bad mother?

Bottom line on all of this, McCain made a risky move picking a relative neophyte as a sop to the conservative base of his own party.  Which is annoying to me if for no other reason (and there are others) than it reminds me of why I'm a former Republican myself.  It used to be that the party stood for entirely reasonable, solid philosophical positions regarding the proper role of government.  Then they went and threw religion into the mix (along with a dramatic misunderstanding and misapplication of the Laffer Curve), and it's all gone to hell in a handbasket.  Make no mistake, Governor Palin was selected precisely because she has the "right" religious views for the "values voters" bloc of the Republican party, period.  It certainly isn't because she is one of the top... oh, let's say ONE HUNDRED... most qualified Republicans (and one "Democrat" from Connecticut) that McCain could have chosen.

If, however (and this is a HUGE if), this pick allows McCain the maneuvering room to get back to his more moderate, independent roots, I think it'll be a good thing.  If she can placate the far-right base, while McCain can appeal to moderate independents, he just might pull it off.

But if Sarah Palin flames out (and if it happens, it'll happen fairly early -- within the next couple of weeks -- and not because of any scandal or media story, but because she'll implode on the campaign trail) then McCain will go down the tubes with her.  And it'll be four years of Obama before the Republicans can take back the White House and try to undo that damage.

So, am I happy with the Palin pick?  No.  Is it the worst possible pick McCain could have made?  No.  Does it make me change my opinion on the correct way to vote in this election?  Not in the least.

Look, this election isn't about Obama or McCain.  It's about far, far larger issues than that.  With the Democrats virtually guaranteed to build on their control of Congress, the choice is really pretty simple:

Do we give one party entire control of the government, with the inevitable Democratic overreaction/backlash after years of Republican abuse (leading inexorably to the next backlash the other way when the Republicans eventually return to power)?

Or do we safely divide government, protecting the country from the overzealous agenda of either party, by requiring the cooperation of both to get anything done?

McCain could have picked a ham sandwich (to paraphrase) as his running mate, and I still would have to vote for him for the good of the country.  That I happen to like him, and distrust Obama, makes that choice easier.  That he made a questionable pick for VP is a bit troublesome, but I understand entirely why he made that choice.  I'd have chosen differently, myself, but that's OK.

By the way, I find it fascinating that McCain made a poor VP choice for the country, but possibly an excellent choice for him -- while Obama in my opinion made an outstanding VP choice for the country (Joe Biden is possibly the most qualified person on either ticket for the #1 job) but a terrible choice for him. 

Seriously, Mr. "Hope-You-Can-Believe-In-Change" selects a 35-year Washington veteran and consummate insider as his running mate? 

Doesn't exactly fit the theme, does it?  But that's perhaps a topic for another post...

His wife ain't too shabby, either...

I haven't been watching the convention as it happens, so I've been getting bits and pieces out of order as I try to catch up.  I didn't see Hillary's big speech until after I saw Bill's, so here's the clip of her big moment:

As I mentioned over a year ago, I think the Democrats are missing an opportunity by passing over Hillary for Barack.  I don't necessarily agree with her policies, but she's a significantly more engaging personality.  I honestly think her speech was better than Bill's.

It's just as well, I've got to vote for the Republican ticket no matter what, and it's a lot easier for me to do with Obama on the other side.  More important than any one leader is maintaining divided government -- Congress is lost to the Dems so the White House has got to go to the Republicans, for the good of the country.  If Congress was in the hands of the Republicans, I'd hold my nose and vote for Obama, despite my many reservations about the man.

Dude gives a good speech...

Probably the most gifted orator of the past 50 years... never mind that some of his points are rather specious, the man is just awesome at working a crowd. Notice, however, how he speaks to "My fellow Democrats", not "My fellow Americans". Yes he's at the Democratic convention, but he's on national (if not world-wide) TV, his audience is much broader than that.

Anyhow, others may have a different read on this, but it seems to me like he's going through the motions, saying what he needs to say about his party's nominee more out of obligation than out of conviction.

Obama: More of the Same Old Crap

I caught a bit of Barack Obama's news conference from Florida while I was home for lunch today, the first I've remotely paid attention to the election season for quite some time, and I was immediately struck by a few points of inanity.  Other inanity took some time to sink in.

First, Obama complained that McCain's recently-announced support for opening up offshore drilling wouldn't do anything to help ease the high price of gas today, or tomorrow, or next year, or in the next five years.  He says that it'll be a generation before any significant oil production will come online from such drilling, and that increasing domestic production will simply "worsen our addition to oil" while putting off needed investments in alternate energy sources.

OK, setting aside for the moment that opening up future drilling has nothing whatsoever to do with whether we also pursue alternate energy sources, Mr. Obama is correct that opening new areas to future oil production won't have an immediate impact on gas prices.

But so what?  If it takes 10-15 years to get production of new oil fields up and running, that's an argument for starting to drill 10-15 years AGO, not an argument against starting the process now so that in 10-15 years we have that production available.

Anyhow, so he's right that McCain's suggestion won't ease gas prices tomorrow.  What's Mr. Obama's suggested alternative?  Massive investment in alternative energy sources.

It's a great idea.  We should absolutely invest heavily in alternate energy.  But that ain't gonna ease the price at the pump tomorrow, either.  Why on Earth could we not do BOTH these things at the same time?  Open up the drilling, and work on alternative sources of energy, and in a generation perhaps both projects will bear fruit.  Meanwhile, certain uses of petroleum products (and by-products) will stick with us for a very long time.  Gasoline isn't the only use for oil, not by a long shot, and not all of those other uses are energy-related either.  We're still going to need oil even with alternative energy sources.

But Mr. Obama didn't stop there.  Of course he has a "solution" to the pain at the pump.  He wants to send out a $1,000 stimulus check to 95% of American families.  Apparently, so that they can buy gas.

And how will he pay for this "stimulus" check?  Why, taxing those evil oil companies who are making "windfall" profits.  Which profits come from people paying high prices at the pump.  Which prices they'll be better able to pay, thanks to the "stimulus" check paid for out of -- oil company profits.

Anybody else see a problem with this?

