Disappointment and rebuttal

As an independent-minded Democrat who really liked John McCain in 2000, I'm disappointed by the negative, nasty tone his campaign has taken. Yes, I'm an Obama supporter, so take this for what it's worth. But two things strike me as interesting:

• The McCain campaigns almost complete unwillingness to actually talk about their own proposals, and their almost complete focus on Obama. For example, this morning on CNN's"Late Edition" McCain Economic Advisor Nancy Pfotenhauer was asked if McCain and Obama were in fact moving closer together on the drilling issue. She basically started out her answer with "Well, what's important is that Barack Obama has...". In other words, she totally ignored his question about McCain in order to maintain complete focus on Obama. This, to me, is just wrong. It's OK to talk about the other guy, but you should talk at least as much about your guy. Otherwise, you just look like a hack. Especially when you are asked a direct question about your guy.
• The "Celebrity" ad. Here's the thing about this ad that strikes me as really offensive. There are lots of big celebrities, some of them arguably even better-known than Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. There's Bono, Paul McCartney, Elton John, Madonna, Tom Hanks, Johnny Depp, etc. But the McCain team chose Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Why? Is it a coincidence that they are two young, white girls who are known for being promiscuous? Maybe it is just a coincidence...but it smells. Bad.

I just think the John McCain of 2000 would not have behaved this way. I admired that John McCain. This one...not so much.

What Obama Should Do Now

Now that the dust has settled, and Obama has the nomination sewn up, there are a few tasks that lay ahead of him:

1. Integrate Hillary Clinton into the campaign (but don't make her VP). To pick Clinton now would inject all the wrong energy into the mix, and would make Obama look weak. I think the perfect pick would be Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, the decorated Vietnam veteran who served in Reagan's Defense Department and is pro-gun and pro-military.
2. Accept McCain's idea of town hall meetings. Make him wait a little while (but not too long) and immediately go right after him on foreign policy. You don't stay away from an opponent's perceived strength, you attack it head-on...that's what Obama should do with McCain on Iraq. He has most of the public on his side, and if he just holds his own, he'll win this issue.
3. Take maximum advantage of the money gap. He can contest McCain pretty much everywhere...even in states where he doesn't win, he will force McCain to spend valuable resources...

If he does these things, Barack Obama will be the next President. According to me.

Clinton supporters and women's super-rights

It strikes me, as I read of some supporters of Hillary Clinton spread their discontent with the outcome, I am reminded of the words of women's rights pioneer Susan B. Anthony.

She published a periodical called Revolution to fight for women's right to vote. The motto of the paper was "The true republic — men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less."

Is it just me, or do these people seem to be asking for super-rights? The fact is that Hillary Clinton had ample chance to make her case. Democrats all over the country heard her many, many times. Many supported her, and I applaud them. But when all is said and done, Barack Obama will have the most delegates, and will have the nomination. The plain, simple truth is that Senator Clinton made some huge mistakes (such as ignoring early caucuses) and Obama siezed his opportunities. I really believe sexism had nothing to do with it, any more than it had to do with the fact that Senator Clinton got many, many more votes than Richardson, Edward, Biden, Dodd, etc. all put together. Last time I checked, they're all men.

Hillary video...yowch

I'm not a big fan of campaign videos...this one doesn't change my mind...can anyone say "Row, row, row your boat for Roosevelt"?

Northern Illinois shooting

According to CNN, six people have died, 21 are in the hospital, 7 in critical condition.

Apparently the gunman came out from behind a screen in a lecture all and started shooting.

My take:
Certainly both pro- and anti- gun lobbies will use this very real tragedy to promote their agendas. From all indications at this point, nothing would have prevented this. I think the "lesson" of this incident, if there is one, is that sometimes there are bad people who do bad things, and we can't always prevent it from happening.

Although I tend to be pro-gun rights in general, since the gunman had apparently planned to kill himself as well, I'm not sure how much of a deterrent it would have been to have more people on-campus armed.

It goes without saying...prayers for the families of all affected. May the Lord comfort them.

McCain, Obama win big, start targeting each other

Here is a link to some shots McCain and Obama took at each other in what is looking more and more like the matchup in the fall.

Funny line from Keith Olbermann tonight...he said all candidates should set a rule to speak BEFORE Obama rather than afterward. No kidding! Whether someone is for Obama or against him (I'm for him), you have to admit - this guy is good.

Mike Erickson on the issues...or not

Has anyone noticed Mike Erickson's website doesn't really say much at all about where he is actually at on the issues?

