Politirazzi

Libertarian Pary presidential candidate Bob Barr

By Jeff Akston

Barack Obama is going to be the next president of the United States. Further, I think it will be tough for McCain too make Tuesday night even remotely interesting. Both 538.com and electoral-vote.com predict Obama getting over 350 electoral votes. Even intrade.com, which has been more bullish on McCain this entire election, has Obama with over 360 electoral votes.

It's going to be a very early night. We'll know by 9 p.m. since the polls in Ohio, North Carolina and Virginia all close at 9 EST. My unscientific research (i.e. my memory) has found that polls typically overstate Democratic votes, so I think the electoral vote will end up somewhere around 338 for Obama and 200 for McCain (with Obama winning swing states Florida, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Virginia and McCain winning Indiana and North Carolina.

I will be voting for Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate. To be honest, I'm not a big fan of Barr. He's not run a very passionate campaign. He doesn't support many of the core Libertarian principles, and he doesn't make a very convincing case for those which he supposedly does support. The reason I'm voting for him, however, is to increase the Libertarian vote total and its profile.

To those who say I'm “wasting” my vote, so are you. Anyone in New York is “wasting” their vote since they aren't impacting the outcome. Obama is going to win 70-80 percent of the vote in New York. It's pointless to vote.

By Jeff Akston

There are only two weeks left in the election. This has been an exciting election, but mostly for the wrong reasons. Below are the top 10 things I’m looking forward being without after Nov. 4. Well, for another two years anyway.

1. Emails/posts that begin with: "Check out these facts about ..."
More often than not, they are complete lies. Worse, they are easily refutable lies but nobody bothers to disprove them. The chain of events is transparent. A pure partisan will fabricate either a story or Photoshop, and send it around as fact. This is OK to them because it’s for the “good of the country.” Gullible people see it and forward it like every other urban legend. Then the mass media picks it up as “a rumor” and spends more time reporting on the reaction than just fact-checking the bollocks. I tried to keep up on the Sarah Palin lies at first, but they just became too bountiful. The same blatant lies continue about both Obama and McCain. Nobody seems to give a whit about Joe Biden.

2. Partisan insanity
The English language has been so weakened the last generation with hyperbole that people now need to refer John McCain as a racist/fascist or Barack Obama as a terrorist/socialist to get their points across. It’s more difficult to win votes with measured language about specific topics, so now you have to call Obama “B. Hussein Obama” or “BHO” to move the needle.

3. John McCain’s horribly inept spokesman, Tucker Bounds
After Nov. 4, I’m pretty sure I’ll never hear from him again as he’ll join Dan Quayle in Republican exile. Every interview with him is uncomfortable. He has a very weak mastery of the talking points, so he rarely has any salient facts to support his case and he often talks himself into a corner. It’s trainwreck TV.

By Jeff

The final debate is upon us. If you haven't made up your mind yet, I don't think tonight's debate will sway you one way or another. I expect a lot of “Obama is dangerous” and “McCain is George W. Bush” cross-talk loose on the facts and heavy on the gunpowder.

During the previous debates I've written a few questions for each candidate that I'd like to have answered. There are a few that I'd like answered tonight as well, all of the questions below are ones I’d pose to both. Like Lynne posted, there just isn’t much difference between the two candidates when it comes to domestic policy. They are both going to remain drug warriors. They are both against gay marriage. In order to pander manufacturing workers in the swing states, they speak about protecting “our jobs” from immigrants. Both of their tax policies plan on reducing tax revenues by at least $2T to the debt in the next decade, both project to increase the deficit (already at $455B) by between $364B (Obama) and $428B (McCain) in their first term.

Therefore:
* You have both touted your decisions to enter the public sector in lieu of private sector profit. Do you think choosing careers in government and getting paid by taxpayers is a choice which is inherently more moral than going into the private sector where you would create jobs and wealth?

(AP)

By Jeff

The main thing that struck me during last night’s debate was how physically uncomfortable McCain looked while walking around. I guess his handlers told him to walk around the stage while Obama was talking in order to distract the viewers, but what I noticed was just how unstable McCain looked. I realize his shoulders were seriously injured during his time in Hanoi, so I’m absolutely not mocking him, but walking around the stage made him look very old. Not only did his shoulders look awkward, but his knees/hips also seemed injured so he walked with a gait that resembled Danny DeVito’s Penguin in "Batman Returns." It’s odd because this was supposed to be right in McCain’s wheelhouse. He did seem more comfortable, passionate and personable in the town hall than the previous debate, but his seemingly aimless roaming around the stage was very disconcerting.