But it did take some time for the full stupidity of this plan to sink in.  Obama says that 95% of American families will benefit from this $1,000 freebie.  I was a bit distracted by the certain knowledge that I'll doubtless be firmly in that 5% who can pound sand.  But then I started thinking... how much would that come to, anyway?  One thousand smackers for 95% of American families?  Wow, that seems like a lot.  But how much, really?

A little sleuthing on the Internet allows us to get a ballpark idea.  According to the IRS, in the last tax year with data available (2005) there were 134.4 million individual tax returns filed.  Now, granted, that doesn't match up exactly with the number of families in the country, but we're just looking for a ballpark figure (and with 300 million people in the US, we're at least within an order of magnitude here).  So, if we assume that 95% of those tax returns will get the $1,000 check, that means a cool grand going out to more than 127 million families.

What's the bill for that?  Not counting postage, of course, we're looking at $127 BILLION in "stimulus" checks (at least the $1K makes the math easy).  Paid for, Obama promises, out of the windfall profits tax on evil oil companies.

How much money could such a tax generate to pay for these checks?  A lot depends on the definition of "windfall" profits.  But for reference, the combined total profits of the oil industry in 2007 came to $155 billion.  Paying for Obama's giveaway would require confiscating about 82% of all industry profits in tax.  Never mind that while the $155 billion in profit is truly staggering, that's on total industry revenues of $1.9 TRILLION.  Making the industry profit margin a respectable (but moderate) 8% or so.  Hardly a windfall (search around a bit for other industry profit margins to see for yourself).

So what we have here is another vacuous attempt at pandering by Mr. Obama, a ploy to buy off the votes of the middle class with a fat government giveaway that can't possibly be paid for the way he claims it would.

Can we claim Hope and Change will save the day, while actually falling back into the same old patterns of politics as usual?

YES WE CAN.

[UPDATE]:  Apparently Obama claims a cost of only $50 billion for his "stimulus" plan.  I'm not sure how 50 million families make up 95% of America, but then I guess when you're full of crap in the first place, your numbers don't really need to add up.

The Huckster's In Play

So the final tally isn't yet available, but it's looking like Mike Huckabee has trounced Mitt Romney as the #2 guy for the Republicans this Super-Duper-Tuesday.

Of course Arizona Senator John McCain was the big Republican winner this evening, surging into a commanding lead in the delegate count, though still only about halfway to the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination outright.  And the big loser was Romney, who had been trying to position himself as the "conservative" alternative to moderate McCain.  Voters in most states appeared to see Huckabee as the conservative alternative instead, although Huckabee's major wins occurred in the South among evangelical Christians, who may have had more of a problem with Romney's Mormonism than anything else.

At any rate, it seems to me that given the generally warm relations between McCain and Huckabee, and the strong regional showing by Huckabee in an area where McCain is relatively weak, this may be a setup for an eventual McCain-Huckabee ticket in November.

I can only hope...  McCain-Huckabee would have a very good chance of beating Obama-Anyone, and would virtually guarantee a victory over Clinton-Anyone.

But then, that would be the smart thing for the Republicans to do -- so I'm not holding my breath that it'll happen. 

It would also be good for the country, by the way, as McCain is more of a fiscal conservative while socially moderate, and Huckabee seems more of a genuinely compassionate conservative, than prior Republican occupants of the White House have been.  Such an outcome could signal a revival of the Republican party as a reasonable, moderate force in American politics.

Like I say, I'm not holding my breath.  But if that day comes when the Republicans nominate forces of (relative) moderation, I just might be able to register as a Republican again.

McCain's Victory

Senator John McCain managed to defeat his close rival Mitt Romney in the Florida Republican Primary on Tuesday, putting him in the lead in delegate count towards that party's nomination.

He also demonstrated a very important point -- prior wins for McCain came largely in states with relatively open primaries/caucuses, where Independent voters were able to give him an edge.  The Florida contest, however, was closed to Republicans only, and many people expected Romney to do better among the "party faithful" since McCain is not particularly well-liked by the Republican party apparatus and is subject to criticism for being too moderate.  That criticism may be intensified by the reported endorsement of McCain by soon-to-drop-out Rudy Giuliani.  Giuliani has been consistently knocked by social conservatives for his relatively moderate stands on abortion, gun control and gay rights; Giuliani and McCain have both been knocked for their stands on immigration as well, so it remains to be seen whether Giuliani's endorsement will help or hurt McCain in the remaining primary season.  It likely will help in the general election in November, however, if McCain makes it that far.

I liked McCain in 2000, and was sorry to see him forced out of the running that year.  I watched him court the Bush camp over the past 8 years with some distress, as he apparently was trying to establish himself as "next in line" in the Republican party after Bush.  During this campaign he's been all over the board trying to be moderate enough to appeal to Independents but conservative enough to try to gain the support of the far right.  It didn't look like that approach would work out for him, but after Florida, it just might.

And I'll go out on a limb here: the outcome in November will be determined by the Republican nomination alone, no matter what the Democrats do.  If McCain gets the nod, he'll beat either Clinton or Obama, whichever one the Democrats choose.  And if McCain doesn't get the nod, then whoever does will be defeated by Clinton or Obama, whichever one the Democrats choose.

I'm feeling a great deal more optimistic about 4 more years of divided government than I have in a long while.  Let's hope McCain is able to pull it off...

Do you suck at Photoshop?

Yeah, I do.  But fortunately there are helpful tutorials available online (videos after the jump, not necessarily safe for work)...

Results in Iowa

The results are still trailing in as I write this, but the winners in Iowa have been declared.

For the Republicans, as I predicted Mike Huckabee took the top spot (though by a bigger margin than I expected).  Romney was a solid #2, and at this point it's still a toss-up for #3 between Fred Thompson and John McCain.

On the Democratic side, I was right about Edwards and Clinton being very close, but I was way off in thinking that Barack Obama would be right there with them.  Instead, he took the top spot by as large a margin as Huckabee did in the other party.  Meanwhile Edwards and Clinton are still scrapping over the #2/#3 spots, with a slight edge to Edwards at this point.

