From Those Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Sarah Palin

October 30, 2014, 10:40 a.m.

"When Will We Ever Learn?"

Senator John McCain has been accompanying Joni Ernst around Iowa. Why would they want to do that? Take off Sarah Palin's snow boots in moose country and put on Joni Ernst's chore boots in hog country and John McCain's new bff is as frightening as anything on Halloween. Did the Republicans learn nothing from their experience with the McCain-Palin ticket?

Well, it turns out they learned a great deal. And as recent polls indicate, this time it may even work for them.

It's all brought back memories of three political insights out of my past.

The first contributed to what ultimately became my interest, and professional focus, on the relationship between media, politics and policy. During the early 1960s, while teaching at the University of California law school in Berkeley (Boalt Hall), I read in the Wall Street Journal of a firm that promised election to all clients. It had four conditions: (a) pay them $100,000 up front, (b) turn over total control of your campaign, (c) agree to their spending all the money on TV ads, and (d) leave the district from which you are running (thereby removing the risk of any media mishaps). The Journal's story indicated that, at that time, they were enjoying 100% success in winning elections for their clients.

I say, "at that time," because this was the early days of television, and television in political campaigning. TV-commercials-based political victories were easier when a substantial volume of well-produced TV spots supported one candidate and there were virtually none supporting the other.

The second was my association with the Broadway musical "The Selling of the President" in 1972. Based in part on the Joe McGinniss' book of the same title regarding President Nixon's 1968 campaign, the purpose of the Broadway version, at least as I saw it, was to demonstrate for the audience how they could be manipulated by TV commercials. They watched with their own eyes the evolution of a relatively unsophisticated Nebraska Senator George Mason into a viable presidential candidate. I've always felt the reason the show had its limited run of five performances was because it was too good, rather than the reverse. Standing in the back of the theater, listening to audience members' comments as they exited, I heard one woman say to her companion, "Wasn't that George Mason wonderful? Don't you wish we had candidates like that to vote for?" In other words, rather than increasing her political sophistication regarding how media consultants go about "The Selling of the President," we had actually sold her our president.

The third involves a CBS news piece by Lesley Stahl in 1984. It was designed to document the contrasts between what President Reagan said and what he did -- for example, contrasting video from his Special Olympics speech with the fact he had cut funding for children with disabilities. In Stahl's book, Reporting Live, she says, "I knew the piece would have an impact, if only because it was so long: five minutes and 40 seconds, practically a documentary in Evening News terms. I worried that my sources at the White House would be angry enough to freeze me out." After it ran, she got a call from Reagan aide, Dick Darman. “Way to go, kiddo. What a great piece. We loved it.” A startled Stahl asked, “Didn’t you hear what I said [in the broadcast]?” To which Darman replied, “Nobody heard what you said. . . . When the pictures are powerful and emotional, they override if not completely drown out the sound. I mean it, Lesley. Nobody heard you.”

Joni Ernst's political advisers, media consultants, and commercials producers have learned these lessons well, and are applying them. Stay away from major issues and specific positions. Show video of an attractive, well made-up, smiling woman with emotionally compelling backdrops. Don't let her talk to reporters and editorial boards. Keep her contact with voters limited to groups of rabid supporters. And, of course, attack the opponent.

Regardless of what you may think of Joni Ernst, regardless of how concerned you may be about her past positions, however offended you are by the power of out-of-state-big-corporate-donor money, you have to admit hers has been a brilliant media campaign.

But we are still left, as voters, with the need to assess the serious consequences her election could bring. Here is an assessment by one of America's most insightful public interest advocates:

9 Iowa Values that Joni Ernst Opposes
Joni Ernst claims she will bring "Iowa values" to Washington. This sounds nice in a sound bite, but how do Ernst's actual positions live up to Hawkeye State commitments?

1. Rewarding hard work

Iowans don't want handouts; they believe in working for a living. That's why they believe in a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. Joni Ernst has stated that she does not support a federal minimum wage, calling the idea "ridiculous," and opposing a raise in the minimum wage supported by a vast majority of Americans.

2. Honoring your elders

Iowans follow the Fifth Commandment: Honor thy father and thy mother. They believe our elders, after a lifetime of work, deserve a decent living standard. Ernst has said she wants to transition workers onto individual savings accounts and is open to privatizing Social Security, an objective eagerly desired by Wall Street bankers.

3. Practicality

Iowans want politicians to have the same practical problem-solving spirit that they and their neighbors exhibit in daily life. Ernst has peddled debunked conspiracy theories and called for impeaching President Obama.

4. Education

Iowans, many of whom are graduates of the University of Iowa and Iowa State University, value education. Ernst wants to cut federal support for education, aiming to eliminate the national departments tasked with conducting education research, distributing grants to schools and preventing discrimination.

5.Being forthright

Iowans don't like politicians talking behind their back saying one thing to them in public and another in closed rooms full of fat cats. Ernst attended a seminar hosted by the billionaire Koch brothers in August 2013 to woo donors, eventually crediting her exposure to their donor network with starting her "trajectory." She told the millionaires and billionaires present that her election campaign "started right here with all of your folks ... this wonderful network." Despite spending the day with the Koch brothers, she canceled multiple scheduled meetings with Iowa newspapers or refused to meet with them.

6. Responsibility

Iowans believe people should be held responsible for how they treat others. They believe corporations should be held responsible for the harm they cause to their workers and communities. Ernst opposes the Clean Water Act, which passed 40 years ago with full bipartisan support, believing that multinational corporations should not be held accountable when they pollute water Iowans use for drinking, fishing and swimming.

7. Love thy neighbor

Iowans don't want their neighbors in hard times dying because they're struggling to make ends meet. That is why they don't want their neighbors subjected to "pay or die" health care, whether it is because of the staggering prices of drugs, operations, emergency treatments or health insurance. Ernst stands opposed to the most efficient health care system: single payer, full Medicare for all, everybody in, nobody out, with free choice of doctor and hospital. She wants to have Iowa health care decisions decided by distant, profit-minded corporations.

8. Your day in court

Iowans believe everybody who is wrongfully injured or defrauded should have, by constitutional right, their day in court against the perpetrators. Joni Ernst wants to reform laws to limit Iowans' access to full compensation for harm committed against them.

9. No one above the law

Iowans do not believe anyone should be above the law. They want Wall Street crooks who crashed our economy and were bailed out by taxpayers to be prosecuted and put in jail. Ernst wants more money managed by the same Wall Street investment firms and banks who helped crash the economy, arguing that more student loans and more retirement savings should be transferred from public-interested, nationally-secured funds to risky, profit-interested Wall Street accounts.

As Iowans head to the polls Tuesday, I hope they keep these facts in mind about how Ernst has opposed these longstanding Iowa values.
_______________
Ralph Nader, founder, Center for Study of Responsive Law, Washington, D.C. Contact: http://csrl.org/contact-us/. Published in Des Moines Register, Oct. 29, 2014: column and many comments.

And see, Ed Wasserman, "Braley is a match for true Iowa values," Iowa City Press-Citizen, Oct. 24, 2014.

# # #

Tuesday Night Caution and Clues

November 3, 2008, 6:25 a.m.; November 4, 2008, 7:00 a.m.

VOTE!
. . . New Hampshire has

Obama Sweeps Dixville Notch, 15-6!
"[I]n northern New Hampshire . . . registered voters in Dixville Notch cast ballots in a matter of minutes just after midnight. Obama carried the town with 15 votes, while McCain took six. Obama also won the nearby town of Hart's Location, with 17 votes to McCain's 10 and write-in candidate Ron Paul's two." Mary Pat Flaherty, "New Hampshire Voters Cast First Election Day Ballots," Washington Post, November 4, 2008; 6:24 a.m. CT

How late will you have to stay up Tuesday night?

Polls can be, and sometimes have been, misleading. Until either Senator Obama or McCain goes over 270 electoral votes Tuesday night we won't know for sure who our next president will be. And no one can predict for sure how late we'll need to stay up to find out.

I share the nervousness of those pollsters who are a little apprehensive this morning about their numbers. Partly that's because I've always felt that no election's over until the votes are counted, litigated if necessary, and the Electoral College members have cast their votes. Partly that's because of past experience with youthful and first-time voters who are enthusiastic at rallies but then fail to vote. Partly it's anxiety that the so-called "Bradley Effect" may not be the thing of the past that we hope it is. And partly it's because last Saturday, during the night, I was tuning up and down the AM dial rather than just listening to the BBC World Service.

Traveling the country In the 1970s I would return to Washington warning the politicos about the commentary I was hearing on radio stations all across the country from this guy Ronald Reagan. There was nothing to balance his views. But he wasn't on the radio in the Washington, D.C., area so my warnings were largely ignored. In case you've forgotten, he later turned up in Washington as President of the United States.

The talk show hosts and callers are really scary. Forcefully presenting as "facts" about Senator Obama what they must know are lies. Hate speech, venom and slander that would subject them to enormous damages for defamation if he was not a public official/candidate/public figure. All swimming in a sea of ignorance.

One drifted off into religion and whether the Bible was literally accurate with regard to the six-day creation of the Earth. One of the more flexible callers suggested that, "while we think of a 'day' as the time it takes the sun to go around the earth" -- that's right "the sun to go around the earth" -- that a "day" for God could be the time it takes our solar system to go all around the galaxies.

Elections always remind me of a story told by one of my colleagues about the McGovern campaign. A student came rushing into his office and excitedly repeated, "McGovern's going to win! McGovern's going to win!" My colleague asked how he knew; to which the student replied, "Everybody I know is voting for McGovern."

Everybody you know may be voting for Senator Obama. But that ain't the same as "everybody." Those talk show callers and listeners are going to be voting on Tuesday, too. And there's a lot more of them than cross my path each day.

Senator Grassley thinks it will either be a landslide for Obama or a squeaker for McCain. Tuesday night could be a long one.

Political scientists and professional political advisers will be going over the returns for months. But we'll have some early clues -- at least as to who the ultimate winner is likely to be.