Those audience meters on CNN can become very distracting. More importantly, if I were a right-wing conspiracy theorist, I’d be very upset that CNN was showing the audience reactions of 25 “randomly” selected people throughout the debate. The needles for Obama were perpetually pinned as highly favorable as possible, while McCain’s were barely above par — even during his populist messages. It saddened me that the audience meters were there highest when both candidates spoke of some new government giveaway.

(AP)

By Jeff

I am bustling with excitement about the debate tonight. Typically the VP debate is an afterthought, but how can I miss the debacle that everyone expects? Clips of Katie Couric’s interview with Sarah Palin have trickled out like water torture, and Palin’s answers have been increasingly embarrassing with every clip. Most recently, we’ve discovered that she can’t name any newspaper she frequents (as a former journalism major!) or Supreme Court decision. Even the most fervent Republican supporters I know are dreading tonight’s debate. In two weeks, they’ve gone from being 80 percent sure McCain would win to 80 percent sure Obama would win. The financial sector has had lower volatility than Palin’s approval ratings in the past two weeks.

Expectations for tonight are universally ranging between Admiral Stockdale and Miss Teen South Carolina 2007. Plus, there’s that the rumor that Biden is going to drop out after tonight so that Hillary can be named VP. This leaves a nonzero chance that Biden’s last task as nominee will be to fall on the grenade and completely tear into Palin tonight.

There’s no question that Gwen Ifill (if she still moderates) will continue the pop quizzes on Palin to expose her inexperience, but here are a couple other questions I’d like to ask. There aren’t many here. Because to be honest, I really want to see the Palin fail the pop quizzes. Sure, the little quizzes prove absolutely nothing in terms of decision-making ability, but watching Palin stammer and doublespeak through her answers is trainwreck TV that I won’t want to miss.

For Both
* How much more money do you think Gwen Ifill will make from her book (titled: “Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama”) if Barack Obama becomes president as opposed to if John McCain wins?

* With a $10T debt, an ongoing expensive war in the Middle East, and a potential $1T banking bailout do you think that your running mate should commit passing a balanced budget amendment within your first term? If not, why shouldn’t the government be forced to spend no more than they receive — isn’t being overleveraged what got consumers into trouble during this current liquidity crisis?

By Jeff

While everyone is talking about Lehman, AIG, Paulson and Chris Dodd (by the way, two of the best blogs for keeping up on the Fed bailout are Megan McArdle at The Atlantic and Barry L. Ritholtz’s “The Big Picture”), it’s largely being ignored that there is a Presidential debate (scheduled!) on Friday.

Assuming it goes forth, it will be interesting to see what will be the topic of discussion — initially set to be foreign policy. Call me crazy, but I have a hunch that a large chunk of it will revolve around the economy instead....

Here are some (mostly foreign policy) questions I’d like to see asked of the candidates:

To Both:
— Prior to the recent banking bailouts, the country had a $9.5 trillion debt. The government has now spent an additional $800B on bailouts and taken on an additional $4B in mortgage debt. How much will you reduce your campaign proposals with either increases in spending and/or cuts in taxes? How much more debt will your administration add over your first four years?

— What are the potential risks of the fact that 25 percent - 30 percent of our country’s national debt is owned by foreign countries, and how significant is your concern?

— The U.S. dollar has lost over one-third of its value since 2002. What do you think were the major causes of this, do you think it’s a major concern, and if so what would your administration do to remedy the situation?

— If Iraq, Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia all asked you to allow them to build military bases on U.S. soil, how would you respond?

(continued)

— doctored by Jeff

By Jeff

How the Republicans ran their convention this week is an example of the types of catalyst that allowed an inexperienced candidate like Barack Obama earn such a groundswell of energized support.

The Democrats rarely mentioned McCain during their convention, and when they did it was largely to link McCain and Bush’s voting records. The easy punchline at the time was about McCain’s seven houses, and I don’t recall any of the prime-time speakers even mentioning it.

Rather than pandering to their crowd to get a few big hoot and holler applause lines at the expense of McCain or Bush, their convention was about Obama’s history, why Obama wants to be president and what he aims to do if he gets there.

Contrast that with the approach of the Republicans this week, whose major speakers have littered every speech with petty digs, snide comments and general condescension about Obama’s history and qualifications. There was little mention about McCain other than his history as a soldier, his support of the surge and his mystical “maverick” status (though no concrete details have been offered). The convention seemed to be three days of McCain biography.

Where’s the looking forward? Instead of making the case for their candidate, their focus was to tear down Obama. They continued the vile “us vs. them” narrative that has been a Republican staple since shortly after 9/11.