It is interesting to review the breakdown in entrance/exit polls regarding where each candidate received his or her support.

In the Democratic caucuses, one striking note is that Obama's margin of victory appears largely made up of non-Democrats:  Independents and Republicans who participated in the Democratic caucus went more than 40% for Obama, while among Democrats themselves Obama and Clinton were neck-and-neck at around 31/32%.  Fully 20% of the participants in the Democratic caucus were self-identified as Independent rather than Democrat, and that seems to be where Obama has his strongest showing.

Meanwhile, in the Republican caucuses, of particular note is the fact that 60% of caucus-goers identify themselves as "Born-again or evangelical Christians", and almost half of that number supported Huckabee (a Baptist minister), far more than any other candidate, and more than twice as many as supported Romney.  That likely tracks with another interesting statistic, almost half of all Republican caucus-goers rated "Shares my values" as the ONE characteristic most important in selecting a candidate; of those voters, 44% went for Huckabee, again almost twice as many as supported Romney.  Also, those voters who think that shared religious views matter somewhat or a great deal (a whopping 67%), perhaps not surprisingly had a strong affinity for Huckabee over Romney, a Mormon.  Independents also were a significant part of the Republican caucuses (13% of caucus-goers), however those Independents strongly favored McCain and Ron Paul over the other candidates in the race.

So what does this mean going forward?

For Obama, while this will doubtless give him a bump, the large lift he got tonight from independent voters may be harder to achieve in other states with more closed systems.  On the other hand, it could be that his candidacy may prompt non-affiliated voters to register as Democrats in order to vote for him, which could help broaden the base of that party.  For Edwards, this has got to be a disappointment and most likely means that he'll be brushed aside after New Hampshire (in just 5 more days).  However, he might just be positioned for another run as VP (though honestly some of the maneuvering today makes me think that protestations aside, perhaps Richardson is really angling to share a ticket with Obama in the fall).  Clinton has enough money to take this loss in stride, but certainly she'll need to adjust her message to shore up support.  She does need to win in New Hampshire, or else it's going to be a very long month leading up to Super-Duper Tuesday.

For Huckabee, this is likely a positive sign that he'll be able to skip past New Hampshire (where his religious background won't play as strongly) and into other, later states where he can again use his religious views to his advantage.  He's definitely a serious player on the Republican stage, now, however.  Romney is currently fighting McCain for first place in NH, but if Huckabee can squeeze in there to take #2 (somewhat doubtful, but certainly possible with a bump from his significant win tonight) and shut Romney out to even a close #3, it could be the end of Romney's run as well.  And McCain, who basically conceded Iowa early to favor New Hampshire, should be able to hang in long enough to make things interesting for the other guys.  McCain won NH in 2000, and was running very strong in South Carolina shortly thereafter until some dirty tricks from the Bush camp that year caused him serious problems.  Basically, the Republican field is still wide open and may very well not be decided until the actual convention (for a change!)

Off to the Races

It's finally here... the big day in Iowa.  Soon to be followed by New Hampshire, Nevada, and a host of other states over the next few weeks.

Just for the record, I'm going to predict that the Republican side comes out Huckabee / Romney / McCain today.  Even if Huckabee comes in 2nd to Romney, he'll have to be considered the big winner on the Republican side for surging out of the pack of "also-rans" into a prominent showing (puts me in mind of a certain other Arkansas governor 16 years ago who became the "Comeback Kid" when he placed 2nd in Iowa).

The Democratic side is really too tough to call.  My gut feeling is Edwards / Obama / Clinton, all within a couple of points of each other.  Could be any combination of the three.  If Obama comes in 3rd, he's in bad shape -- so much for that tide of change that he wants to ride.  If Clinton comes in 3rd, she's gonna have a lot of 'splainin' to do to those $100M worth of donors to her campaign.  If Edwards comes in 3rd, his campaign is basically done -- he's been running non-stop in Iowa for the past 6 years, essentially, and if they know him this well and still don't support him, he's toast.  I'm assuming that Clinton wins New Hampshire hands down, so it's vitally important for Edwards and Obama to have a strong showing in Iowa.

Anyhow, it'll sure be interesting to see how the day turns out.  And only 10 more months of this stuff before the big election in November!

Here's what I'm thinking...

I got another e-mail from desperately-trying-to-appear-relevant John Kerry on Wednesday afternoon, with a subject line "here's what I'm thinking" (no caps to begin the subject, which I guess proves Kerry's "net cred" or something?)  It detailed the efforts of "team johnkerry.com" to write up an e-mail listing all the ways Republicans suck for blocking all the good and wonderful things Kerry and his ilk would love to do for the country, if only the Republicans didn't suck so bad.  And did he mention that Republicans suck?

Wait a minute, aren't the Democrats in the MAJORITY now?  Haven't they been for almost a full YEAR already?

Ah, but of course thanks to various Senate rules, individuals in that august body have a great deal of power to block action -- in many ways, each Senator sort of has veto power (that's an oversimplification and technically inaccurate, but the point is that individuals have great power to stop things from happening, not so much power to make things happen -- which, incidentally, is exactly how it should be...)

So being in the majority in the Senate doesn't necessarily mean that you can bully your agenda through without worrying about whose toes you've stepped on. 

But OK, the point Kerry was trying to make is that the Democrats have this agenda that they want to push, but alas, the "Roadblock Republicans" (as he's fond of calling them, very catchy) are standing in the way.

He doesn't want to get into the details of all the "tricks" the Republicans are playing to block action (i.e., the way they're following the Senate rules to their advantage), because as he says, "You already know what's not getting done."

Furthermore, "[Y]ou're already feeling the impact of the good things these Republicans have stopped us from doing — on Iraq, on global climate change, on energy policy, and on children's health care."

Er.... how exactly does one "feel the impact" of something that DOESN'T happen?

But whatever.  I understand that the good Senator is frustrated by the inability of his party to effect changes that he'd like to see, and of course I fully understand his desire to elect more Democrats to the Senate (much, but not all, of that negative power that individuals have in the Senate can be mitigated with a 60-seat majority; the Democrats currently hold a slim 51-49 effective majority).  I disagree with his goals, but I don't fault him for having them.