Here's a list of the eastern states and others that close their polls between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. Central Time. Those with a * will be indications of the ultimate outcome -- especially if Obama is doing better than expected in rural areas, or McCain in urban areas. If one or the other is picking up a disproportionate share of the "swing states" it will be an indication that they will probably end up winning the presidency by the end of the evening.

Polls Closing, Central Time
[Source: CNN Election Center 2008]
* = states to watch for early clues regarding ultimate outcome (Real Clear Politics
is calling Georgia, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina and Ohio "toss-up" states. Virginia will also be a bell weather.)

5:00
* Indiana (ET counties)
Kentucky (ET counties)

6:00
* Florida (ET counties)
* Georgia
* Indiana
Kentucky
* New Hampshire (some towns 5:00)
South Carolina
Vermont
* Virginia

6:30
* North Carolina
* Ohio
West Virginia

7:00
Alabama
Connecticut
Deleware
District of Columbia
*Florida
Illinois
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Missouri
New Jersey
Oklahoma
* Pennsylvania
Tennessee

7:30
Arkansas

8:00
Rhode Island

# # #

Listen to the Military

October 10, 2008, 7:30 a.m., 12:30 p.m.

Which Do You Want First, the Bad News
or the Bad News?
To help get your mind off of the coming global depression, let's take a look at Afghanistan. [Photo credit: European Pressphoto Agency; as reproduced in New York Times, October 9, 2008; "Zabiullah Majahid, front, of the Taliban, led his group in the mountains of Helmand Province."]

Once again we are learning that, as I put it to President Lyndon Johnson with regard to Vietnam, "You can't play basketball on a football field."

Once again we are learning why I am only half joking when I say we need "military control of the civilians, rather than a government in which civilians dictate to the military."

Once again we are learning that the bumper sticker's observation -- "whatever is the question, war is not the answer" -- while overly simplistic, is right more often than it is wrong.

There are many differences between Vietnam, and Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Pakistan. But as important as it may be to recognize and respond to those differences, it is equally important not to ignore their similarities.

It is very difficult to "play war" when:

o You are only the latest in a long line of outside invader/occupiers (most of whom have been no more successful than you are about to be)

o The "enemy" is not a "country" in the sense we normally think of it, but an area where borders are both porous and disputed and central governments may be corrupt, weak (or engaged in civil war)

o You don't understand the country -- its people, tribal loyalties, history, culture, geography, and most importantly, language

o There are no "front lines" or battlefields (in the WWII sense) -- territory gained at considerable cost can easily and quickly be lost

o The "enemy" refuses to wear easily identifiable uniforms, dresses and looks like your "allies" in the fight, and can easily fade into the local population

o The loyalty of your supporters is thin, and shifts with who's paying them and their (understandable) urgent sense of personal survival

o The resulting "collateral damage" (innocent civilian deaths and injuries) are counterproductive in "winning hearts and minds" and actually contribute to the increased recruitment of terrorists

o Genuine local economic and infrastructure needs -- roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, water and electricity -- go unattended, and are made worse, by military action and the resulting shift to a drug-based economy

These are but my instincts and observations. But they have often turned out to have been later echoed by military officers and others who really do have some credentials, experience, and on-the-scene observations.

That is now happening once again.

No, I am not singing "we ain't goin' to study war no more," or saying that there is no role for conventional military action, that we should become a neutral isolationist nation, or that we should eliminate the Defense Department's budget (although there is some evidence we could improve our national security by cutting it by about one-third, and certainly by replacing the Bush Doctrine with the Powell Doctrine. For an explanation of the Powell Doctrine see, Nicholas Johnson, "War in Iraq: The Military Objections," February 27, 2003.).

What I am saying, in passing, is that the McCain Campaign (and some in the media) are doing no one a favor by using the language of WWII to describe the challenges we confront in the Middle East -- "war," "surge," "victory," "winning," and "the white flag of surrender." "Send in the Marines," "these colors don't run," "let's kick some butt," and "nuke 'em" are the very dangerous and costly (in terms of lives, burden on taxpayers, and loss of international reputation) rhetorical chants of elected officials and candidates who are either (a) not very well informed, or (b) devoid of the ethical and moral restraints that might challenge their belief that "there is nothing worth losing an election for."

But what I am mostly saying is not "listen to me" but "listen to our military." Not "follow them blindly," just listen and reflect.

Senator McCain says he wants a "surge" in Afghanistan. He believes the one in Iraq "worked" -- even though it did not bring about (a) the political solutions it was designed to make possible, or even (b) a permanent reduction in insurgency and civilian deaths. The Washington Post reports that he has said, "the same strategy that [Sen. Barack Obama] condemned in Iraq, that's going to have to be employed in Afghanistan."

By contrast, the Post reports, General David D. McKiernan, who led the Iraq invasion and has for four months headed the NATO coalition in Afghanistan, has

stated emphatically that no Iraq-style 'surge' of forces will end the conflict there. . . . "The word I don't use for Afghanistan is 'surge,'" . . ..

"Afghanistan is not Iraq," . . .. [It is] "a far more complex environment than I ever found in Iraq." The country's mountainous terrain, rural population, poverty, illiteracy, 400 major tribal networks and history of civil war all make for unique challenges, he said.

McKiernan [says] what is required is a "sustained commitment" to a counterinsurgency effort that could last many years and would ultimately require a political, not military, solution. . . .

Another facet of the Iraq strategy that McKiernan doubts can be duplicated in Afghanistan is the U.S. military's programs to recruit tribes to oppose insurgents. . . .

Tribal engagement in Afghanistan is also vital, McKiernan said, but . . . "I don't want the military to be engaging the tribes," he said. Given Afghanistan's complicated system of rival tribes and ethnic groups and the recent history of civil war, allying with the wrong tribe risks rekindling internecine conflict, he said. "It wouldn't take much to go back to a civil war." . . .

[T]he violence is more intense than he had anticipated . . .. The U.S. military death toll has risen to . . . a new annual high since the war began in 2001.

Attacks into Afghanistan from Pakistan have escalated, . . .. An influx of foreign fighters across the border is bolstering the Taliban insurgency and has shown a "significant increase from what we saw this time last year," he said, pointing to intelligence that picked up fighters speaking Uzbek, Chechen, Arabic and other languages.

"We are in a very tough fight," he said. "The idea that it might get worse before it gets better is certainly a possibility."

Ann Scott Tyson, "Commander in Afghanistan Wants More Troops," Washington Post, October 2, 2008, p. A19; and see Eric Schmitt, "Joint Chiefs Chairman Is Gloomy on Afghanistan," New York Times, October 9, 2008 ("With security and economic conditions in Afghanistan already in dire straits, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Thursday that the situation there would probably only worsen next year. 'The trends across the board are not going in the right direction,' the chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, told reporters. 'I would anticipate next year would be a tougher year.'”).

And McKiernan was saying it two months ago

"There is no magic number of soldiers that are needed on the ground to win this campaign," McKiernan said. "What we need is security of the people. We need governance. We need reconstruction and development." . . . McKiernan said, "There is a clear linkage between 'narco' trafficking and financing of the insurgency."

Barbara Starr, "'Surge' May Not be Enough in Afghanistan," Commander Says," CNN, August 8, 2008, 1:35 p.m. ET.

British Commander Agrees: "Taleban will never be defeated;" it's "neither feasible nor supportable"

The departing commander of British forces in Afghanistan . . . Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, the commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade, whose troops have suffered severe casualties after six months of tough fighting . . . says he believes the Taleban will never be defeated.

He told The Times that in his opinion, a military victory over the Taleban was “neither feasible nor supportable”. . . .

The brigadier’s grim prognosis follows a leaked cable by François Fitou, the deputy French Ambassador in Kabul, claiming that Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, the British Ambassador, had told him the strategy for Afghanistan was “doomed to failure” [and that] “the security situation is getting worse, so is corruption and the Government has lost all trust.” He said . . . “we should tell them [the U.S.] that we want to be part of a winning strategy, not a losing one. The American strategy is doomed to fail.” . . .

Brigadier Carleton-Smith . . . indicated that the only way forward was to find a political solution that would include the Taleban. . . . Efforts are being focused on the so-called “tier-two” and “tier-three” Taleban, who are perceived to be less ideologically intransigent.

The brigadier said that in the areas where the Government had no control, the Afghan population was “vulnerable to a shifting coalition of Taleban, mad mullahs and marauding militias.” . . .

He said that there had been a government vacuum for 30 years, . . ..

Tom Coghlan in Kabul and Michael Evans, "We can't defeat Taleban, says Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith," The [London] Times, October 6, 2008.

U.S. Army Literally Re-Writes the Book: Mission "Development, Reconstruction and Humanitarian"

The U.S. Army on Monday released a new field manual that for the first time gives nation-building the same top priority as major combat operations in conflicts involving fragile states.

The Stability Operations Field Manual, derived from the Army's experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, provides commanders and other Army personnel with a guide for supporting broader U.S. government efforts to deliver development, reconstruction and humanitarian aid in war-torn nations.

Army officials described the document as a roadmap from conflict to peace. . . .

The manual mirrors a U.S. defense strategy released in July that says military operations should play a supporting role for "soft power" initiatives to undermine militancy by promoting economic, political and social development in vulnerable corners of the world.

"The greatest threats to our national security will not come from emerging ambitious states but from nations unable or unwilling to meet the basic needs and aspirations of their people," the new Army manual states. . . .

"Army issues new manual for nation-building," Reuters, October 6, 2008, 4:44 p.m. ET

Nor are these kinds of judgments limited to the military generals.

British ambassador in Kabul: "The presence -- especially the military presence -- of the coalition is part of the problem, not the solution."

The British ambassador in Kabul thinks the war in Afghanistan is as good as lost and that current US military and economic strategy there is destined to fail . . ..

Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, the UK diplomat involved, is also alleged to have said that the only practical long-term solution was for the West to support "an acceptable dictator" to unite the fractured country.

The diplomatic bombshell . . . came on the same day that the senior American military commander in Afghanistan called on NATO to provide more troops . . . in a counterinsurgency battle he said could get worse before it gets better.

The general's downbeat assessment also coincides with a fresh report by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who expressed dismay that attacks on aid workers have risen in 2008 despite the presence of more allied troops than at any time since the US-led invasion in 2001. . . .