(continued)

The McCain and Palin clans hit St. Paul, Minn., today. (AP)

By Jeff

There have been a ton of rumors about Sarah Palin that have surfaced since she was announced as the Republican VP nominee. It shouldn’t come as a surprise; nobody had really heard of her until it was announced, and so the rush for manufactured news began. What is a surprise, is that the press has been publishing rumors and wild speculation before they spent any time actually fact-checking. The rumor gets in the public discourse, and since it’s so sexy and salacious, people keep repeating it. People hear the headline enough and assume it’s true. Those who follow the election superficially don’t hear the retractions or corrections and you get a group that has the facts wrong (call it the “Obama is a Muslim” corollary).

Let’s run down some of the worst cases of the mass media failing to do basic fact-checking. These are all original posts from large, mainstream media sources who should know better than to publish hearsay and unverified rumors.

Palin didn’t give birth to her youngest song, Trig. She faked her pregnancy to protect her daughter Bristol.

Originally, started on Daily Kos (who now has scrubbed any mention of the thread a week later so they don’t appear Rove-ian), but then picked up by Google’s Current.tv. Then the story started to get mentioned on MSBC, the Huffington Post and other media outlets as “a rumor.” This is what creationists call “teaching the controversy.” Although there is absolutely no proof to support the opinion, there are enough people talking about that it deserves coverage. No, it was completely baseless, and even filled with lies and intentionally misdated photos. It is shameful that anyone in the real press mentioned it.

Palin wants creationism taught in schools.

Not true. This is offensive reporting on Wired magazine’s part. The source they link completely contradicts their headline. If you read the source, you’ll see a more full explanation of her position:

In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.

(continued)

>
The GOP is moving toward a "reform" platform at its convention, Jeff observes. Sound familiar? (AP)

By Jeff

Quick thoughts on the start of the RNC Convention:

1. It’s clear that the Republicans have largely abandoned the “experience” angle, and are moving more toward a “reform” platform, which is eerily similar to Obama’s “change” platform. While Obama definitely has a more eloquent message about change, both McCain and Palin have more tangible examples of “reform” they can point to, while Obama and even Biden cannot. Biden has experience, but some of his tangible “reforms” are not things he will want to highlight (like the creation of the drug czar position, or writing an anti-terrorism bill in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombings that was similar to the eventual Patriot Act passed in 2001).

2. Aside from the cheers for the veterans, the biggest cheers in the crowd last night were consistently for pro-life comments. There were enough of them to make me think that this is going to be a theme for the next two days, especially with Palin and Romney on tap for today. The selection of Palin should be enough of a “pro-life” message to the base that the party doesn’t need to make so many explicit comments about abortion during the convention. This is absolutely a losing issue for Republicans as nearly 60 percent of Americans favor keeping abortion legal.

(continued)

Look what I've unearthed ...

— Jeff

Joe Biden implores, "Put me in charge, and I'll burn through your money like I have mine!" Jeff muses. (AP)

By Jeff

Barack Obama went with the “safe” VP choice in Joe Biden, but I don’t think it will really impact John McCain’s choice for VP. Biden isn’t going to really help in any specific states which will change the Republican’s electoral planning, and all he does is mitigate the charges that Obama doesn’t have the experience to be president. Who McCain picks for VP is going to be decided by how confident he is in his base. If his camp really needs to pick someone like Romney or Huckabee just to secure his base, then it’s a really bad sign for McCain.

I know I initially predicted Romney was going to be the nominee, but the “7 houses” mess probably removed him from contention. This likelihood was compounded with Joe “99th richest out of 100 senators” Biden being slotted as the Democratic VP nominee.

It’s now highly unlikely that McCain will pick Romney and his $200 million fortune as VP nominee. It will make it a very clear “middle class” vs. “out-of-touch rich folk” campaign, and in this weakened economy, that’s a clear loser for the Republicans. Now yes, Obama is now rich, but that’s because he earned it very recently off two best-selling books — that’s the American Dream, first-generation wealth.

I want to focus on how the Democrats keep pointing to Biden’s ranking as the 99th richest senator like it’s a good thing because it shows he’s a “regular guy” with whom we can relate. In a debate this year, Biden set his net worth at between $70,000 and $150,000.

So, if I may ask, how the hell does someone work in the Senate for 35 years, and only amass less than one year’s worth of savings?

(continued)

Jean-Claude Van Damme has endorsed Barack Obama. NOT! It was a joke. Real celebrity endorsements below.

By Jeff

Being an undecided voter, as we grow closer to each party’s respective conventions, I am starting to look more closely at endorsements. Like most people, the viewpoints of people I happen to recognize from movies, radio or magazines and have absolutely nothing in common with hold great sway on my political decisions.

Therefore, (again, like most Americans) I probably have 10-15 celebrity blogs on my daily watch list. Some, unfortunately, are updated less than others (why, oh, why won’t Melanie Griffith weigh in on the Russia-Georgia situation?).