The really interesting thing, though, is this paragraph early in his message (emphasis mine):

"I fought for 13 years in the minority to stop Republicans from doing bad things, we broke the bank in 2006 here at the johnkerry.com community to win a majority so we could make good things happen, but still the Republicans are standing in the way."

So here's what I'M thinking:  Wow, that's CHUTZPAH! 

He's complaining that after spending 13 years in the minority, by his own admission (really, it was more of a boast) actively trying to obstruct the agenda of the majority, now that he's in the majority it's a terrible thing that the other party can prevent some things from happening in the Senate.  "Uh, hello, Kettle?  This is the Pot..."

Furthermore, after lamenting the lack of progress in this Congress towards achieving the Democratic party agenda, what is Kerry's offered solution?

"You don't need another laundry list — you just need a roadmap to changing the Senate. And that starts by changing more Senators. Repeat what you did in 2006. Grow that majority."

So in 2006 we got a Democratic majority, which failed to deliver on all their promises.  The best way to turn that around is to "change the Senate" by REPEATING what happened in 2006 and get more ineffective Democrats?  What, the way to improve the situation is to "change" the Senate from a slim Democratic majority to a somewhat-less-slim Democratic majority?  Big time change there, Senator!

Of course, what else is he going to say?  But I just find it funny that the majority party has, for the past year, been acting as if it was still in the minority.  It seems every time I turn around, there's a Democrat complaining about how the Republicans are standing in the way.  Boy, if not for those dastardly Republicans thwarting their every move, those Democrats would have made America a bona fide Nirvana already...

One way around that problem is, of course, to get a big enough majority that you can actually ignore the concerns of the other party.  It's gonna be tough for the Democrats to pick up 9 more seats in the Senate in 2008, though.  In a local angle -- local to Oregon, anyhow -- Kerry named Jeff "Merkely" [sic] as one of the Democrats to target for a seat to pick up, hoping to oust current Oregon Senator Gordon Smith.  (Tough luck, Steve Novick, guess you didn't suck up to the right people in the national party organization... though at least Kerry didn't spell your name wrong!)

The other, more desirable way to go would be to, I dunno, maybe COMPROMISE a bit on legislation to find approaches that are acceptable to everyone?  Or at least to enough members of the other party to gain the support needed to push it through?

But then it seems that the Democrats are determined to prove that they can be just as obstinate as the Republicans were when they ran the show.  Yippee for party parity!

An hour with Rudy

I just finished watching Wednesday night's Charlie Rose program, a full hour with Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani.  If you aren't familiar with Rose's show, you should be -- it is by far one of the most intelligent, thought-provoking hours you can spend with your TV set.

I found a lot to like about Giuliani -- and a lot to be uncomfortable about.  He's a very personable man, and I admire his stated philosophies about a number of things.  When it gets to specifics, not so much.  And hey, have you heard?  9/11 happened!  Rudy was mayor at the time!  So, uh... yeah.  Guess you should vote for him for President then, right?

Anyhow, here's the episode:

There's a bit of a frost in Hades...

So after watching the much-ballyhooed "YouTube Debate" among the Democratic presidential candidates... I can't believe I'm actually saying this... I might have to consider voting for Hillary.

I mentioned after the first debate that Hillary hadn't come off as scary as I expected.  During Monday night's performance she appeared downright "presidential".  I still have reservations about voting for any Democrat, of course, because I'm generally less sympathetic to that party's platform than to traditional Republican platforms (note I said "traditional", the R's of recent years have strayed from the path of reasonableness much to my chagrin).

Still, of all the candidates she seems to have the most realistic positions.  They may not be the most popular positions, especially among her own party members, but they seem to me to represent a real thoughtfulness and consideration of the complexities of real life.

Frankly, I could care less about having an idealist in the office, which seems to be Obama's big appeal to a certain segment of the population.  I strongly believe that the leader of the free world (to the extent that the current administration has left any remnant of that old honorific on the presidency) needs to be a realist, not an idealist.  Idealism doesn't belong in government anyhow -- after all, George W. Bush is a frickin' idealist, look where that got us.

Idealism is freakin' DANGEROUS in government, especially so at the top-most levels of government.

So give me some of that old-time calculated Realpolitik (requisite Wiki entry here).  It'd be a refreshing change from the rampant idealism of the last 7 years.

Much as I hate to say it, the Republicans just aren't on my radar screen right now.  And of the Democrats in the race, at this point I'm starting to warm to another Clinton presidency.

Sucks to be this guy...

Some guys just can't catch a break.

I wonder if this means people are going to start requiring their fiancees to stipulate their sexual orientation in pre-nups, to avoid this sort of issue in the future.  That way, if your wife leaves you for another woman, you can at least claim fraud and try to avoid alimony in the first place.

Sheesh.

While we're on the subject of alimony.... how is it that feminists aren't up in arms over the whole concept of alimony being owed until the woman remarries (or dies)?  I mean, essentially that's a legal stipulation that a woman is a financial burden to be borne by her husband; the only way the first husband gets out of that obligation is if there's another husband to take on the onus of supporting her.

Seriously, how inherently degrading to women is THAT?

Why I'm pissed off at the President

According to President Bush, regarding the entire affair of "outing" Valerie Plame as a CIA agent:

"I'm aware of the fact that perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of that person, and I've often thought about what would have happened had that person come forth and said, 'I did it.' Would we have had this, you know, endless hours of investigation and a lot of money being spent on this matter?"

[. . .]

"It's been a tough issue for a lot of people in the White House, and it's run its course and now we're going to move on."

Actually, sir, it's been a tough issue for a lot of people throughout the country.  And it certainly has not "run its course".  Its course ends with bringing those who are responsible to some form of justice.

How could a President who claims to take so very seriously his duty to protect the American people from threats, who heads a party which claims a superior ability to defend national security, take the issue so lightly?