Cowper-Coles [is quoted as saying]: "The current situation is bad. The security situation is getting worse. So is corruption and the government has lost all trust. . . .

"[T]he insurrection, while incapable of winning a military victory, nevertheless has the capacity to make life increasingly difficult, including in the capital.

"The presence -- especially the military presence -- of the coalition is part of the problem, not the solution. The foreign forces are ensuring the survival of a regime which would collapse without them. In doing so, they are slowing down and complicating an eventual exit from the crisis." . . .

Cowper-Coles, 53, was also quoted as saying that while Britain had no alternative to supporting the United States, the Americans should be told to change strategy.

Reinforcing the military presence against the Taliban insurrection would be counter-productive, he said, and allied governments should start preparing public opinion to accept that the only realistic solution for Afghanistan was to be ruled by "an acceptable dictator."

Ian Bruce, "War in Afghanistan Lost, Says UK Diplomat in Leaked Report," The [Glasgow, Scotland] Herald, October 2, 2008; and see Charles Bremner in Paris and Michael Evans, "British Envoy Says Mission in Afghanistan is Doomed, According to Leaked Memo," The [London] Times, October 2, 2008.

National Intelligence Estimate: Afghanistan in "Downward Spiral" Due to "Lack of Leadership" from Bush Administration

A draft report by American intelligence agencies concludes that Afghanistan is in a "downward spiral" and casts serious doubt on the ability of the Afghan government to stem the rise in the Taliban's influence there, according to American officials familiar with the document.

The classified report finds that the breakdown in central authority in Afghanistan has been accelerated by rampant corruption within the government of President Hamid Karzai and by an increase in violence from militants who have launched increasingly sophisticated attacks from havens in Pakistan. . . .

Its conclusions represent a harsh verdict on decision-making in the Bush administration, which in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States made Afghanistan the central focus of a global campaign against terrorism.

Beyond the cross-border attacks launched by militants in neighboring Pakistan, the intelligence report asserts that many of Afghanistan's most vexing problems are of the country's own making, the officials said. . . .

[I]t also laid out in stark terms what it described as the destabilizing impact of the booming heroin trade, which by some estimates accounts for 50 percent of Afghanistan's economy. . . .

Inside the government, reports issued by the Central Intelligence Agency for more than two years have chronicled the worsening violence and rampant corruption inside Afghanistan, and some in the agency say they believe that it has taken the White House too long to respond to the warnings . . . .a "lack of leadership" both at the White House and in European capitals where commitments to rebuild Afghanistan after 2001 have never been met. . . .

The assessment on Afghanistan is the first since the Taliban regained strength there beginning in 2006 and launched an offensive that has allowed them to seize large swaths of territory. . . .

Senior American commanders have recently been blunt in their assessment of the security trends in the country. "In large parts of Afghanistan, we don't see progress," General David McKiernan, the top American officer in Afghanistan, told reporters last week. "We're into a very tough counterinsurgency fight and will be for some time."

It is not just American officials who offer a grim prognosis. A French diplomatic cable leaked to a French newspaper last week quoted the British ambassador to Afghanistan as forecasting that the NATO-led mission there would fail.

"The current situation is bad, the security situation is getting worse, so is corruption, and the government has lost all trust," the British envoy, Sherard Cowper-Coles, was quoted as telling the French deputy ambassador to Kabul, who wrote the cable.

Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt, "U.S. Report Warns of Crisis in Afghanistan," International Herald Tribune, October 9, 2008.

America's interests and role in the world involve a lot more than the overwhelming application of military force. The military itself knows this. Why don't the politicians?

It's time we learned from our wisest military leaders -- and then took up our own responsibilities to let our elected and other officials know how we feel.

What has been attributed to Ghandi is still true: "When the people will lead, their leaders will follow."

Let's lead.

# # #

Global Finance: The Great Fountain Pen Robbery

September 21, 2008, 3:30 p.m.

FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com
Currently Most Popular Blog Entries
"University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08," July 19-present (incorporating and updating original blog entry, "UI Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 9).
"Extra: Stolar Report," September 18 and 19, 2008.
"How Much Do You Owe the Chinese?" September 8, 2008.
"Police Accidental Shootings -- Of Themselves," May 9, 2008.
"Growing Iowa's Economy the Right Way," April 27, 2008.
"Random Thoughts on Law School Rankings," April 29, 2008.
"UI and the ATF II," February 15, 2008.
"Greenbelts for Grandchildren," February 15 and 20, 2008.
"Governor Sarah Palin," September 4, 2008.

And see, Database Index of 500-plus blog entries

The Great Fountain Pen Robbery of 2008
Yesterday I promised "Rational Responses to Stolar and Global Finance," September 20, 2008. I may or may not have satisfied you with the rationality of my response to Stolar. But I left you hanging with regard "global finance," since other things intervened before I could get back to it.

Now I've seldom if ever been charged with being a man of few words -- "turn on a light bulb and he'll make a speech," my critics say -- but the events of the past two weeks (or has it only been one week?) have been so totally appalling that I really am close to speechless.

One can just sputter and scream, of course; but having done that what more is there to say?

I'm wishing we still had Woodie Guthrie around to sing to us about it. Do you remember his "The Ballad of Pretty Boy Floyd" (March 1939)? The last two stanzas of lyrics read:

Yes, as through this world I've wandered
I've seen lots of funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen.

And as through your life you travel,
Yes, as through your life you roam,
You won't never see an outlaw
Drive a family from their home.

Lyrics as reprinted in Woody Guthrie, American Folksong, New York, NY, 1961 (reprint of 1947 edition), p. 27. © 1958 Sanga Music Inc., New York, NY.

T. Boone Pickens has been urging us to convert our cars to run on natural gas to avoid (or at least reduce) the "transfer of wealth" represented by our purchase of foreign oil. As he notes: "Over 700 billion dollars are leaving this country to foreign nations every year . . . The largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind."

Well, ol' T. Boone has just been one upped by Secretary of the Treasury Henry M. Paulson, Jr.

Secretary Paulson -- with the support of President Bush, candidates Senators McCain and Obama, the leadership of the U.S. House and Senate, and the urging of their campaign contributors -- is about to provide "the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the United States," $1.3 trillion, to their wealthy friends in finance, banking and real estate, ultimately to be paid by our grandchildren.

"Campaign contributors"? Yes, campaign contributors. OpenSecrets.org, which tracks this kind of thing for us by industry sectors, has calculated that the "finance, insurance and real estate sector" has been the largest single sector providing support to both McCain and Obama. (It was the leading source of Senator Hillary Clinton's contributions as well.) Massie Ritsch, "Bundlers for McCain, Obama Are Among Wall Street's Tumblers," OpenSecrets.org, September 18, 2008.

How dumb do these bandits think we are? Unlike those who play by the rules of Pretty Boy Floyd, these are outlaws who not only would "Drive a family from their home," they've already done it.

Think about it. We're roughly six weeks from a presidential and congressional election. McCain is having a tough enough time distancing himself from President Bush. He darn sure doesn't want to have to distance himself from President Hoover as well.

Nobody knows the details of what's in Secretary Paulson's $1.3 trillion proposal, or the packages of worthless debt he's offering to buy from his friends. All we know is that (a) we're going to end up paying for it, and (b) he's got a provision in there that no one can oversee or challenge what he does. He himself acknowledges he can't guarantee it will work.

Appropriately, it's a strategy comparable to the "short term gains from long term risks" strategy that the financial geniuses undertook to enrich themselves and impoverish us and create this mess. So long as we aren't dealing with the next "Great Depression" on the day we go to vote -- November 4 -- who cares what happens between then and inauguration day?

If the McCain forces had access to enough troops they could have salvaged this thing by starting a war. See, "Wag the Dog." The Iraq War is going to end up costing us $2 or $3 trillion. But we could wage a third war for far less than this $1.3 trillion bailout if we could get it over with in something between six weeks and six months -- something like the promise regarding Iraq, or the reality with Granada. The problem, as I say, is that we don't have enough troops for the two wars we're already in; and besides with two wars going on a third wouldn't give McCain that much of a bounce in the polls.

So scaring the Congress into capitulation is the best short term strategy for the next six weeks. Anything to keep Obama out of the White House.

Besides, it's a way to pay back those campaign contributors in the coin they know best.

The problem for the taxpayers is the contributors' rate of return. We're used to campaign contributors being given a 1000-to-one to 2000-to-one return on their contributions -- from us, whether as taxpayers or as consumers. That's bad enough. But the payback on this corrupt deal is more like 30,000-to-one.

Warren Buffett has been candid enough to recognize that “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

A $1.3 trillion transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthiest class has got to be a record-setting "shock and awe" attack in class warfare.

Now I'm not saying that there may not be some problems in the financial sector of our economy. I'm not even saying that this unprecedented robbery may not produce some small benefit.

But I do see a lot of hypocrisy when those who've been most vocal in advocating free, unregulated markets -- while ridiculing socialism -- suddenly welcome the latter as an alternative to free private enterprise when their going gets rough.

It really is "heads I win, tails you lose." "If I'm lucky and make a profit, I get to keep it. If I'm not, I still get to keep my profits, salary, bonuses, stock options and golden parachutes, but I don't have to worry about the losses -- because I can just hand them off to you and all the other taxpayers." It's the very sweet deal called "socialism for the rich and free private enterprise for the poor."

By what rationale should taxpayers' money be going onto the bottom line of any for profit business at any time -- whether tax breaks, TIFs, subsidies, earmarks or bailouts? But even if you can answer that one, why should businesses be rewarded by taxpayers for their greed, risky behavior and stupidity when they fail? Isn't that just going to encourage them to continue the path of "short term gains from long term risk"? Whatever happened to Secretary Paulson's observation that "Market discipline is best served when shareholders bear both the risk and the reward of their investment"?

Consider the alternatives -- and what they say about the priorities of our elected officials who are funded by this "finance, insurance and real estate sector."