I am holding my breath until Angelina Jolie makes official choice known, but I was very excited to learn that Jean-Claude Van Damme had endorsed Obama, until I found out it was a clever ruse by a comedy writer.

There are, however, three celebrity intellectual heavyweights who have recently weighed in on the Obama-McCain showdown.

First, Roseanne Barr, who has actually already backed Cynthia McKinney, nonetheless is still worthy of attention. She has more recently been in the news for bashing Brangelina for something of which I’m not too clear. Adopting children from poverty-stricken Third World nations and providing them with a world of opportunity, it seems. But she’s also had some insightful comments about the election. Like: “Mccain [sic] is a trained ape who's [sic] constituents are racists and polygymists. [sic]” and that Oprah backed Obama to ensure her Republican friend would win.

(continued)

By Jeff

What should McCain do to start getting more positive press? Well, for starters he could talk about himself more than he talks about Obama. There’s no question that Obama is getting more press than McCain, but even McCain’s own site talks about Obama more than it talks about McCain. The Boston Globe’s wordpile shows a pretty good picture that McCain’s strategy has been largely anti-Obama rather than pro-McCain.

His media advertising strategy is all about Obama as well; and it’s a weird one. The visuals are at odds with the content — where if you watch the ad with the sound off, it looks like an Obama ad showing how people love him all of the world because he’s got such an engaging personality and demeanor. How is that supposed to dissuade a potential voter?

McCain may not be getting much press, but the press that Obama has been getting is largely negative. The major stories the last couple weeks have been issues that have hurt Obama. Whether it’s the weird Obama advertising strategy or those major stories or a combination of both, it looks like it’s working as the national polls have shown.

(Photo: AP)

(continued)

By Jeff

It has become apparent that when it comes to taxes, Sen. Obama’s goal isn’t determining which system will have the best balance between economic productivity and maximizing revenues to the government, but on how he can most effectively redistribute wealth. It was most recently apparent when Obama announced the “windfall profits” tax on oil companies because he felt that the oil companies had made “excess profits” and that it was somehow the governments role to redistribute that wealth to consumers (i.e. bribe them for votes).

An example during the last Clinton debate when he was posed a question as to why he would recommend increasing the capital gains tax when history shows that when the capital gains rate was lowered (Clinton and Bush II), the revenues went up. But when it was increased (Reagan), revenues went down. His answer was: “What I've said is that I would look at raising the capital-gains tax for purposes of fairness."

He’s not looking for a tax code that is maximally efficient. No, he’s focused on “fairness,” which is another word for “redistribution,” which is why his camp has marketed his economic plan by saying 85 percent of Americans would pay lower taxes under Obama’s plan than McCain’s, and why you have so many on the right calling him a Marxist.

(continued)

By Jeff

Since I am still currently undecided in regards which of the three main candidates I will be voting for (Obama, McCain or Barr), I will periodically be posting critiques of something that one of them said in the previous week. It could either be something I agree with that I don’t think is getting enough attention, or somewhere disagree.

This week is all about Obama. New Energy Czar with two ridiculous statements, one of which is akin to electoral bribery.

First, here’s what he said last week during a campaign speech:

“There are things you can do individually, though, to save energy. Making sure your tires are properly inflated — simple thing. But we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling — if everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups? You’d actually save just as much!”

The right is mocking Obama with tire gauges acting as if Obama’s energy policy exists solely of getting a regular tune up, which obviously isn’t true. The left is defending the comments saying that it’s common sense that you can save gas with inflated tires and better-tuned cars. But neither of that is the true point. The main point of the quote is Obama saying that you can “actually save just as much” from tune-ups and inflated tires as you would from drilling (meaning Offshore and ANWR).

The National Review did the calculations (and you can recheck if you don’t like the source) said that Obama’s math was way, way off.

(continued)

By Jeff

Oh, how I wish I was asked to predict the upcoming gaffes two weeks ago. I would have absolutely called someone from the McCain camp making the semantic argument that we aren’t technically in a recession and that Americans are a bunch of crybabies. But alas, five more predictions:

1. I think it’s a foregone conclusion that someone is going to refer to Obama as “boy.” In fact, I’m shocked it hasn’t happened yet. Predicting “who” is difficult, other than to say it’ll be some old white guy Republican surrogate of McCain. When it happens, they will apologize for their “poor choice of words”, assure the country that they meant nothing by it other than that “I was trying to convey the point that Senator Obama is very young and in experienced, like a child. I deeply regret my poor choice of words.”

2. “Senator Osama”. ‘Nuff said. It’s been done before. It will be done again. But this time by McCain and in one of the debates.