As I've said recently, the whole Libby mess is essentially a side show which is not particularly important in the grand scheme of things.  But there ARE particularly important issues that have yet to be resolved, and the President just shrugs his shoulders and says:

"Gawrsh, it shore woulda been nice if the varmint who betrayed his country just up and turned hisself in.  Woulda saved us all a lot of trouble and expense.  But he didn't, so I guess we'll just move on then..."

Bullshit.

BULLSHIT.

Now THAT'S worthy of some outrage.

Perspective

Much has been written about the President's recent commutation of "Scooter" Libby's prison sentence.  I've yet to see anything positive (with good reason).

But it seems to me that there's very little sense of perspective in the commentary so far.

First, what would we do without MTV asking the hard-hitting questions:  "Did Paris Hilton and Lil' Kim get it worse than Scooter Libby?"

Is there anything with LESS perspective on this issue than vox populi from a 17-year-old?  Seriously?

Then we have Keith Olbermann's rant (included below) calling for both Bush and Cheney to resign over this matter.  Now, I'm not about to defend the current administration as even remotely worthy of the office.  But seriously, Scooter Libby is what you're getting all upset about?  Granted, Olbermann goes off on a litany of issues that he has with the administration, which all add up to poor stewardship of the country.  He's not wrong about that.  But I think he overreaches in his comparison to Nixon's firing of Archibald Cox.  (Never mind that many of his complaints boil down to "Republicans shouldn't be in charge of government.")

And really, here's the thing.  If a person had enough of a sense of honor and duty to resign as President -- there's an awfully good chance that such a person wouldn't have done something so wrong as to precipitate the resignation in the first place.

I'll put it even more bluntly:  for a person to resign, he has to think he's actually done something wrong.  Clearly, this President (and Vice President) hold no such belief.  Expecting them to resign is rather foolish.

I'm reminded (tangentially) of the outrage over President Clinton's lies about his affairs.  People were shocked -- SHOCKED -- that the President of the United States would lie to the American people about cheating on his wife.

Well, DUH.  When you cheat on your wife, that's what you do -- lie about it.  I'm not defending the practice, of course.  I'm saying don't expect a cheater to be honest about cheating.  He (or she) has already cheated, why on Earth would any rational person then expect a cheater to act honorably in any other way?

And why on Earth would any rational person expect a President who has -- let's put it tactfully -- stretched the limits of his office -- to suddenly develop a conscience and resign?

Anyhow, here's that clip from Olbermann.  What do YOU think?

Update, 4:15pm:  Here's a link to the text version of Mr. Olbermann's commentary.  Also, Mr. Olbermann's name has had its full complement of n's restored within this article.  ;-)

Pick-a-Candidate

As I was last time around, I'm undecided about who to support for President in 2008.  Of course, this election cycle I'm a "non-affiliated voter" so I don't really get a say in either party's primary race.  But I'm still curious as to which candidates best fit my opinions.

My general impressions are that on the Democratic side I'm most inclined to support Bill Richardson.  He's sort of an establishment candidate (and I'm fairly pro-establishment), he's a Western governor (executive experience, generally more moderate), and he has a hell of a resume -- probably the most qualified candidate of any party in the race.

But, he is a Democrat, and that represents a whole set of values that I do not necessarily share.

Of course, increasingly, the Republican party represents a whole different set of values that I do not necessarily share (hence the NAV status).  Generally speaking, I tend to Republican positions on economic issues, and Democratic positions on social issues.  But I generally give more weight to economic issues than social issues, so all things being equal I'm more inclined to support a Republican than a Democrat.  And of the Republicans in the race, I'm genuinely at a loss as to who I should favor.

Back in 2000, I was a John McCain man, no question about it.  But 8 years later, the independent spirit that made him attractive in the first place is largely diminished.  He's been spending the last 8 years currying favor with the Bush administration (and its allies) to try to solidify his position as the "heir apparent".  Unfortunately, that means that he's moved too far towards the dark side, and I'm just not enthusiastic about him.  He's still a lot better than most candidates on either side, but he's moved into the "lesser of evils" category.

Rudy Giuliani is a more moderate Republican... but I'm completely turned off by his incessant 9/11 drumbeat.  It seems that his answer to every question begins with "You know, when we were attacked on 9/11..."  I think he did a heck of a job as mayor of NY at that time, but it's time to move on.  And I automatically discount anybody who plays the terror card.  It's not that I don't think the continuing threat of terrorism is very real.  It's just that I don't think that threat should be the centerpiece of a political platform, and I don't think that simply reminding us of the threat is sufficient.  I want to hear a reasonable, effective plan for how you intend to deal with the threat.

Mitt Romney, I don't really know much about.  Other than he's the Republican governor of uber-liberal Massachussetts.  I would assume from that fact that he's probably of a more moderate bent than most.  But from what I've seen of him in the debates, he seems like a pretty-boy who gets by on his charm rather than his intelligence.  I could be wrong about that, of course, but until I get a sense that there is some substance behind the haircut, I'm not going to be too excited about him.

Anyhow, to help me get a better idea of who I should be seriously considering, I tried out an online quiz at SelectSmart.com that is supposed to tell you who your ideal candidate would be.  The site overall offers those goofy "what kind of car are you?" type quizzes that are so very popular on MySpace and the like.  I didn't realize that before I took the quiz, but after taking it I'm not surprised.

The quiz asks numerous questions about policy issues, and asks whether that issue is of high or low importance to you.  Most issues offer very black-and-white polar opposite views, which is a sign that the results are not going to be that useful.  I ended up answering "neither" to a lot of questions.

But in any event, I finished the quiz and here are some of my results:

Best Match (81%) - Kent McManigal (Libertarian / Boston Tea Party)
2nd Match (79%) - Mitt Romney (Republican)
3rd Match (76%) - John McCain (Republican)

I had never heard of Kent McManigal, so I was naturally curious.

Apparently, I'm a bat-shit insane freak, if this guy is the closest match to my own views.  Right away, I've got to discount the usefulness of the quiz.  It's true that I have a Libertarian streak in me.  But it's hardly of the "Radical Libertarianism at its Finest" variety as espoused by Mr. McManigal.  Chalk one up for the "black-and-white binary answer" quiz format.