How else might we have boosted our economy with $1.3 trillion?

o We could have spent it upgrading and building infrastructure: roads and bridges, hospitals and schools -- providing employment for those 600,000 who lost jobs this year, and who would have put most all of that $1.3 trillion to circulating in our economy as well as paying off mortgages and credit card debt.

o We could use it to create T. Boone Pickens' plan: convert our cars, and build the natural gas infrastructure, to run our cars on natural gas -- plus, as he proposes, getting 20% of our energy from wind.

o We could use it to virtually eliminate future economic losses from flooding by moving homes and businesses from floodplains, and converting the floodplains to parks, pastures and prairies.

o As many acknowledge, if you really want to improve our economic position in the world, invest in education: K-12, college, graduate schools, research. The economic return on the post-WW II "GI Bill" (paying for veterans' college education) was enormous. The Sputnik "Defense Education Act" boosted our students' learning and preparation.

o If you want to use it to pay down debt, or eliminate bad debt, give it to those who have the debt: provide relief to those struggling under the weight of near-usurious interest rate credit card debt, buy up their debt, or the debt of those trying to get a college education -- or who got one, now can't find a job, and are unable to pay off their debt.

Now I'm not willing to undertake the burden of demonstrating that these expenditures would be wise either. We need more savings, not more expenditures. There is no secret slush fund from which this $1.3 trillion comes. We have a nearly one-half-trillion additional federal debt (expenditures greater than income) for just this one year. We are running our government, and country, on a credit card we never pay off with loans from the Chinese. The $1.3 trillion payment will run just our current debt to nearly $12 trillion -- the long term, unfunded obligations will now be more like $55 trillion.

No, all I'm saying is that it's kind of obvious what's going on here with this "fountain pen robbery" in terms of priorities and it's shameful.

# # #

Getting in Bed with Bundlers

June 26, 2008, 7:30 a.m., 9:20 a.m. (addition of George Carlin routine)

The Bundling Business
The online Dictionary.com includes the following definition for "bundling":

(esp. of sweethearts during courtship in early New England) to lie in the same bed while fully clothed, as for privacy and warmth in a house where an entire family shared one room with a fireplace.

Indeed, when I was growing up that's the only definition I knew for the word, aside from "a bundle of sticks." There were even "bundle boards" that could be put in beds to further separate the couple.

In today's politics the word means pretty much the same thing -- except the couples are naked and there's no bundle board.

In order to prevent the appearance that PACs, corporations, CEOs, and their lawyers and lobbyists are obtaining untoward influence with elected officials by way of exorbitant campaign contributions, "bundlers" have taken their place. (As the Times editorializes this morning, see below, whether the headline writer chose the words deliberately or not, the candidates are "Snuggling Up to the Bundlers.")

For example, the board of directors of a corporation wishing to influence a president, or senator with the power to affect the corporation's bottom line, might vote to give all of the company's top executives big raises. Thereafter, an individual known to be the designated bundler pays a call on each of them with the request they write out a check for the maximum legal amount ($2300) payable to the candidate's campaign. With 100 executives, that means that (in effect) the corporation is able to send its bundler to a meeting with the candidate, offer him or her $230,000, and remind them where it is coming from. (The same process works with contributions from an industry as distinguished from an individual company -- or for any influence-seeking individual with enough wealthy friends to put him or herself on the team of $100,000 to $1,000,000 bundlers.)

The candidate can honestly say that he or she is not accepting money from PACs, corporations, or lobbyists; their only contributors are individual supporters. But the assertion is a little deceiving, as the Times editorializes this morning:

In his self-serving retreat from the spending restraints of public financing, Senator Barack Obama hailed his formidable Internet army of small donors as “a new kind of politics.” Maybe so. But just in case, the senator is not about to neglect the old politics of special-interest money bundlers in his presidential campaign.

Senator Obama is scheduled to meet Thursday with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her platinum card money raisers. One group specialized in amassing $250,000 packages for the campaign, while another excelled at hitting $1 million jackpots.

Now that Mr. Obama has forsworn the public spending limits that he initially pledged to defend, campaign aides have great expectations for Mrs. Clinton’s bundlers. If Mr. Obama woos and wows them, his aides hope they can generate an extra $75 million in private donations for the Obama campaign in coming weeks.

In Vegas, that’s called covering the board — continuing to work the 1.5 million small-bet donors who helped Mr. Obama set grass-roots records, while attending to the political high rollers, too.

Senator Clinton has her own practical interests for this meeting. Mr. Obama is offering to help her with the $22 million she owes after her campaign went bust.

In real-world politics, none of this is a surprise. But in ideal politics — the realm Mr. Obama often purports to speak for — the meeting could mean another coffin nail for public financing. Senator Obama should at least pledge to make the updating of the public subsidy system a top priority of his first year in the White House.

Senator John McCain — who is also vying for the mantle of reformer in chief — is opting for the public subsidies that begin after the conventions. In the meantime, he is relying on his own flock of special-interest bundlers to raise all the private funds he can.

The voters should not be fooled. They must demand that both candidates explain how they will reform the campaign-finance system so no future candidate has any excuse for going into hock to the bundlers and their special-interest donors.

Editorial, "Snuggling Up to the Bundlers," New York Times, June 26, 2008.

Senator Obama's spin team argue that his flip-flop on public financing of campaigns is of little consequence. After all, they say, he's created an alternative system of public finance: his 1.6 million contributors have removed the special interests' big money, and influence, from campaigns. So what's the big deal?

But the New York Times' concern is shared by Fred Wertheimer, once President of the campaign finance reform group Common Cause who now heads Democracy 21. His Web site carried an article on the subject last September. And here is an excerpt from the NPR story quoting him last Friday:

Obama will be the first candidate of either party ever to turn down public money for the fall campaign. He's counting on his new, Internet-driven strategies for raising cash.

"We've won the Democratic nomination by relying on ordinary people coming together to achieve extraordinary things," he told supporters in a video Thursday.

That's true of Obama's 1.5 million donors today. But Fred Wertheimer, head of the watchdog group Democracy 21, says it didn't start out that way.

In 2007, when Sen. Obama was raising the money that was essential for him to become a serious candidate, "54 percent of his contributions came in contributions of a thousand dollars or more, and much of that money was raised by bundlers," he says

Bundlers are people who solicit friends and colleagues for checks that they bundle for delivery to the campaign. Wertheimer says Obama wouldn't be where he is without them.

"He has not created a parallel system of public financing," he says.

Peter Overby, "Obama Puts Faith in Army of Individual Donors," NPR Morning Edition, June 20, 2008; and see, "Effectiveness of Key 'Bundling' Disclosure Provision in New Lobbying Disclosure Law Depends on FEC Implementation," Democracy 21, September 20, 2007.

Ironically, the article notes that not only did Obama support public financing before he decided not to, he and Senator Russ Feingold actually sponsored legislation to prevent what he subsequently decided to go ahead and do.

For balance, let me make clear that what Senator John McCain did (accept public financing for purposes of getting a bank loan, and then, once the bank loan was obtained, reject public financing) is even worse, and as the Times notes he's as deeply indebted to the bundlers and those for whom they speak as Obama -- and probably much more so.

Hillary's Debt. There's a lot at least bizarre, and even troubling, about Senator Obama's efforts to help Senator Clinton pay off her debt.

(1) It makes it look like her support is being bought. Coupled with President Bill Clinton's (a) 17-day-delayed, (b) very limp, (c) "support" of Obama, (d) not even spoken by him, but offered only through a "spokesperson, I don't think it reflects favorably on any of them.

(2) It's kind of like people who repeatedly rebuild on floodplains asking the taxpayers to either buy their houses or help them rebuild. (a) Virtually all independent political observers acknowledge that Clinton's campaign was very poorly managed when it came to expenditures -- among other things. (b) Much of her debt was a result of continuing her campaign way beyond the time when it made any real sense to do so. That's something she had a perfect right to do; that's not the issue; the issue is whether it is now anyone's responsibility but hers to pay for the added costs, and now debt, that those decisions created. (c) Why is she more entitled to this "bailout" from donors than a mis-managed corporation is entitled to a bailout from taxpayers?

(3) The distinctions between the "debt" to herself (and her husband) and the debt to third parties is bogus (though legally significant). Money is fungible; money is money. It's like someone asking you to borrow $2000 for an "emergency" transmission repair because, after all, they "have to get to work," when they've just spent $3000 on an ocean cruise. Your $2000 loan goes into a pot and can as well be thought of as paying for two-thirds of the cruise as for the entirety of the transmission repair. She has an ability to raise on her own some fixed amount of money; to the extent others pay off the third-party debt they have enabled her to keep more of what she can raise on her own as a "repayment" of the debt she owes herself.

Why I'm Supporting Obama My interest in Michelle and Senator Barack Obama goes well beyond his simply winning the election in November. It is mostly focused on what he does with the presidency thereafter. I point up problems that I see at this time because after the election it's really too late.

We know what he's asking of us: money, and enthusiastic political activist support.

And the bundlers have made clear to him what it is they are asking for in return for their support.

[After writing this morning I was looking through State29's tribute to George Carlin, who he says provided some inspiration for State29's standard of "insightfully vulgar" commentary, and came upon this video of one of Carlin's routines. If you find Carlin's version of "insightfully vulgar" to be offensive I'd urge you to skip it. Otherwise, I find it a much more effective, sharp and to the point, way of putting what I'm trying to say. Start at 1:30 into the routine and run to the end. Enjoy.]



If Senator Obama's 1.6 million non-bundling supporters are simply taken for granted, if we follow him like lemmings to the sea -- only then to discover that he cannot walk on water after all -- if we let him take our votes for granted, it is only the bundlers whose wishes will be granted.

I believe his supporters need to make clear to him, now, what it is we are asking of him: Why it is we care about FISA, letting phone companies off the hook when they spy on us illegally, the inequities of NAFTA, public financing of campaigns, restrictions on bundling, universal single-payer health care, getting our troops out of Iraq -- whatever is important to you. I want his political courage, his leadership, in pushing the politically difficult causes that require him to take, and hold, a stand -- including when he needs to take a stand against the interests of his bundlers.

I am perfectly capable of performing a cheerleader's role with regard to Obama. But I don't think he needs that; he's demonstrated a very, very impressive ability to produce plenty of that.