3. We haven’t heard the last about McCain’s war record. It’ll be a very dangerous line to walk, but the far left was actually happy for General Clark for first making the comment, and then angry that he apologized. I’m not going to link them, but there’s a world of conspiracies about McCain’s war record out there if you want to Google it. I predict whoever makes the comments (which will backfire), will not officially be part of Obama’s campaign, and that it will likely take place around the Republican Convention when the Republicans are heavily playing up McCain’s hero status. All the fawning will send some left winger over the edge, and they’ll make a baseless accusation akin to “McCain’s negligence killed 160 people in the USS Forrestal incident.”

(continued)

Upper Playground Store

By Jeff

Not only is Barack Obama Your New Bicycle, but his is apparently also the new every-other-political-figure-in-the-history-of-the-planet, ever.

Surprisingly missing from this list are:

Karl Marx:
Bill Kristol — New York Times (April 14, 2008)

The Messiah
Real Clear Politics (Feb. 22, 2008)

Adolf Hitler
Tom Sullivan — FOX (Feb. 13, 2008)

William Jennings Bryan (seriously?)
John McCain (June 6, 2008)

Abe Lincoln
Tom Rutten — Los Angeles Times (March 19, 2008)

By Jeff

File this under: “Government is filled with hypocritical thieves.”

Charlie Rangel is rich. He’s been a Congressman, representing New York’s 15th district for over 25 years. Even though he’s rich, he’s always been a champion for the poor and downtrodden. Grrrr, how he hates when big evil businessmen take advantage of the system and loopholes to enrich themselves in instances where the poor couldn’t possibly also see the same benefits.

So then why does he, the same Charlie Rangel who has been making over $100,000 a year since 1991, makes over $165,000 now, and is worth close to $1 million, occupy a rent controlled apartment, thus taking capacity that could otherwise be occupied by one of his poorer constituents? Better yet, why does he need FOUR OF THEM.

(continued)

Today Now!: How To Pretend You Give A **** About The Election

A humorous look at feigning interest in the presidential election. From The Onion.

— Jeff

By Jeff

Gas prices are high. Who’s to blame? Someone is always to blame, right? When prices rise for consumers, there has to be some corporate fat-cat wearing a monocle and lighting cigars with $100 bills and cackling maniacally.

Multiple choice: What’s the main reason for higher gas prices?
A: Oil speculators
B: The Iraq war
C: Greedy oil executives

Let’s go to the Google. How many hits do I get if type in: “gas prices”, oil speculators? 561,000. For “gas prices”, Iraq war? 433K. For “gas prices”, record profits? 408K.

Pretty close. Purely based on Google hits, it appears that we can blame those evil oil speculators for driving up gas prices just like Sen. Obama’s recent pandering says (an opinion echoed by Bill O’Reilly). Of course this ignores the fact that every other commodity has also skyrocketed in price. Did all speculators from every industry conspire together to bid up every commodity?

(continued)

(AP)

By Jeff

Bob Barr isn’t going to be president; we know that for sure. He knows he’s not going to be president, and his ardent supporters know he isn’t going to be president. Third-party candidates don’t run to get elected, they run to gain visibility for their message, hoping that some of their core issues will gain traction and force the general election candidates to take a favorable stance.

Barr is certainly the highest-profile candidate to start a third-party run in my lifetime (nobody knew who Ross Perot was before he started). But the concern about Barr is how genuine are his beliefs. Barr was a Democrat in the '60s until being exposed to Ayn Rand. Then was a Republican until 2004, and has been a Libertarian since.

Now changing political parties isn’t a huge red flag since the move from Democrat to Republican in many cases really isn’t a very big difference; Reagan did it. Jim Webb did it. But Bob Barr sure seems to be changing his mind a lot, and we’ve learned from John Kerry, flip-flopping can paralyze the effectiveness of a candidate’s message.

(continued)

By Jeff

I work with a conspiracy theorist. She loathes George W. Bush and his “Crime Family” and is one of the people who think every random occurrence somehow ties back to Bush. She mentioned today that McCain was going to win because elections are all frauds and pre-determined by some cabal of powerful Illuminati. I also work near Ground Zero and am exposed to “9-11 Truthers” on nearly a daily basis.

I don’t really engage the woman at work about her nutty theories, and I’m not going to get into a point-by-point case against the various WTC theories because it’s been done a fair amount of times before. Nor am I going to try and explain away each and every other conspiracy theory attributed to Bush (e.g. he’s holding bin Laden for an October surprise to help McCain).

However, I’d like to walk through the logical progression and show why you can pretty much automatically dismiss any and all wide-ranging government conspiracy theory that someone tries to put in front of you.