Seeing John McCain so high on the list doesn't much surprise me.  Seeing Mitt Romney above him is interesting, I'm definitely going to have to take a closer look.

Giuliani came in 8th place at 61%.  Bill Richardson came in 12th at 46%, the highest ranking of any Democrat (as expected), and higher than a few Republicans.

What does all this mean?  Not much, given the poor methodology of the quiz.  But I'm definitely going to give Romney a closer look now.

And it just might pay to register as a Democrat for the primary, so that I can support Bill Richardson.  He's a long shot to win his party's nomination, and I'd much rather have him on the ballot come November '08 than most any of the other Democrats out there.

Take the quiz for yourself, and post a comment here with your thoughts.

Those Darn Dems!

I received a lovely little bit of hyperbole in my inbox this afternoon -- an "Action Alert" from the Oregon Republican Party.

The headline screamed thus:

HOUSE DEMOCRATS TO PUSH FOR MASSIVE TAX INCREASE ON OREGON SMALL BUSINESSES

Pretty scary, huh?

Except it's not really true.

At issue is the proposed suspension of the corporate "kicker", the tax rebate that Oregon is obligated to provide when tax revenues exceed projections by 2% or more.  Individual tax payers get a kicker, too, but it's calculated and triggered separately from the corporate kicker.

It's true enough that eliminating the kicker would mean less money back from the state than they otherwise would be entitled to receive.  But it's a bit of a stretch to turn that into a tax "increase".  These are taxes that were already legitimately owed, and paid.  If tax revenues came in at less than 2% more than projected, the kicker would not be triggered but taxes would also not have been "increased" in that case.  So clearly, not paying the kicker is not the same as increasing taxes.

Taxes seem to be very confusing for people, so let me lay it out.  These examples will be for individual taxes, but the corporate tax system works basically the same way.

Let's assume that your state tax liability for the year was $3,000.  You might have had more or less money withheld from your pay during the year, but when you figure your taxes you should have paid $3K.  If you had say $3,200 withheld during the year, you'd be owed a $200 tax refund, because you overpaid your taxes by that amount.  If you had only $2,800 withheld during the year, you'd owe the state $200 more, because you underpaid your taxes by that amount.

The kicker, on the other hand, has nothing to do with your individual tax liability.  It has to do with how well the state forecasters predicted government revenues for a 2-year span when the budget was created.  If the state takes in more revenue than had been predicted 2 years earlier, and that difference is at least 2% of the predicted amount, then the state is obligated to kick back the difference to the people who contributed that extra revenue.  So even though your tax liability had been $3K for the year (let's say that was $6K for two years), and that's exactly what you paid, the state is going to send you back some money anyhow.  Essentially the state is saying that two years ago, it thought that by taxing everyone at the regular rate they would take in a certain amount, but due to whatever factors beyond their control, they ended up taking in more, so they didn't really need to tax everyone at the regular rate after all.

This is different from a normal tax refund, because it has nothing to do with whether you paid the correct amount in taxes during the year (or rather, during Oregon's two-year budget cycle).  Rather, it has to do with whether everyone in the state, collectively, generated more revenue than was expected.

Anyhow, not paying the kicker is not quite the same as raising taxes.  And it's nowhere near the same as not paying a regular tax refund.  In effect, Oregon's kicker law allows for taxes to automatically be lowered by some (generally very small) amount, retroactively for a two-year period only.

But of course, in twisted Republican land, voting against a decrease in taxes is 100% equivalent to voting for an increase in taxes.  It's a tried-and-true tactic that the extreme anti-tax folks use whenever they want to get people riled up.

There are some in Oregon who wish to see the corporate kicker permanently abolished; some smaller portion of those people would like to see the individual kicker go away as well.

It seems to me that wanting to do away with the corporate kicker while retaining the individual kicker is thoroughly inconsistent.  The philosophy behind both is exactly the same, so how can one rationally argue for one but against the other?

On the other hand, it also seems inconsistent to me that the kicker law requires the state to refund excess revenues, but does not require citizens to kick in more tax money when revenue falls short.  The basic philosophy behind the kicker is, the state planned to have X amount of money to spend in a budget, but actually took in Y, so the extra should go back to the taxpayers.  But wouldn't that philosophy also demand that if Y is significantly less than X, the taxpayers should make up the difference?

So there are two logical conclusions that could be drawn here, neither of which is politically popular.  Either rework the kicker law to make people cough up more dough when the state runs short, or eliminate both the corporate and individual kickers.  Except that the kickers were actually written into the constitution in 2000, so good luck getting rid of them entirely.

The Pelosi Era Begins

So new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and the Democratic majority are pushing an ambitious agenda of legislation to get passed in the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress.

So strong is the desire by Democratic leadership in the House to make a forceful opening statement, that they've decided to leave the Republicans largely out of the picture.

If this sounds vaguely familiar, that's because the Republican majority operated in a similar fashion when they were in power.  But it also runs counter to Democratic election pledges of a new cooperative bipartisan tone in Washington.

I have mixed feelings about this move.  On the one hand, I warned about this very problem of backlash when the Republicans were abusing their power.  What goes around, comes around, in politics as in life.  And payback is a bitch.  So it's hard to feel too sorry for the Republicans getting a taste of their own medicine.

On the other hand, since Pelosi specifically claimed that under her leadership Congress would work in a bipartisan manner to solve the country's problems, this move distinctly undermines her own credibility and cedes a tremendous amount of moral high ground, which the as-yet-unproven Democratic leadership can not afford to give up.  I don't much care for the current crop of Republicans, but I care for the Democrats even less -- however, as with any new leadership there's a bit of a honeymoon period where you give them the benefit of the doubt and see what they'll do.

The honeymoon here is already over, before it began.  Alas.

And what really gets me is that this grandstanding by the Democratic leadership to strike quickly and pass some key "progressive" legislative items will ultimately be for naught anyhow.  You see, as Mrs. Pelosi (and anyone who grew up in the 70's watching Schoolhouse Rock) knows, getting legislation out of Congress isn't enough to make a law.  The President still has to sign, and I guarantee that at least one of the 5 or 6 key bills from the first 100 hours will get a big VETO.  After all, Bush 43 has been one of the least veto-in' Presidents in history so far, his Presidential Pen has plenty of ink left in it for cancelling out the work of the Democrats.