What I think the campaign needs is to be reminded of the price it pays as it veers towards the center, and the right, and abandons those changes "we can believe in," and with them the enthusiasm of those who were attracted to what they thought really was something different in American politics.

Some 80% of Americans think our country is on the wrong track. Scarcely more than 20% identify themselves as Republicans. President Bush's approval ratings are below 30%.

And yet, in most recent polls, Obama leads McCain by no more than 3-6%. (The Newsweek poll is an outlier at 15%.) This election is Obama's to lose. And he could lose it. It will not be a slam dunk. The points I, and others, are raising should be taken seriously, not dismissed as "opposition" when they are, in fact, the strongest form of support.

Do I Criticize McCain?

So why don't I criticize McCain? I have and I do.

But for the same reason parents take more interest in optimizing the behavior of their own children than that of the neighbors' children, I have little interest at this point in time in helping McCain win his election.

I was criticized recently for not "beating up on McSame." Nicholas Johnson, "Holding Obama's Feet to the Fireside Chat," June 24. Here's what I replied:

I am certainly not a McCain supporter, and while I would not consider the things I've written about him as "beating up on" him I rather imagine he might.

At one point both Clinton and Obama supporters were saying that if their candidate did not receive the nomination they were going to vote for McCain. Among my responses was Nicholas Johnson, "Before You Actually Vote for McCain," April 30, 2008. In it I noted how the media were holding Obama and McCain to different standards. I discussed, and linked to, stories regarding his "anger problem." I included excerpts from MoveOn.org's well documented "10 Things You Should Know About John McCain but Probably Don't." And I had excerpts from Harold Meyerson's hilarious but scary "McCain on the Red Phone."

I can't know if the author of the comment would find that an adequate response to "Why not beat up on McSame? That would serve the country better." But it comes about as close as anything I'm likely to write.

What Happened to "Promises We Can Believe In"? The blog entry that brought forth the critical comment was Nicholas Johnson, "Change We Can No Longer Believe In," June 22, 2008. Now I would never suggest that any blog entry of mine would even be read by an Obama campaign worker, let alone influence a change in the campaign's direction. In fact, the change I'm about to note may well have been in place before that entry was written.

But I did notice in a televised news item yesterday that the sign on the front of Senator Obama's podium no longer offered "change we can believe in." It now merely represents that the change he promises is "change that works for you." Here's the video. "Barack 'Confident,'" ABC World News, June 25, 2008.

The candidate and his campaign are to be commended for the candor represented by the retirement of "change we can believe in." But its replacement is still, at this point in time, in need of the same verification as its predecessor.

# # #

Holding Obama's Feet to the Fireside Chat

June 24, 2008, 7:45 a.m.

More on Believing in Change
Yesterday I commented about some problems I thought Senator Barack Obama was creating for himself. Nicholas Johnson, "Change We Can No Longer Believe In," June 22, 2008 (a play on his campaign slogan, "Change We Can Believe In").

It produced a number of comments. [And you might also want to take a look at State29, "What Are Headed Towards 'Divorce, Default, and Defeat?'" June 22, 2008 (pointing out -- with videos in Obama's own words -- his shifts with regard to the Iraq War); and State29, "Why I Hate Barack Obama," June 21, 2008 (charging Obama -- unfairly I believe -- with "race bating").]

Today I'm going to respond to one of the comments following yesterday's blog entry as a way of trying to clarify what I thought I was, and was not, saying.

Yes, I know, this is very unusual for me. I run an open blog. I receive, and leave posted, critical comments -- as a practical application of my theoretical beliefs about the First Amendment, the Fairness Doctrine, and what I have called "the separation of content and conduit." The only ones I remove are those that attempt an inappropriate use of this blog as a billboard to advertise a product or service. Nor do I normally carry on the discussion, or otherwise respond to comments, in the comments section. I figure I've had my say, and the comments deserve to speak for themselves.

So my response this morning is not an effort to engage in a she-said-he-said, 'tis-'t'aint ongoing exchange to prove that I'm "right" and someone else is "wrong." It's simply an introductory way into a little more commentary by me about yesterday's blog entry.

The comment reads as follows:

These are the right-wing talking points. I can't believe you're falling for them! Obama is going to do everything he can to make sure we do not have a third Bush administration. This is worth a few necessary sacrifices. Personally, I am thrilled to finally have a candidate who is committed to winning, knows how to do it, and who doesn't foolishly hand the country over to the evil Republicans at his first opportunity. Please don't do the Republicans' work for them. Why not beat up on McSame? That would serve the country better.

Supportive-Constructive vs. Partisan-Mean-Spirited Criticism. During Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign I pointed out that she was not doing her campaign a favor by emphasizing her superior "35 years of experience," and having passed the "commander-in-chief test," including "traveling to 80 countries" and risking her life to sniper fire.

Why? Well, because there was no meaningful distinction between the amount of presidentially-qualifying life experience she'd had since law school and that of Senators Obama and McCain (all of whom were devoid of the range of experience one would hope for in a president -- such as that of Governor Bill Richardson or the first President Bush), when both of whom had more years of legislative experience than she did, there was nothing in 11,000 pages of White House records to indicate her significant involvement in decisions, and there was videotape documenting the absence of sniper fire.

I believe there is some evidence that my judgment was right, and that what was perceived by voters to be "politics as usual," her attempting to claim something that could not withstand analysis, did in fact do her much more harm than good during the primary elections and caucuses.

It was in a similar spirit -- I thought -- that I was pointing out what I believed to be a self-defeating move by the Obama campaign. I noted that when a candidate chooses to raise the electorate's expectations to incredible heights with promises of "change" in Washington, and getting rid of "the old politics" of corporate control, resulting in Independents and young people flocking to his or her side by the millions, they have created a much higher platform from which to fall from grace.

What he has created is a very precious and fragile asset that can very quickly disappear when and if supporters get a sense that the "change" he has promised is no longer a change they can "believe in."

These are not "yellow dog Democrats" (voters who are so loyal to the Democratic Party they would vote for an old yellow dog if it was in the Democrats' column on the ballot). Many of his supporters are Independents in fact as well as name, and young, first-time voters who have no "party loyalty" whatsoever at this stage of their political life.

On the one hand it is unfair to hold Senator Obama to a higher standard than other candidates; on the other hand, it is a standard he has created and chosen to run on -- like Senator Clinton claiming that we should vote for her because of her "superior experience."

So why, you might fairly ask, do I choose to offer the Obama campaign this advice by way of a blog entry rather than a private communication? Because this is the most effective means available to me, however feeble it may be, to get a message to the campaign. (So far as I know, the Obama Web site, http://www.barackobama.com/index.php offers no way for supporters to interact with the campaign staff -- unless they want to send money.)

Was I Right? Last evening alone -- just based on what I read and saw in the media -- I was far from the only person expressing these concerns. Senator Obama's flips on public financing of campaigns and other issues was a topic, or the subject of comments, from a number of sources one would assume lean in favor of Obama: Keith Olbermann, KOS, MoveOn.org, and Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" (which led with ridicule of him in this "Indecision 2008 - Finance Reform" video). (See from minute 1:43-2:57 in the video below.)



These are just what I happened upon; I haven't researched to see how much more there is.

So I scarcely think that, had I refrained from yesterday's blog entry, Senator Obama would have been spared this criticism -- not to mention what he got for his, now withdrawn, premature presidential seal.

John Nichols gives Obama the following advice in the current (July 7, 2008) issue of The Nation regarding one of the "change we can no longer believe in" topics I mentioned yesterday: his moves toward a more favorable view of NAFTA.

Obama also told Fortune that he no longer believes in unilaterally reopening NAFTA and earned praise from the magazine for "toning down his populist rhetoric." If he keeps this up, Obama will also receive a thank-you note from John McCain, a militant supporter of free trade, a position that ought to hurt him in states like Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, where surveys show widespread anti-free trade sentiments. Only if Obama goes soft on trade issues will McCain have a serious chance to win over these disgruntled working-class voters. Unfortunately, Obama seems to be doing just that. It's a mistake Democrats like Al Gore and John Kerry have made in the past.

Note that neither Nichols nor I are talking about the merits of free trade or NAFTA. We are talking about both how to win elections and how and why Democrats continue to lose them -- by promising to represent the interests of the working class, and then switching positions to please the interests of corporations and the richest 1/10th of 1% of campaign donors.

"Right Wing Talking Points." I don't really believe these are "right wing talking points" -- "not that there's anything wrong with that" (to quote a Seinfeld line). If the right wing is attacking Obama in ways that are cutting into his support it would seem to me that pointing that out to the Obama campaign is doing the campaign a favor, rather than doing it a harm for which the messenger should be shot.

But who is it, truly, John Nichols and I or Senator Obama who "do the Republicans' work for them"?

It is Obama who is moving toward the Republicans' position on NAFTA. It is Obama who says he supports the Bush Administration's position on FISA and immunity for the telephone companies that illegally spied on Americans. Isn't that doing "the Republicans work for them"?

And how do our comments echo "right wing talking points"? Are Republicans complaining about Obama's shifts to more right wing positions on free trade and civil rights violations? I don't think so.

"Why not beat up on McSame" and "the evil Reublicans"? In fact, while I try to keep this blog relatively balanced (I've done a very favorable piece about Governor Mike Huckabee), as a result of doing so probably more of the entries would be said to "favor Obama" than any of the other candidates -- simply because he has, so far, offered less of which I was critical and much I found inspirational.

Governor Huckabee, asked if he really considered himself a "conservative," replied something along these lines: "Of course I'm a conservative; I'm just not angry about it." (That attitude is a part of what I find attractive about him -- notwithstanding the fact we probably disagree on every issue he's spoken to, including evolution.)

Well, I'm not "angry about it" either. I've never (so far as I now recall) referred to the Republicans as "evil." I have friends I enjoy talking politics with who are Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Green Party members, Naderites, and the old Kucinich gang -- and lots of Independents who are disgusted with both the national Democratic and Republican Parties -- all of whom have something to offer to the national dialog (and my own thinking). During the 2007-2008 Iowa primary I had some personal interaction with, and tried to be helpful in one way or another to, virtually all of the Democratic candidates.