(continued)

(AP)

By Jeff

Former Clinton supporters are going to be voting for Obama. They were always going to vote for Obama, no matter how much they pouted. I think even if Clinton hadn’t come out for Obama, her supporters would have still voted for him. The quasi-posturing about supporting McCain by her senior supporters was more about bargaining power and trying to get some assurances from an eventual Obama administration.

Now that Hillary has come out and backed Obama and is now making calls to get her pledged delegates to vote for Obama (though not officially releasing them for a reason), it’s even more likely that Clinton supporters will vote for Obama. Obama has already done whatever he needed to do apparently during the private Clinton-Obama meeting last week. We just don’t know what it was. It wasn’t a VP nod, that I’m sure of, but conventional wisdom says maybe it was a promise of Attorney General, Supreme Court Justice or as the shepherd in Congress for his health care plan. Or maybe it was just, “Hey, shut up; you lost. Go away or I will crush you.” That would have been my tactic.

This trend indicates that those Clinton supporters who previously may have been saying they were going to vote for McCain over Obama, are predictably now admitting that they plan on voting for Obama.

(AP)

By Jeff

CBS is reporting that Sen. Hillary Clinton will announce tonight her acceptance of the fact that Obama has won the majority of delegates. Finally admitting that she has lost her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. Well, not really. That Obama has won? Well, not that either.

A senior Clinton campaign official confirms to CBS News that Hillary Clinton will "acknowledge but not concede" the race tonight. The official says "she has no plans to concede the race tonight."

So she will admit that Obama has more delegates, yet she will also remain in the race. For what purpose, exactly?

(continued)

By Jeff

The big mistake that the Democrats have made is their proportional method of assigning delegates. It’s just made it nearly impossible for either candidate to pull ahead. Continuing to do it this way will enable a lengthened primary season, and we’ve seen that the longer a race, the more it devolves into petty attacks. That only makes both candidates look worse.

The whole idea of “superdelegates” strikes me as extremely un-Democratic (meaning the party; not the adjective). The Democratic party is supposed to be the champion of the little folks; the downtrodden; making sure that everyone that all the evil Republicans ignore, gets a real voice. The Republicans are supposed to be the party where the elite sets the rules and everyone else just falls in line or gets trampled.

Yet, the Democrats have made it so less than 800 people control 20 percent of the possible Democratic delegates. If the delegates want to stereotypical “evil, selfish Republicans," they can withhold their vote and use it as a bargaining chip to cull favor with the eventual nominee (gee, I wonder why over 25 percent of superdelegates haven’t committed yet).

(continued)

By Jeff

As a follow-up to Meg’s post regarding just how ignorant many people are regarding this election and what are their (foolish) motives for choosing their candidate, it got me thinking about a recent blog post from Ben Smith, who makes the point that it’s actually surprising that "only" 10 percent of Americans think Barack Obama is a Muslim, given the striking ignorance Americans show in many other areas.

So, building off his base, here are a few more statistics about Americans that is really actually pretty depressing.

10 percent think Barrack Obama is Muslim.

18 percent think the sun revolves around the Earth.

19 percent accept the presence of spells and witchcraft.

22 percent think George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks before they happened.

(AP)

By Jeff

At the adult table (as always) is the Republican Illuminati of James Baker, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, a picture of baby Jesus and George W. Bush in his rocketship seat. At the kids table is all the people who may potentially be vice presidential candidates: Bobby Jindal, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Charlie Crist and Tim Pawlenty.

Poppa Bush says, “Alright men, while McCain’s back at the grill we need to determine — Dick, quit eating that puppy carcass for a second, this is important — by the end of this day, we’re going to decide who is assigned as vice presidential nominee. Rove, go.”

“Well, it really needs to be someone young and energizing to fight the Obamania factor, and someone with a strong conservative record to placate the core Gays/Guns/God crowd that doesn’t think McCain is conservative enough” as Karl looks over while Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee arm wrestle to see who gets to say grace. “It would also be ideal to get someone who could help us carry some swing states.”

Baker butts in, “I think we should start excluding some guys. We’ll get Florida even if Crist isn’t on the ticket — I made sure of that last time — plus he’s got white hair, and we’ve already got one of them. Huckabee is a nice guy, and I’m really impressed with his weight loss, but is it just me, or does he come off as a bit crazy? When he tries to be funny, it just kind of creeps me out. Liability.”

(continued)

By Jeff

Hillary Clinton is not winning the Democratic nomination. No way; no how. I soooooo need a break from the Democratic primary.

So instead, and since it appears as though I’m one of the few Politirazzi voices on “the right,” I’ll champion something that both Democratic candidates have been speaking out against: NAFTA, which has been a substantial benefit to all parties involved. But before I get into the stats, there are two major errors people make when demonizing NAFTA.