The Democrats have a comfortable majority in the House, but it ain't veto-proof, so it's highly unlikely that any veto will be overturned.  Pelosi is generating this ill will in order to gain a hollow victory in the passage of bills that will not become laws.

Now to be fair, even if the Democrats allowed full participation of the Republicans on all of these bills, they'd not likely be signed by Bush.  But by cutting the Republicans out of the loop on these critical first acts, Pelosi is effectively giving Bush a huge amount of political cover for his veto.

Take raising the minimum wage, for example.  More than 80% of the country, when polled, support the idea of raising the minimum wage.  But of course most Republicans are opposed to this without offsetting benefits to small businesses (at least).  If Bush was to veto an increase in the minimum wage, it would be an unpopular move -- made much more palatable by his ability to claim that he vetoed the bill because it had been forced on him by the Democrats without any opportunity for the Republicans in Congress to provide amendments.

Now, for the record, I think raising the federal minimum wage is a terrible idea.  Individual states have the authority to increase their own minimum wages as they deem necessary -- and many states have. So I'm kind of glad that it's not likely to actually become a law.  But from the Democrats' point of view, it's a bad tactical decision to push like this.  And there are plenty of other reform-type issues where I happen to support the Democratic position, so I'm discouraged by this show of bad judgement right out of the gate.

Of course, it will be interesting to see how Pelosi and the Democratic leadership recover from this opening stumble.  This is hardly a fatal mistake, but will this just be a case of a party a little too eager to come in from the wilderness at first, or will it be a longer-term problem?

TOD: Troop Withdrawal?

With the release of the Iraq Study Group report, even the most hardened supporters of the war in Iraq are starting to talk about troop withdrawals, while calls from the left to pull out immediately are growing stronger.  Meanwhile, there are signals that once the U.S. is finally out of Iraq the Saudis and Iranians may actively take opposite sides in any ensuing civil war there.

What do you think?  Should the U.S. pull out of Iraq immediately?  Should we withdraw our troops over the next 6 months, 12 months, 24 months?  Or do we have an obligation, having created a power vacuum in Iraq, to remain indefinitely until that vacuum can be filled with some kind of stable replacement?

TOD: Nanny State?

New York City has become the first city in the country to ban trans-fats from restaurants, while other cities consider similar measures.

What do you think?  Does the state have a legitimate interest in regulating things that are merely "bad for you" when those things do not directly infringe the rights of others?  If so, does that interest take precedence over individual "pursuit of happiness"?  What other sorts of bans might be appropriate (or inappropriate)?

Found at myconfinedspace.com

Election Follow-Up

It was a long, looooong day at work today, so I didn't really get a chance to follow along with the election results as they came in when the polls closed.  Surveying the scene now after midnight, I have several observations.

First, nearly all the candidates that I voted for managed to get elected.  I was wrong in my prediction about Jim Gibbons, he will be the next Governor of Nevada after all.  I was correct about John Ensign, and correct as well about Jon Porter (including the relative closeness of that race).

Second, only 4 of 10 state measures went the way I voted, though I predicted that some of those questions wouldn't go my way.  But wow, when I was wrong on the predictions, I was REALLY wrong.

Ballot Question 2 passed not by a "moderate margin" as I expected, but by a whopping 63%/37% split.

Not only did Question 4 not gain more votes than Question 5, but it was actually defeated.  Meanwhile, Question 5 passed on a 54/46 split.

I did predict the passage of Question 6 on the minimum wage, with "at least 60%", but that was a little low as it actually garnered nearly 70% of the vote.  Wow.

Conversely, I predicted the defeat of Question 7 on legalized pot by "at least 70%/30%", but it was much closer than that at 56%/44%.

As for Oregon races, I called Kulongoski, but I also expected Starrett to act as a "spoiler" for Ron Saxton.  At the moment (with only 56% of precincts reporting as I write this) Kulo has 51%, while Saxton and Starrett combined have only 47%.  It'll be interesting to see if those numbers shift much as more of the vote comes in.

I expected Measure 43 to pass, but at this point it's losing 54%/46%.

By far the biggest surprise to me of the night was Oregon's Measure 48, which I expected to lose but only by a single-digit margin.  How does a 71%/29% spanking sound?  Yikes!  Perhaps that's a strong enough message to actually be heard by the "Norquist-istas" (as Mr. Colbert would say) and mayhaps Oregon will be left alone in this regard for at least one election cycle?  So I must admit that Snethen had a much better read on that issue than I did.  I suppose the fact that I'm living 800 miles away is a weak defense?

On the national scene, it's a bit late to be talking about my pre-election predictions I guess.  But for the record, I expected the Dems to pick up just enough seats to take a slim majority (2-3 seats) in the House, and end up with only 48 seats in the Senate.  As of this writing, CNN reports that the Dems have 227 seats in the House, for a 9-seat majority (with 17 undecided races left).  And at the moment the Senate is 49-49, with two races in Montana and Virginia still undecided.

The Democrats are understandably elated at their strong showing.  But I think they're perhaps getting a little ahead of themselves as they've been "promising" a number of items on their agenda.  I expect we'll start to see the President begin to exercise that veto power that has gone almost entirely unused for the last 6 years.  Particularly if the GOP retains control of the Senate, the Democrats are going to have a tough time pushing their agenda on the country.  They've got a solid majority in the House, but it ain't Veto-Proof, and if they don't control the Senate they may not get much to the President's desk for him to veto in the first place.

In fact, if the current situation holds, this may actually help the Republicans in 2008.  They'll be able to point to an "ineffective" Democratic leadership in the House, and doubtless they'll have plenty of red meat to throw to the base in the form of "out of touch" legislation that Speaker Pelosi (shudder at that thought) and other key Democrats will have backed.

Now the big question -- will a Democratic House spend more time on investigations into the Bush Administration, looking into the past -- or on new legislation, looking to the future?  Either way, without a majority in the Senate, it's going to be a tough two years for the Democrats and the country.