So I'm not really very interested in "beating up on" much of anybody -- including those "evil Republicans."

On the other hand, I am certainly not a McCain supporter, and while I would not consider the things I've written about him as "beating up on" him I rather imagine he might.

At one point both Clinton and Obama supporters were saying that if their candidate did not receive the nomination they were going to vote for McCain. Among my responses was Nicholas Johnson, "Before You Actually Vote for McCain," April 30, 2008. In it I noted how the media were holding Obama and McCain to different standards. I discussed, and linked to, stories regarding his "anger problem." I included excerpts from MoveOn.org's well documented "10 Things You Should Know About John McCain but Probably Don't." And I had excerpts from Harold Meyerson's hilarious but scary "McCain on the Red Phone."

I can't know if the author of the comment would find that an adequate response to "Why not beat up on McSame? That would serve the country better." But it comes about as close as anything I'm likely to write.

"A few necessary sacrifices." Notwithstanding Senator Obama being labeled "one of" -- if not "the" -- most "liberal" U.S. senators, the fact is that his positions are far indeed from those of a Senator Russ Feingold, Congressman Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader. He has failed to vote on some potentially presidential-campaign-impeding issues. He has shown a willingness to switch positions from "liberal" to "Republican."

All presidents respond to pressure. The most public spirited actually seek out and encourage the public and media pressure that will make it possible for them to get Congress to do the right thing.

In my forthcoming book, Are We There Yet?, I relate the following:

The anecdote is told of President Franklin Roosevelt telling advocates of progressive ideas, in effect, “I agree with you. Now you go out there and make me do it” – at least with Frances Perkins (Social Security) and A. Philip Randolph (civil rights legislation), and probably many more. His point, of course, was a variant of the old adage, “When the people will lead their leaders will follow.” It’s very difficult to pass legislation over the opposition of the special interests without overwhelming popular awareness, involvement and support.

I have been, and remain, hopeful that Senator Obama, as president, will follow President Roosevelt's example. I base this on a conversation I had with Obama, his experience as a community organizer, his 50-state-strategy in the primary and now the general election campaign, his rejection of PAC and corporate money, and creation of roughly 1.5 million small contributors (and presumably the email addresses of even more supporters).

But that strategy, his strategy (if such it be), requires much from us. And so I say, "Ask not what a President Obama can do for you; ask what you can do for a President Obama."

And we best start now.

After he's elected it's too late. It is not enough, to quote from the comment, that he "is committed to winning [and] knows how to do it." Winning is not, to respectfully disagree with football coach Vince Lombardi and yesterday's author of the comment, "the only thing." "There are," as Senator Joe Biden said on one occasion in Iowa City, "some things worth losing an election for."

If a President Obama is to truly follow President Roosevelt's example it is not enough that we support his policies when he asks; he must also support our positions and policies when we ask. And the earlier we get about it the better -- for us, for him, and for our country.

Aside from giving him some advice yesterday on how to best win this election, that was all I was about.

# # #

Process: Parental Leave & Project Vote Smart

May 1, 2008, 12:15 p.m.; May 3, 2008, 8:00 p.m. (electoral vote update)

What Do Parental Leave, Project Vote Smart,
and the Electoral College Have in Common?
Click to go directly to:

Electoral College
Project Vote Smart
Parental Leave

Electoral College. In Nicholas Johnson, "It's the Electoral College, Stupid!" April 22, 2008, I wrote,

"In point of fact, none of this [Senators Clinton's and Obama's shares of elected and super delegates, popular votes, or states "won"] matters.

What matters are electoral votes. Just as the delegate count is how the Democratic Party's rules provide for the nomination of a presidential candidate (though there is some remaining argument about the appropriate degree of independence super-delegates can properly exercise), so do the electoral college votes determine who gets elected president.

In short, the question is not how Clinton and Obama do when running against each other, the question -- for those who put "winning" first in their selection of a nominee -- is how each will do running against Senator McCain in November.

Since then, using the latest polling data from each state, I've put together my own spreadsheet of states, their electoral votes, and in match ups between Obama-McCain and Clinton-McCain who gets a given state's electoral votes.

As you might suspect, there are some states that will be won by either Clinton or Obama -- or lost to McCain -- regardless of who the Democrats' nominee may be, and some where the nominee makes a difference. Other states are too close to call -- for either Obama or Clinton, or for both.

Obviously, what folks say to pollsters in February, March and April is of only limited predictive value in guessing what they'll do in casting a secret ballot in November. But it's of some use, especially if you toss out (as I have) those instances in which the polls indicate it's pretty close. (There are many sources of this data; the one I relied on mostly is Electoral-vote.com.)

Anyhow, at this point in time (May 1):

(1) All the states have 540 electoral votes; so it takes 270 (or 271) to win.

(2) Deleting the results in states too close to call, or won by McCain, Senator Obama is now leading in states with 213 electoral votes and Senator Clinton in states with 194.

(3) Senator McCain wins states with 172 electoral votes running against Obama, and wins 268 electoral votes running against Clinton.

May 3 Update: Incorporating the data from Rasmussen Reports into the spreadsheet of what I already had from Electoral-vote.com the match-ups now indicate Senator Obama would have 229 to McCain's 196, and Senator Clinton would have 181 to his 322.

Again, to remind, in addition to polls' weaknesses as predictors of future events, they also change over time; a couple weeks from now we'll have some new and different numbers. Moreover, we still have more primaries to go -- most immediately, Indiana and North Carolina next Tuesday, May 6.

Project Vote Smart. In a 2004 Des Moines Register op ed I wrote,

Some candidates complain about the media's focus on elections as a horse race. They're right -- there isn't much issues coverage. But when candidates are invited by Project Vote Smart to disclose their positions on issues via the Internet, it might surprise you to find out who refuses.

Nicholas Johnson, "Election as a Civics Class," Des Moines Register, November 6, 2004.

In 2006 I blogged,

Taking a stand.

The Gazette editorialized the other day about Project Vote Smart's National Political Awareness Test. It's a non-partisan, "good government" effort to provide voters information about the positions of their candidates for public office. (The organization's page for Iowans is here.) Editorial, "Voters Want to Know," The Gazette, August 31, 2006.

The Gazette reports that "Both major political parties are advising candidates not to take the test. Party officials say the candidates will lose control of their campaign messages and they will be exposed to opposition research." That's one awful commentary about our major political parties -- both of them. What's worse, for a Democrat, is who did, and who did not, take "the test."

The Republican candidate for Iowa governor, Congressman Jim Nussle, did. The Democratic candidate, Secretary of State Chet Culver, did not. Moreover, apparently he has always refused to take it even as Secretary of State.

Republican incumbent Congressman Jim Leach not only takes the test, he was actually one of the founding board members for the organization. His Democratic Party challenger, Dave Loebsack, has so far refused to take it. [Note: (May 1) He subsequently responded to the criticism and took the test.]

Nicholas Johnson, "Taking a Stand" in "It's Getting Harder to be a Democrat," September 1, 2006.

This morning The Gazette is back on the topic again:

[S]adly, the number of state legislative and congressional candidates who took the Iowa version of the national survey, carefully composed by the respected Project Vote Smart organization, has dropped steadily over the past decade. In 1996, 40 percent of Iowa’s candidates for state legislative offices took the survey. In 2006, a paltry 7 percent did so. As for congressional candidates, two-thirds responded in 1996 but just one-third . . . did in 2006. The response rates from Iowa candidates are among the nation’s lowest. . . .

[W]hy do the vast majority of candidates refuse to participate?

Most cite pressure from their political parties and professional advisers, who tell candidates not to answer questions about positions on issues because opponents may use the information against them.

Oh. ... Then it seems they’re telling us that running for office is only about winning — that taking a position on major issues affecting their constituents isn’t important to the campaign process.

Not much courage in that.

Editorial, "The Courage to Take a Position," The Gazette, May 1, 2008, p. A4.

I wish The Gazette, I, and the many others including the Project Vote Smart folks who are trying to do something about all this could have a greater impact, rather than having to raise the issue every two years.

I'll have some suggestions at the end of this section, but as for this morning I'm feeling pretty much the same way I did when I wrote,

"Ya don't play-a da game . . . ya don't make-a da rules"

That was the reaction the Des Moines Register's beloved humor columnist Donald Kaul once offered to those religious leaders who practice celibacy but want to regulate the sexual behavior of everyone else. (Kaul's still writing; see Minuteman Media.) . . .

I've expressed in this blog my disappointment with Democrats (and Republicans) who refuse to disclose their positions on the issues to Project Vote Smart and others. See, "Taking a Stand" in Nicholas Johnson, "It's Getting Harder to Be a Democrat," September 1, 2006.

Elections are an opportunity for "continuing education" on the public policy choices confronting our country. See, Nicholas Johnson, "Election as a Civics Class," Des Moines Register, November 6, 2004. Project Vote Smart exists to encourage that education and public dialog. See, Project Vote Smart.

President Clinton said something to the effect that "we have more problems than we deserve, and more solutions than we've ever tried." However important you may think the issues of "God, guns and gays," or the "war on terrorism" (and Iraq), may be, there is a lot more we need to talk about.

There's no room to list everything, but universal health care (and basic public health measures), reversing the ever-increasing multi-trillion-dollar debt and adverse balance of trade, energy policy (including global warming), and attempting to rebuild positive international relations come immediately to mind as examples.

When candidates deliberately try to avoid the "teachable moments" provided by the campaign season, when they demonstrate their willingness to put their own election or re-election above the interests of the nation (or state), they are doing all of us a grave injustice -- if not, indeed, demonstrating their lack of qualifications to hold office.

At a minimum, when they refuse to participate in Project Vote Smart they should at least have the decency not to attempt to use to their partisan advantage the positions of their opponents who have participated.

"Ya don't play-a da game, ya don't make-a da rules."

Nicholas Johnson, "Ya don't play-a da game . . . ya don't make-a da rules," September 6, 2006.

So what can we do?