It strikes me as a little strange that he's accepting online donations and asking for volunteers, but not saying anything about where he is on the issues.

Thoughts on Not-Quite-Super Saturday

Here are some random thoughts on today...

Democrats

• Saw Obama's speech...wow. I don't agree with much of what he says, but you have to admire his ability to work a room. He reminds me of a young Muhammad Ali...so graceful, so smooth, so quick, that you forget how powerful his shots are.
• Clinton isn't out of it...but she's really behind the 8-ball. There's tremendous momentum for Obama, and if it goes to the convention there will be tremendous push for Obama to be the nominee.

Republicans

• Not a good night for Republicans. McCain shows real weakness, yet he's inevitably going to be the nominee. So at this point the nomination process has shown there are three candidates, and three factions that have yet to come together: Romney with the economic conservatives, McCain with the national security conservatives, and Huckabee with the social conservatives.
• What's the deal with McCain and Romney? I just noticed the last few times McCain has talked, he makes a point about saying he is continuing to have talks with Romney and that "together we will have success in November." Definitely grist for the rumor mill.

Oregonian - Wyden aide talks up Novick for 5th District run

This blurb in the Oregonian by Jeff Mapes quotes an aide to Ron Wyden as indicating they'd love Steve Novick to run for Darlene Hooley's 5th District Congressional seat. Here's what he has to say about it:

My favorite comes from Josh Kardon, chief of staff to Sen. Ron Wyden,D-Ore.
He talked up the idea of U.S. Senate candidate Steve Novick moving overto the
5th CD race."This is probably the only race where their bench comes close to
ours,"said Kardon. The only potential candidate we could run with high
namerecognition across the district is Steve Novick and I have no idea if he has
anyinterest."

The article goes on to say Novick has no stated interest in giving up his Senate run. Of course, things can change. He could use the money he's already raised. He's also likely the highest-profile person the party could get at this late notice.

Right now, it sounds like Vance Day is supporting Mike Erickson on the GOP side, even though there are some potentials (like Kevin Mannix) who are perceived to possibly be stronger candidates. Time will tell...

Just in Case You Thought Negative Campaigning Started with the Blogosphere...

Just heard about Joseph Cummins' new book, Anything for a Vote, about the history of, shall we say, strenuous campaigning...it's hilarious and enlightening. Here are some snippets:

• 1836: Congressman Davy Crockett accuses candidate Martin Van Buren of secretly wearing women's clothing: "He is laced up in corsets!"
• 1912: Theodore Roosevelt is shot in the chest while preparing to give a campaign speech, then proceeds to deliver it anyway: "I don't know whether you fully understand that I have just been shot, but it takes more than that to kill a bull moose!"
• 1960: Former president Harry Truman advises voters that "if you vote for Richard Nixon, you ought to go to hell!"
  

And this tibdit about the election in 1800 between Jefferson and Adams...

The Federalists couldn’t get enough of attacking Jefferson in a very, very personal way---their assaults sound like the insults leveled at Bill Clinton, another Southerner, almost 200 years later. "Jefferson is a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia Mulatto father," said one leaflet. A Connecticut paper raised the specter of the French Revolution, supposedly beloved by Jefferson: "Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames ... female chastity violated, [your] children writhing on the pike? GREAT GOD OF COMPASSION AND JUSTICE, SHIELD MY COUNTRY FROM DESTRUCTION!"

Oregon Measure 50 and SCHIP - Thoughts on Children's Health Care

So, there has been lots of talk concerning children's health lately. To summarize:

Measure 50: Would modify the Oregon Constitution to add an 80 cent tax on cigarettes and use the money to pay for children's health. Would not create any new government agencies, but would add staff, so there would be more bureaucracy than now.

SCHIP: would expand plans to provide government assistance for health insurance for children. Families making $80k a year would still be eligible for government assistance. President Bush is proposing a much more modest increase in government assistance.

The Blue Dog View:
I'm not opposed to the idea of government helping provide for children's health for people who truly can't afford it. But government assistance for those making $80k a year? That's hard for me to swallow as a fiscal centrist. the other issue I have is that I think the health system we have in this country is really broken. And I don't think you fix a financially flawed system by simply throwing more government money at it. I haven't heard anything in either one of these proposals about actually making changes to the health care system itself, so to me adding more government money into the system without some kind of structural change is really counter-productive.

Of course I could be wrong...thoughts?

Is the country becoming less polarized?

Isn't it interesting that the leading candidates for President for each party (Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rudy Giuliani) are both very much centrist candidates? I think it's interesting that both parties seem to be following the "Bill Clinton model" of pretty much taking the base for granted and going after the middle of the country.