The Big Day

Time to Vote!

Since Oregon went to all vote-by-mail a few years back, it's been a while since I've actually gone to a real, honest-to-goodness polling place.  I'm kind of looking forward to the experience today (my precinct location is directly across the street from where I live, so I'll be stopping by on my way to work this morning).

I urge every citizen to get out and VOTE, whatever your party affiliation (or non-affiliation).  It's your right, and your responsibility.

Having said that, I'd also like to urge people to not be afraid to "under-vote".  You are not obligated to cast a vote on every single question on the ballot.  It is your civic duty to vote, but it's also your duty to cast an informed vote.  If you don't know enough about a particular question or race to have an opinion one way or another, then please leave that one to those who DO have an opinion.

I personally almost never vote on local nonpartisan positions (city commisioner, judge, sheriff, etc.) because I don't know enough about the candidates to have an opinion.

I almost always vote on the issues, because I am usually capable of forming an opinion based on the question itself.

So it is very rare for me to not under-vote in an election.  Should I educate myself about every single race?  Yes, ideally, I should.  But given that I don't, it's my duty to abstain from those questions.

Anyhow, I thought it would be interesting to post some of my predictions for races here in Nevada, as well as in Oregon (which I've been following closely).  Keep in mind that this is not necessarily how I personally will vote, but rather how I think the races will turn out.

NEVADA

GOVERNOR:  Dina Titus (D)

Titus has run a close race with favored candidate Jim Gibbons (R), but in the last couple of weeks Gibbons has received a great deal of negative publicity regarding various scandals (or alleged scandals).  I expect that may make the difference in a close race by suppressing some of his support.

SENATOR:  John Ensign (R)

Ensign is generally popular in Nevada, and challenger Jack Carter (D) is seen as a bit of a carpetbagger.  I don't think this race will even be close.

US REPRESENTATIVE (NV-3):  Jon Porter (R)

Incumbent Porter has blanketed the area with mailings and TV ads attacking challenger Tessa Hafen (D) and her "too liberal" positions.  I expect this race to be close, but I believe Porter will prevail.

BALLOT QUESTION 2:  YES

The so-called Property Owners Bill of Rights will likely pass by a moderate margin.

BALLOT QUESTION 4:  YES (ADOPTED)

Heavy campaining on the "Yes on 4, No on 5" slogan for the first of two competing anti-smoking measures will likely make the difference.  According to state law, if both 4 and 5 pass, the one with the most votes will be adopted.  I believe 4 will get more votes than 5.

BALLOT QUESTION 5:  YES (NOT ADOPTED)

I think 5 will find majority support, just barely (say 51% or so) but I expect 4 to gain more.

BALLOT QUESTION 6:  YES

People love to vote for increases to minimum wage.  I expect at least a 60%/40% margin.

BALLOT QUESTION 7:  NO

Legalize pot?  This one is going down big time.  At least 70%/30%.

OREGON

(Fewer races here, as I've not been able to keep up as much over long distance.)

GOVERNOR:  Ted Kulongoski (D)

Challenger Ron Saxton (R) is the strongest Repbulican nominated in quite some time, and incumbent Kulongoski is not exactly loved even by his own party.  However, third party challengers will likely hurt Saxton's support more than Kulongoski's, and the "smarm factor" will likely turn off enough independent voters from Saxton to make the difference.

MEASURE 43:  YES

This parental notification measure, while strongly opposed by core liberal groups, is just reasonable enough to gain the support of moderates.

MEASURE 48:  NO

The constitutional state spending limit will probably be close, however two factors fall against this measure.  First is that voters are historically less inclined to vote for constitutional amendments than statutory changes.  Second is that public services in Oregon have already been cut, in some cases dramatically, by revenue limitation measures in the past.  While anti-tax, anti-government forces are alive and well in Oregon, in large numbers, I expect the majority will probably be more concerned about painting the state into a corner.

What do you think?  How will these races turn out?  Are there other races that you'd like to predict before the day is out?

Michael J. Fox

If you haven't heard, Michael J. Fox has been campaigning for some Democrats who support stem cell research.  Rush Limbaugh was doing his thing and claiming that Michael J. Fox exaggerated his symptoms or didn't take his meds to make the symptoms more acute in order to appear more sympathetic in the TV advertisements for Democrats.  I've read that Rush went so far as to mimic Parkinsons in a mocking fashon.

Below is the response from Micael J. Fox.  I find it hard to sit through without getting a lump in my throat.  But if I can distance myself from it for a moment and  analyze it a bit, I find that it is a fantastic example of (metaphorically speaking) NOT trying to wrestle the pig down in the mud, which just makes you dirty and the pig likes it.  Instead of taking the bait, Mr. Fox uses his opponent's smears as momentum and stays on message.  He's trying to cut through the rhetoric and reach his audience, and I think he does that.

Intellectual Property

There is a trend in our society towards establishing intellectual property rights, and a creeping extension of them.  I think user licenses should only be legally binding if they are established as a contract at the time of purchase.  I don't think it is right to sell me something and then slap a license agreement on it after the fact that I wasn't able to read before the purchase.  I bought it, it is mine, why should I need a license to use it any otherwise legal way I want to.

So of course I avoid buying products that rely on the goodwill of a company to continue to work.  I tell my friends they are foolish to convert all their CD music to proprietary formats from Apple or Sony or Microsoft, or buy their music from a service with a user agreement that can be revised at any time.  Some friends reply that the agreements aren't that restrictive and Digital Rights Management isn't that big of a deal.  To which I reply, "Sure, today.  What will the agreement say tomorrow?  What if the next mandatory update turns off features you paid for?"

To which they roll their eyes.  And today I have a concrete example.  As usual, I hate being right.  I feel a bit like Laocoon sometimes.  Not the sea serpents part, just the unheeded warnings part.

There Once was a Fellow from Portland...

Jack Bog has an open offer to the creative minded among us to submit politically-themed limericks (with a Portland or Oregon focus) for consideration at a future "Candidates Gone Wild" bash.

I've submitted my effort, why don't you head over there and give it a shot as well?