We can write letters to the editor of our local papers, urging them to use their much longer and stronger levers of power to pry participation out of our local candidates.

We can write the candidates themselves, and ask them in open meetings why they haven't participated.

We can help support the work of Project Vote Smart.

And given The Gazette's commendable focus on this issue over time, I'd like to politely suggest that it might want to turn some reporters' resources, and space in the paper, to reporting -- by name -- which candidates are refusing to participate, along with the positions on the issues of those who do.

Parental Leave. The University of Iowa has created (or expanded) its leave-with-pay policies for new parents. It's not necessary for me to get into the details for purposes of this commentary (which is fortunate, since I don't claim to understand them). State29, "Be Bold," May 1, 2008, does that -- and suggests the policy should be extended from the first six months of life to the first 18 years.

Intuitively it strikes me as, at worst, an acceptable idea. UI professors will still do some research and writing from home (which is supposed to be roughly half of what they're getting paid for anyway); it will help retain faculty; and it's undoubtedly good for the kids. On the other hand, someone will have to be hired to teach their classes, and there are some equity issues if the perk is not given to all UI employees.

No, the aspect of this I want to address is "governance," the relationship between the Regents and the UI administration, the "process."

Once the new members of the Board of Regents had been installed, and the disastrous year of searching for a new UI president was rapidly coming to any end, I wrote them an "open letter" with some suggestions about "governance." Nicholas Johnson, "An Open Letter to Regents on 'Governance'" in "UI Held Hostage Day 451 - Open Letter to Regents," April 17, 2007.

The way this faculty leave issue has been handled indicates to me that it may well be possible that there's still a little more work to be done by both sides with regard to their "governance model."

Former Regents' President Michael Gartner is reported to have sent an email to the current President, David Miles, indicating that Gartner first learned of this decision from the newspapers and that, in his opinion, it should have been discussed and approved by the Regents before being implemented: "I would like to raise the issue of process: Should a far-reaching policy such as this first be approved . . . by the Board of Regents?" Brian Morelli, "Regent Questions New UI Leave Policy for Parents; Raises Concerns About Whether It Sets Bad Precedent," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 1, 2008, p. A1.

UI President Sally Mason took a different view of the process:

[She] said the policy codified what has existed in the operations manual at UI for the past eight years. Some departments have been allowing the modified duties already, and staff and 12-month tenure-track faculty already have reaped the benefits as well, she said. The new policy only applies to nine-month time tenure-track faculty, she said.

Mason said she didn't mind if the regents wanted to discuss the policy or have it explained to them, but she did not expect them to intervene.

"It would be interesting, perhaps precedent-setting, if they get involved at this level. It would be a little curious," Mason said.

Brian Morelli, "Regent Questions New UI Leave Policy for Parents; Raises Concerns About Whether It Sets Bad Precedent," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 1, 2008, p. A1, A6.

The Gazette reports, "Regarding that policy, UI officials said it was their understanding the change needed only internal administrative approval at the university. Mason said UI officials checked with the regents’ office about the policy before moving forward with it." Diane Heldt, "New UI Policy Prompts Broader Benefit Questions," May 1, 2008, p. B3.

And,

"Susan Johnson, the U of I's associate provost, told the Register that she did not think the university's policy change required the regents' approval.

"For many years, university policy has authorized modifications of employee work schedules and duties to help reduce conflict with parental obligations," Johnson said.

Lisa Rossi, "Regent suggests that U of I acted too quickly," Des Moines Register, May 1, 2008.

So now let's see what we have here. A Regent would like to have the policy discussed and approved by the Regents. An associate provost "did not think" the policy required Regents' approval. Unnamed "UI officials said it was their understanding the change needed only internal administrative approval." Apparently the UI President felt the governance relationship with the Regents was such that it was necessary that "officials checked with the regents’ office about the policy before moving forward with it" and that, having done so, "she did not expect them to intervene." She also thought relevant the fact that related policies had been a part of UI regulations for eight years.

Now there are many approaches to governance besides that of John Carver -- though his is widely used and is very good in my experience. See, Nicholas Johnson, "Board Governance: Theory and Practice," with links to full text of some of John Carver's writing. It's probably not so important which governance model is used by a board-CEO as that the matter of governance has been thought through and some model established.

Carver talks in terms of "ends policies;" what most of us would call "measurable goals." Figuring out what those should be for a university, not to mention a statewide system of universities, is not easy; it's the kind of thing that makes your head hurt if you do it right. We're not talking about vague, general "strategic plans" or "mission statements." If you're interested in what we are talking about read Carver.

Carver says most boards (and he's worked with everything from NGOs to Fortune 500 corporate boards to school boards) are somewhere along a continuum from "micro-managing" to "rubber-stamping" when, in his view, there's no proper place along that continuum for them to be. Much of the literature, in his view, just explains to boards -- which he calls "incompetent groups of competent people" -- how to do the wrong things better.

It's tough to summarize more than one book in less than one paragraph. But I'll try anyway. A major part of his model is that it is the board's responsibility to come up with the "ends policies" (measurable goals) and then the CEO's responsibility to figure out how to achieve them. Those ends policies are both the CEO's job description and the standards by which her or his annual performance is evaluated.

Otherwise expressed, this creates a relationship in which the board says to the CEO, "go until we say stop," instead of "stop until we say go." There are "executive limitations" established by the board. But so long as the ends are attained, and the limitations are not violated, it's totally up to the CEO to choose the means.

How would such an approach have applied in this instance?

I think Gartner was right to "spot the issue" -- the governance ambiguity. But, without knowing more, my instinct would be to have ends policies such that the details of faculty leave policies would probably be considered "means" for a CEO (i.e., in this instance the UI president) rather than something for the Regents to address in an ends policy.

Were the ends policies clearly laid out, a Regent would know that this is not a matter with which Regents need concern themselves. An associate provost would not have to think, she would know that the administration did, or did not, have authority to move ahead. Officials would not be acting merely on their understanding. The President would not need to have an aide contact the Regents before implementing the new policy, nor think that because the university had already done something similar that therefore this variation need not come from the Regents.

So let me repeat, I do not think the policy is substantively flawed, nor that the Regents should have discussed and approved it before it was implemented. That's not what I'm writing about -- one way or the other.

All I'm suggesting is that it would be smoother and more efficient and effective for everyone involved if a governance policy had been clearly and precisely thought through, articulated, put to paper, and followed.

This faculty leave policy change just seemed to me a useful case study of that "process," of governance models (and their absence) -- not because it was an example of the results of necessarily erroneous administrative decisions.

Process. So today's theme is "process." Process in evaluating the progress of primaries and elections, process in making it possible for voters to know something of their candidates' positions, and process in board-CEO relationships.

# # #

Before You Actually Vote for McCain

April 30, 2008, 6:30, 9:15 a.m.

If Senator McCain Had Opponents
Senator John McCain is coming to Iowa tomorrow (Thursday, May 1). With increasingly angry Clinton and Obama supporters threatening to vote for McCain if their favored candidate is not nominated at the Democratic National Convention, it's time this blog gives a little more attention to the Republicans' choice before he lands in Des Moines.
_______________
But first, have you begun to notice how the media and politicians seem to be holding Senator Obama to a different standard?

Take that matter of the flag lapel pin. Senator Obama is charged with being un-American, unpatriotic, and probably a supporter of terrorists and our other enemies because he doesn't wear one.

Now don't get me wrong. I love the flag as much as anyone, salute, say the Pledge of Allegiance, sing the Star Spangled Banner, participate in flying the flag on Memorial Day and appreciate those who put flags at veterans' graves that day.

But I've never been a big supporter of flag lapel pins. To me they just seem a little phony; a little too much "in your face;" as if putting a pin in your lapel (or a magnetic "support the troops" ribbon on your car) is somehow the equivalent of serving in the military.

I don't think attending church services makes you a Christian, and I don't think wearing a pin makes you a patriot. There are more substantive and meaningful ways in which one can demonstrate patriotism.

Beside, when I was a kid -- if I remember my Boy Scout "respect the flag" training properly -- there were laws that prohibited reproductions of the American Flag -- whether in signs or in pins. So it may actually be illegal to wear one.

In any event, they were big during the Nixon years, and my fellow FCC commissioners all (as I recall) wore them. Rather than protest by merely going without a pin of my own, I decided on a different strategy. I shopped for, and finally found and bought, the biggest, most garish, rhinestone-encrusted flag lapel pin in Washington. I wore it proudly each day. Gradually, over the next couple of weeks, my colleagues started leaving theirs in their sock drawers at home, until I was the only one sufficiently "patriotic" to wear one. Then, having achieved my purpose, I removed mine as well.

So I suppose I'm biased about flag lapel pins; I don't consider the failure to wear one a disqualifying character flaw in a presidential candidate.

But that's not my point.

My point is that neither Senator McCain nor Senator Clinton are wearing one either! Doesn't anyone else see the hypocrisy of their supporters criticizing Obama for doing (or, in this case, not doing) the very same thing as their favorite candidate?

Or what about their efforts to hang Pastor Jeremiah Wright's every outburst around Senator Obama's neck? What part of "No, those are not my views" don't they understand? And why are Senators Clinton and McCain seemingly immune from responsibility for the equally (or more) outrageous views of their ministers, lobbyists, and campaign contributors?

Once again the Press-Citizen's Bob Patton has saved me from having to write, and you from having to read, hundreds of words to make a point he can put in a single editorial cartoon.



Bob Patton, "Hatorade on Parade: Extremist Speech, A Study in Black and White," Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 30, 2008, p. A12, posted April 29, 2008, 4:44 p.m.

In case the reproduced text is too small to make out, over the caption "Extremist Speech: A Study in Black and White," there is a small black panel and a much larger white panel. In the black panel is "Jeremiah Wright" carrying a sign reading "After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 'America's chickens are coming home to roost.'" In the white panel are, from left to right, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, John Hagee and Rush Limbaugh -- each with an "OK" ribbon awarded them. Their signs read, in the same order (Hagee has two): "9-11 was caused by 'the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians," "I totally concur," "Jewish 'disobedience' caused the Holocaust . . . Those who live by the Islamic Qur'an are mandated to kill Christians" and "Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment against New Orleans for gays and sin," "There should be riots at the Dems' convention in Denver."
_______________
Meanwhile, while Senator Obama is spending much of his time and skill evading these knives thrown by the media and Senators Clinton and McCain, Senator McCain -- with no remaining primary opponents -- seems to have little to dodge except his own statements, including those expressed with a seemingly uncontrollable anger. Michael Leahy, "McCain: A Question of Temperment," Washington Post, April 20, 2008, p. A1; Michael Gerson,"McCain's Anger Management," Washington Post, April 23, 2008, p. A21.