First, they assume that manufacturing jobs are all lost to “outsourcing,” when in fact many of them are lost due to either job obsoleteness or increased productivity. It’s not a bad thing to lose jobs. For instance, the buggy whip industry is dead — and isn’t everyone glad automobiles replaced horse transportation? The assembly line obsoleted even more jobs while dramatically increasing productivity. Microsoft has been the cause of mass job obsoleteness. Is there ANYONE who would argue that the technological revolution starting in the late '70s hasn’t been a historic boon to the global economy and society in general? Jobs are lost. Industries die. Economies adapt. Not only is it natural, but it’s good. The loss of manufacturing jobs is a secular change. China, where we are supposedly shipping all of our manufacturing jobs is shedding manufacturing jobs at a higher rate than the U.S., but their productivity is increasing.

(continued)

By Jeff

When the question was posed to me as to which ridiculous spectacle of the campaign annoyed me the most, my first reaction was, “can it be ‘all of the above'?” I finally settled on the pretty obvious Jeremiah Wright situation. First, the subject really had little to do with Sen. Obama but was given a lot of press just because of the incendiary tone of Wright’s comments. The clearly hostile-to-white America comments do not come close to sounding anything like anything ever being attributed to Obama in his life. In fact, Obama had already distanced himself from Wright in February of 2007, well before the public controversy erupted. Additionally, Obama immediately and repeatedly said that Wright did not speak for him or his campaign. So I really don’t know why people kept harping on Obama. What else was he supposed to do and say to convey the message that he disagreed with Reverend Wright?

(continued)

By Jeff

I think the president’s main job in any administration should be foreign policy. The president should spend the bulk of their time outside the country helping to establish, augment or leverage relationships around the world to improve the environment for America’s citizens and corporations. Domestic policy can be driven by the Congress and respective states, with obviously the president’s veto power acting as a check and balance. The need to focus internationally is magnified in this election due to the war(s) and the significantly eroded opinion of America held throughout the world after the Bush administration many abuses.

There are obviously many domestic issues that are also important to me (e.g. the farcical “war on drugs”, the civil rights issue of gay marriage, the Social Security ponzi scheme, fear of the Democrats attempts at nationalizing health care, an increasingly re-distributive tax code and general intrusiveness of the federal government both economically and personally) which will have a significant impact on my vote.

That said, my No. 1 issue of this general election cycle (if it ever gets started) will be how Obama and McCain discuss what will be their efforts to re-establish diplomacy around the world and repair America’s name in light of the Bush administration’s numerous international missteps and abuses of power.

(continued)

By Jeff

Margin of victory: 53% for Clinton to 45% for Obama and the odd 1% who either votes for Edwards, “none of the above”, or “undecided” which seems like a waste of a Tuesday night, especially when you can watch Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and War Games back-to-back on AMC starting at 6PM.

Media narrative: Will be twofold. First, the realization that for all the hullabaloo, this primary was pretty meaningless due to how the Democratic Party structured their primaries. Clinton will pick up about 10-15 delegates on Obama, which means that she’ll still be about 120-130 delegates http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html behind him with only 384 delegates up for grabs in the remaining 7 primaries.

Which means, as everyone already knows, Clinton’s only chances to win the nomination are: 1) A miracle with the Florida/Michigan delegates, 2) a miracle with superdelegates leaving Obama (as a result of one of the many manufactured controversy-gates the Clinton camp is trying to stoke the fires around Obama) 3) a miracle at the convention.

So the second media narrative will be to try and figure out just when Clinton will give up and drop this charade. Will it be before the North Carolina primary (May 6th), immediately after, will she stick it out and wait for a miracle at the convention, or will Howard Dean kidnap her at some point in between?

Wow, so Senator Clinton just said that what works in New York may not work in Montana and so she doesn't think that the federal government shouldn't some sort of "blanket rules" that they're going to try to impose isn't going to work? That was about gun control, but does she realize the implications of that statement? SHE'S A LIBERTARIAN!!!! She wants to give more power to the states and have a limited federal government. I like her now!
— Jeff

(AP)

Intermission #2. The second part was certainly more engaging than the first. But I'd still call the GOP the big winner in this debate so far. The first hour of petty questions did nothing to make either Democratic candidate look good. The big loser: ABC (well, and the voting public).
— Jeff

Millionaires and billionaires have their payroll taxes capped, because their benefits are capped. If you want to do something to save Social Security, raise the age limit. It was 65 in the 30s, when the average life expectancy age was around 65. If the benefit age were indexed to life expectancy (like it should have been), the benefit age would be about 75 right now.
— Jeff

"Let me turn to the economy. That is the number one issue on American's minds, right now." So, let's wait until an hour and four minutes into the debate to bring it up!
— Jeff

Everyone wants the Iraq war to end as soon as possible, but to say that we’re going to get out no matter what — no matter what the commanders say — is a mistake. The president “sets the mission” as Obama says, sure. But you are a suit in Washington. You need to rely on what the military leaders to determine what is the mission. Also, Sen. Clinton again contradicts herself.