It should get very interesting pretty soon.

The MoveOn Ad - Thoughts From the Center

As a centrist Democrat, I have big problems with the "Betray US" ad. There are many claims in the ad that trouble me greatly.

One example:

Here is the quote from the MoveOn ad:

The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you’re shot
in the back of the head — not the front.

In fact, this is the quote from the Washington Post article:

Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against
civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as
combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in
Washington. "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the
official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal."

So clearly, the Post isn't making that claim - they are quoting a single (unnamed) source who appears to have said it. That is a HUGE difference.

Another example:

Here's another quote from the ad:

Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge
strategy has failed.

One of the reports they cite, the General Accounting Office (GAO) Report, as evidence (the first and only one I looked at) never judges whether the surge has succeeded or failed. It does indicate that of the 18 benchmarks established by the Iraqi government, 3 were fully successful, 4 were partially successful, and 11 were not successful. Since the surge was mainly intended to reduce the violence, and certainly not to "fix" every benchmark, let's look at what they said about the level of violence:

These results do not diminish the courageous efforts of coalition forces and
progress that has been made in several areas, including Anbar Province.

...

It is unclear whether sectarian violence in Iraq has decreased—a key
security benchmark—since it is difficult to measure whether the perpetrators’ intents were sectarian in nature, and other measures of population security show differing trends. As the Congress considers the way forward in Iraq, it should balance the achievement of the 18 Iraqi benchmarks with military progress
and with homeland security goals, foreign policy goals, and other goals of the
United States.

My Bottom Line:

I'm not in any way defending the decision to go to Iraq or the initial planning. I think it was ill-conceived and incompetently planned. However, to attempt to sully the reputation of a decorated soldier who has devoted thirty years of his life to our country's service, and who has a spotless ethical record based on such shoddy, trumped-up charges is at the very least irresponsible, and does irreparable harm to the very cause MoveOn says they are trying to further. This is evidenced by the many Democrats who have criticized or condemned the ad.

Add my name to the list.

Thought on immigration

Since everyone is talking about immigration, here is my two cents...

conservatives can talk all they want about the "rule of law"...but what if a law is a bad law? I think the reason the immigration laws haven't been enforced is that they were poorly conceived and funded, and restricted legal immigration to such an extent that they guaranteed an influx of illegal immigration. It would seem to me the answer is to 1. Yes, do a better job of enforcing our border but 2. Provide realistic procedures for people who want to come to this country and work and raise a family. Currently we have two problems:

1. It's too easy to come here illegally
2. It's too difficult to come here legally

You can't only fix one of these problems...in fact, they are inextricably intertwined.

Some quotes on immigrants and immigration

Remember, remember always, that all of us... are descended from immigrants and revolutionists.
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

What, then, is this new man, the American? They are a mixture of English, Scotch, Irish, French, Dutch, Germans, and Swedes. From this promiscuous breed, that race, now called Americans, have arisen.
- J. Hector St. Josh de Crevecouer

In times of shrinking expectations,... everyone feels like a victim and pushes away outsiders to defend his own corner.
- Oscar Handlin

Remember that when you say "I will have non of this exile and this stranger for his face is not like my face and his speech is strange," you have denied America with that word.
- Stephen Vincent Benet

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
- Emma Larzarus

Everywhere immigrants have enriched and strengthened the fabric of American life.
- John F. Kennedy

Ronald Reagan on Immigration

This article on the Cato Institute's website shows just how far modern so-called conservatives have strayed from the vision of their inspiration, Ronald Reagan, when it comes to views on immigration.

Here is a snippet:

In his farewell address to the nation in January 1989, Reagan beautifully wove his view of free trade and immigration into his vision of a free society: "I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get here."

Compare Reagan's hopeful, expansive, and inclusive view of America with the dour, crabbed, and exclusive view that characterizes certain conservatives who would claim his mantle. Their view of the world could not be more alien to the spirit of Ronald Reagan.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Senate approves a big-brother "Going Out of Business" sale law

The Oregon Senate has approved a bill which would basically regulate going out of business sales. Here is an excerpt from the article in the Oregonian:

The measure would require merchants to submit a notice of intent to conduct
such a sale with the Secretary of State's office. The notice, including the
beginning and ending dates of the sale, would have to be displayed in a
prominent place at the sale location. ...

In addition of the notice of intent requirement, the bill would prohibit
the practice of moving inventory from another store or a warehouse to a store
that is supposedly shutting down. It also defines a "sham" sale as a going out
of business event in which the intent of the owner is to remain open or to
reopen the business at another location in the same area.