Sensing this vacuum, the MoveOn.org staff decided to begin the task of filling it. (And don't forget to check out State29, "10 Things You Should Know About John McCain," April 30, 2008, in his effort to do MoveOn.org one better.) And thus was created MoveOn.org's . . .

10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't)
. . . complete with footnotes.

1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws.1

2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."2

3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.3

4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."4

5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.5

6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.6

7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."7

8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.8

9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."9

10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.10

John McCain is not who the Washington press corps make him out to be.

Sources:

1. "The Complicated History of John McCain and MLK Day," ABC News, April 3, 2008 http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/
2008/04/the-complicated.html

"McCain Facts," ColorOfChange.org, April 4, 2008
http://colorofchange.org/mccain_facts/

2. "McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on Russia, China, Iraq," Bloomberg News, March 12, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/
news?pid=20601103&sid=aF28rSCtk0ZM&refer=us

"Buchanan: John McCain 'Will Make Cheney Look Like Gandhi,'" ThinkProgress, February 6, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/06/buchanan-gandhi-mccain/

3. "McCain Sides With Bush On Torture Again, Supports Veto Of Anti-Waterboarding Bill," ThinkProgress, February 20, 2008 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/mccain-torture-veto/

4. "McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned," MSNBC, February 18, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147/

5. "2007 Children's Defense Fund Action Council® Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard," February 2008
http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/
PageServer?pagename=act_learn_scorecard2007

"McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion," CNN, October 3, 2007
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/mccain.interview/

6. "Beer Executive Could Be Next First Lady," Associated Press, April 3, 2008
http://ap.google.com/article/
ALeqM5h-S1sWHm0tchtdMP5LcLywg5ZtMgD8VQ86M80

"McCain Says Bank Bailout Should End `Systemic Risk,'" Bloomberg News, March 25, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/
news?pid=20601087&sid=aHMiDVYaXZFM&refer=home

7. "Will McCain's Temper Be a Liability?," Associated Press, February 16, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4301022

"Famed McCain temper is tamed," Boston Globe, January 27, 2008
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/
2008/01/27/famed_mccain_temper_is_tamed/

8. "Black Claims McCain's Campaign Is Above Lobbyist Influence: 'I Don't Know What The Criticism Is,'" ThinkProgress, April 2, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/02/mccain-black-lobbyist/

"McCain's Lobbyist Friends Rally 'Round Their Man," ABC News, January 29, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4210251

9. "McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam," Mother Jones Magazine, March 12, 2008
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/
2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html

"Will McCain Specifically 'Repudiate' Hagee's Anti-Gay Comments?," ThinkProgress, March 12, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/
2008/03/12/mccain-hagee-anti-gay/

"McCain 'Very Honored' By Support Of Pastor Preaching 'End-Time Confrontation With Iran,'" ThinkProgress, February 28, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/28/
hagee-mccain-endorsement/

10. "John McCain Gets a Zero Rating for His Environmental Record," Sierra Club, February 28, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/environment/77913/

Following which the MoveOn.org staff adds:

Please help get the word out—forward this email to your personal network. And if you want us to keep you posted on MoveOn's work to get the truth out about John McCain, sign up here: http://pol.moveon.org/mccaintruth/
?id=12407-8126720-pcACZw&t=232
Thank you for all you do.

–Eli, Justin, Noah, Laura, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team

Now here are some excerpts from commentary about Senator McCain's own words . . .

It is 3 a.m., and the stillness of the White House night is shattered by the ringing of the red phone. President John McCain, rousing himself from a deep sleep, turns on the light and picks up the receiver. A U.S. embassy in a Middle Eastern country, he is told, has been blown up, and al-Qaeda is taking credit.

McCain takes a deep breath. "Character counts, my friend," he says. "Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb Iran."

There is a rustling of blankets, and, brushing aside Cindy McCain, a concerned Joe Lieberman rises from the bed. "Not Iran, Mr. President," he says. "They hate al-Qaeda."

"That's right," the president says. "I remember now." He sighs with relief. "Good thing you're here every night, Joe."

But suppose, dear reader, that John McCain becomes president and Joe Lieberman doesn't bunk with the McCains on a nightly basis. How easily should the rest of us sleep? It's anything but an academic question after McCain's bizarre performance in Jordan last week.

There, he told reporters that he was "concerned about Iranian [operatives] taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back" to Iraq. "That's well known," he continued -- at which point Lieberman whispered a correction in his ear. "I'm sorry," McCain then said. "The Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."

What are we to make of this moment? Was it a senior moment? A jet-lagged moment? Or, worse, was it really a moment at all? After all, the evening before, McCain had told listeners of Hugh Hewitt's radio talk show that "there are al-Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they're moving back into Iraq."

So the al-Qaeda-Iran alliance wasn't just a passing thought. It was a thought that had taken up residence in McCain's brain for at least a day, possibly longer. Whether it was a simple mistake, a neoconservative delusion or a habit of mind that lumps together all of America's enemies (either sincerely or calculatedly, to build public support for military action), we cannot say. What we can say is that the idea of any or all of these options is profoundly disquieting. The very thought of a president who deliberately conflates or erroneously confuses our adversaries with each other is appalling, though not without precedent. We're mired in a war that has its roots in George W. Bush's both imagining and fabricating an alliance between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Do we really want to perpetuate these habits of mind in the next administration? . . .

As early as 1999, McCain was recommending "rogue state rollback" as our policy toward such nations as Iraq. He remains an unabashed advocate of preventive war, as his comments on bombing Iran have made clear, and of permanent war, as his comments on remaining in Iraq have made clear. . . .

Hard to say what's more dangerous -- McCain's approach to the economy or McCain's approach to the world. The thought of him answering the red phone at 3 a.m. fills me with foreboding. Hell, I don't want him answering the red phone at 3 p.m.

Harold Meyerson, "McCain on the Red Phone," Washington Post, March 26, 2008, p. A19.

Now, before you actually vote for McCain . . .

So what do you think? However appealing the option may seem to them in April and May, come next November are 25% or more of the Clinton, or Obama, supporters really going to end up voting for Senator McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nomination? I doubt it.

In part, of course, it will turn on how the process unfolds.

If by early June Senator Obama is still the candidate who has won the most elected delegates, most popular votes, most states, and nearly as many super delegates as Senator Clinton -- and Clinton is perceived to have "stolen" the nomination by unfairly beating up on Obama with a the-ends-justify-the-means, mean spirited, win-at-any-cost, race-tinged campaign, with the suspicion that she wants him to be a nominee who loses to McCain so she can run in 2012, regardless of what it may do to the Party -- there will be hostile Obama supporters for sure.

They may not vote for McCain. They may vote for Ralph Nader or some other candidate. They may stay home. Some might even hold their noses and vote for Clinton -- but they're sure not going to go out and work for her as they have been, and would continue to, for Obama.

The better she does between now and June 3 the more this reaction will be softened: if she continues to win primary after primary by double digits, exceeds Obama's popular vote totals, comes closer to him in elected delegates.

And if the polls continue to indicate (as the AP poll did yesterday) that she runs stronger against McCain than Obama does. But the significance of even that, of course, turns on a state-by-state analysis of a McCain-Clinton and McCain-Obama match up, and the resulting electoral vote totals. (For example, if polls indicate that Clinton would win California by a larger margin than Obama, but that he would also beat McCain, and that Obama would also win more electoral votes than Clinton because of the smaller states he could win that she could not, then her national margins and vote totals mean much less.) See, Nicholas Johnson, "It's the Electoral College, Stupid!" April 22, 2008.

On April 25 I quoted at length from Tung Yin, "Who's the real '4 more years of George Bush'?" April 24, 2008. He begins,

I hear the constant refrain from the Clinton and Obama campaigns that John McCain can't be allowed to win, because that will be just 4 more years of the Bush Administration. It's not an implausible argument, given that McCain has started to repudiate some of his past views on taxes, for example.

However . . . this is focusing purely on political issues. Now, I'm not downplaying the importance of issues, since for many people, such things as Supreme Court appointments, tax policy, Iraq, and so on are key points. But I can't escape feeling that on a procedural level, the candidate who would represent 4 more years of the Bush Administration is . . . Hillary Clinton."

He persuasively develops this assertion.

In effect, what Professor Yin is telling us is that there are two considerations here.

(1) One, for Obama supporters, is whether they are willing to forgive Bill and Hillary Clinton, and their staff members and supporters, for the tactics and character they've displayed during the campaign in the event Senator Clinton were, in the end, to get the nomination. Would they vote for Clinton in the general election anyway, "come together as Democrats," and "let bygones be bygones." Or, would they be so "bitter" (to use Senator Obama's ill-fated word) that they would be willing to "punish" her (and many would say, "themselves") by staying home, or voting for Senator McCain (or some other candidate)?

(2) But there is now another and much more significant issue. If Professor Yin is right, all voters -- Democrats (whether supporters of Clinton or Obama), Republicans and Independents alike -- need to at least think about (whether it affects their ultimate vote or not) the qualities of character attributed by him to Senator Clinton, and the weight they as voters would assign to them, in evaluating who they wish to vote for in November. This is not a matter of retribution or anger, or judgment about what tactics are, or are not, acceptable and to be expected in a campaign. This is not about the effect of her "high negatives" on her ability to win an election. This is a judgment to be made as to the qualities of character one wishes to have in a president -- in light of what we've all learned about their relevance from 8 years of George Bush.

Nicholas Johnson, "The Best Bush" in "Bush and Giveaways to Sheraton," April 25, 2008.

# # #