The talks out of one side of her mouth that President Bush made unilateral decisions to keep us in Iraq, and made poor decisions while there while many others disagree. Yet, she (and Sen. Obama) continue to say that no matter what the military experts think, they will both make the unilateral decision to remove us from Iraq.
— Jeff

Now that it's a commercial. I don't watch full debates often, but are they often this superficial? We're almost halfway through and there hasn't been one single policy question. It's all process. All Karl Rove type of BS. Gibson/Stephanopolous are part of the problem. This is insane.
— Jeff

"Do you believe in the American flag?" Ugh. Come on ABC. Is this a joke? I think we should turn all political debates over to Youtube. That debate had the best, most detailed, issue-oriented questions. It's official: the mainstream media is now obsessed with 10 second soundbites targeting people with 20 second attention spans. I'm sorry, but this "debate" has been downright painful so far.
— Jeff

25% of the way through the debate in "the most important election of our lifetimes" and not one single tangible meaningful issue has been brought up. Huzzah, Charlie and George!
— Jeff

Exactly, Obama. Sen. Clinton complains about the vast right wing conspiracy that continuously attacks her, and all their dirty tricks for the last 16 years. Yet, what her campaign has been doing over the past few months is EXACTLY what she's been complaining about. The 3 a.m. ad, and the ad harping on the "bitter" comment are two most recent examples.
— Jeff

Great "more questions on that same theme" regarding Bitter-gate. I can hardly wait!
— Jeff

Wow. Big first question. Damn. I wish Sen. Clinton answered first. She would have said "definitely I'd name him my running mate" and then Obama would have said "ahhhh, not so fast". That would have been fun. But she's no dummy, which is why she deferred to Sen. Obama. I think Hillary did a good job by making no question that her main goal is to have someone from the Democratic Party sworn in come January.
— Jeff

How many times will "Bittergate" be mentioned?

Will Howard Dean run on stage and try to gag Sen. Hillary Clinton or at least scream at her and tell her that she's ruining the Democratic party's chance to win the general election?

How many times will Hillary interrupt the moderator in the middle of a new question to further answer the previous question because "I'm sorry, but this is such an important issue"?

How many "personal" stories of random (likely fabricated) Pennsylvanians will be brought up to illustrate how NAFTA or our current health care system has ruined the state?

Will Obama wear a drab powder red tie or a drab powder blue tie?

Who will be mentioned more in the debate: G.W. Bush or John McCain?
— Jeff

By Jeff

I can’t see how the ongoing Clinton/Obama fight won’t hurt whomever (Obama) is the eventual (Obama) nominee.

It’s not like the focus of the discussion has been around tangible issues; it’s been about the Florida/Michigan primary vote validity, Jeremiah Wright, the ridiculous “bitter-gate” (by the way, can we stop adding “-gate” to every controversy, please? It’s been 35 years), and how long it takes Hillary to nurse a shot of Crown.

It’s been so petty and base that it seems like a two-month SNL skit.

The one benefit to the Democrats of this little fifth-grade slapfight, is that it’s fattened their pockets, though only so much of it can be spent on the general election. As of the end of this January, McCain had raised barely $50M compared to Clinton and Obama both raising over $130M. And that gap has only widened in the last two months. A united Republican party can now spend 100% of their efforts to build a warchest against the eventual Democratic nominee, earmarking all of it to the general election fund. This is crucially important to McCain unless he can create a controversy-gate, which forces Obama to return his donations and take public financing.

(continued)

By Jeff

Like much of the rest of America, out of the three remaining candidates, Hillary Clinton is the person I'd least want to be president. Her campaign comprises nearly 100 percent of the people in the country who don't realize this fact.

First, and most broadly — I just loathe her personally. She's just immensely selfish and arrogant; she knows what's best for everyone and will not relent until everyone caves in. Every day she stays in this unwinnable race only makes her look worse in my eyes. When Mitt Romney was in her position, he dropped out and threw all his support behind McCain; taking a back seat in order to help his party. Hillary refuses to do this. She is in full-on attack dog mode, running out Rove-ian tactics like the desperate 3 a.m. ad and the saying that she'd take Obama "at his word" that he's not a Muslim. She is doing everything in her power to make Obama look bad, while letting McCain take a two month nap in advance of the real campaign.

(continued)