My take:
What's to stop a merchant from doing the exact same thing, but simply calling it a "Sale" instead of a "Going Out of Business" sale? This just seems like a dumb law. It's the government getting in the way of a business providing something to a consumer that they could benefit from. If they can show a harm to the consumer from this, I'd be willing to listen...but I don't see it. It just seems like market competition to me.

Immigration Bill Post-Mortem (for now)

Well, as most have probably heard, the immigration bill that was in the Senate is dead - at least for now. I have two thoughts about this issue:

• Why all the happy-dancing among conservatives? OK, I do understand they got a victory of sorts by defeating a bill they honestly see as bad for the country. But where does that leave us? Exactly where we were. With a President solidly behind a comprehensive bill and congress sharply divided, the likelihood that there will be a "fence-first" immigration bill passed into law in the near future is exactly zero. Which means the status quo is the best the conservatives can hope for, unless they compromise on something that's less than what they want.
• The total lack of trust from both sides. Wow. This last week has been amazing. Democrats lambasting Democrats, Republicans smearing Republicans. It occurs two me there is a total lack of trust on both sides. On the one side you have the "fencists", who want enforcement first largely because they feel they were hoodwinked in the past concerning immigration legislation, and are simply not willing to trust the other side when they say a comprehensive solution will also include vigorous enforcement. Then on the other side, you have the "comprehensivists" who do not trust the good faith of the fencists. They believe that if the fencists get their fence law, they will simply abandon the whole idea of a guest worker program. So, what we have here is two groups who can't trust each other father than they can throw them. And that, more than any particular legislative issue, is what is the biggest roadblock.

Where this blue dog lies - my political leanings

I have a very diverse political background. My father was a staunch republican, my mother a moderate democrat. I come from a strong Catholic family, but have sisters who are members of NOW. So, that being said, I would describe myself as a “Bill Clinton democrat”. Here are some of my positions:

• Abortion: Let’s get the biggie out of the way early. I am pro-choice, which is somewhat controversial for a Mormon. I just don’t believe in criminalizing abortion. However, I do favor waiting periods, notification of some responsible party for minors (although I recognize this might not always be a parent). I completely endorse the position of President Clinton - that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.
• National Defense: As a veteran and the son of a World War II veteran, I have strong commitment to national defense. I wouldn’t have chosen the war in Iraq, but I feel we need to complete the job as well as we are able. In the future, I would hope that we will be more intelligent about the use of our military resources, and use them in places where there is a more direct threat to America (like we did in Afhganistan).
• Social Programs: Again, I am with President Clinton on this issue. He said the era of big government is over. I believe there can be a mix of public and private money, working together, to make things better for people. I believe strongly in the free enterprise system, but am NOT a believer in the idea that all government is bad. I think the answer to bad government isn’t no government, it’s better government.

Anyway...that's where I am. I'd love to hear where you are.

Gordon Smith challenger claims they'll stay positive...

Bates' strategist: don't go negative on Smith

The above BlueOregon post concerns Sen. Alan Bates and his possible challenge of Gordon Smith for his U.S. Senate seat. His people are saying he pledges not to go negative. Here's a snippet:

Former Ashland Mayor -- and Bates' campaign strategist -- Cathy Shaw commented in response (and quoted in the Daily Tidings) that a Bates campaign would stay positive and not engage Smith directly.

Cathy Shaw on a Bates candidacy:
Of Novick and Bates, they’re both great with each bringing different strengths and weaknesses. Although I do not know Steve well, I do know Bates and he will never go after a democrat in a race. How do I know that? Because, he won’t attack a republican opponent either; never has, never will. Before all of you roll your eyes and say that anyone refusing to go negative is an “amateur” or doesn’t know the game, I would suggest reading Kathleen Hall Jamieson’s book entitled: Everything You Think You Know About Politics…And Why You’re Wrong (A New Republic Book, 2000).

And in the Tidings:
As for running an aggressive race, Shaw said Bates "never has, and never will" run a negative campaign. "He just doesn't do that," Shaw said. "People say it wins elections, but it doesn't."

My take:
It all depends on what you mean by "negative campaigning". If a candidate refuses to aggressively point out flaws in their opponent's actions or positions, then they have no business running for public office. However, pointing out an opponent's bad policy decisions or faulty political ideas is not the same as attacking someone personally. I'd expect a candidate who is tough and courageous, but also principled and wise. The end is important, but it ultimately doesn't justify the means.