Potpourri

The GOP acceptance speech was seen by more people than watched Obama’s – 38.9 million. Actually he beat Obama by just 1%, but the stat is, nonetheless, amazing given the nation’s dissatisfaction with the Bush administration. However, the reason for the larger audience might be explained this way: Every Republican tuned in to watch McCain and a lot of Democrats, concerned about America’s future, did, too; the Obama speech was watched by every Democrat with access to a TV and a small group of Republicans – small because the rest didn’t want to run the risk of being persuaded that their team is ruining America. How else to explain it?

Palin Again –

Palin was cast as a reformer who fought the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.” But in fact, she ran for governor in 2006 as a champion of the pork-barrel bridge and “opposed” it only after it was clear the project was dead. We were told that Palin abhors earmarks, the special congressional appropriations that Alaska politicians have used to bleed billions from the American taxpayer. But it turns out Palin fought to get earmarks both as mayor and as governor, hiring lobbyists and going to Washington herself to bring them home.

Perhaps it is a good thing that she has flown back to Alaska to hole up for a few days to read briefing books before coming back to the lower 48 to rejoin the campaign. But will she be ready....really ready?

Palin for the Last Time –

And she attended FIVE different colleges in pursuit of a bachelor’s degree! Six if you count the school she returned to twice!

Elitist?

When you hear a Republican call Obama an elitist, your response should be just these three words: “$300 thousand dollars.” You won’t have to explain it and you won’t have to say anything more. (If you don’t know what I mean by suggesting that answer, send me an e-mail.)

What is it with Republicans?

Every Republican walking down the street these days has two phrases you hear repeatedly: “Obama is going to raise your taxes.” The second phrase is: “McCain will cut your taxes.”

So, that’s it? Is it really that simple? Hardly. It is insulting to ask voters to base their vote on such simplistic nonsense, especially since the record of recent Republican presidents demonstrates they are profligate spenders whose borrowing and spending make liberal members of Congress blush.

Look at the record of Ronald Reagan, that great Republican icon. He said he wanted a balanced budget but America didn’t get one until Bill Clinton took office. Reagan never even came close to even thinking about balancing a budget during his 8 years in office. Instead, he tripled the national debt, growing the debt from $1.5 trillion to over $4 trillion by the time he left office.

Today, George Bush makes Reagan look like a piker. Under George Bush, the national debt has soared from $5.8 trillion in 2001 to almost 10 TRILLION DOLLARS today.

Maybe, “my friends” in the Republican Party, you would be willing to raise taxes to pay some of the $406 Billion needed annually to pay the interest on the debt run up on the watch of your Republican Presidents? ( 25% of the notes are held by foreign interests, up from 13% in 1988, so we owe a lot of money to “our friends” overseas who don’t like us one bit.)

Bush holds the record for annual spending and has proposed a budget of $3.01 trillion dollars for fiscal year 2009 which starts October 1, 2008. Barry Goldwater and Everett McKinley Dirksen would not know these guys.

So when somebody says, “Obama is going to raise your taxes,” say to them, “I’d rather pay more taxes to a President who will actually balance the federal government than keep sending the same taxes to someone else who cares only about spending more than he takes in and passing the debt to my kids.”

Incidentally, George Bush finally has submitted a projected balanced budged….for the year 2012!

JFK and Obama -- Generational leadership

Near the end of Barack Obama’s acceptance speech last Thursday night, there was a moment when you knew the political landscape in America was truly changing. Obama’s lowered his voice but not his energy. The full force of that energy was evident as he punctuated each closing phrase with words carefully selected to leave no doubt about the seriousness of the choice we voters face in November. “The greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result….Change happens because the American people demand it, because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.”

At that moment, I knew we were witness to something rarely seen in politics, the birth of a generational leader, bursting impatiently onto the stage, encouraging all within earshot to embrace his vision. In 1960 Democratic nominee, John F. Kennedy addressed thousands gathered in the Los Angeles Coliseum to hear his acceptance speech and he issued a similar challenge to America, “My call is to the young in heart, regardless of age….the world is changing. The old era is ending. The old ways will not do….It is a time, in short, for a new generation of leadership – new men to cope with new problems and new opportunities.”

An era was ending in 1960, another era is ending in 2008 -- and a new one is beginning on January 20, 2009.

Like Kennedy, Obama reminded us that America’s promise is “the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort….it is what pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen – that better place around the bend.”

Obama is poised to demonstrate that he is that new generational leader best prepared to lead his nation forward.

An Energy Plan with Depth

I don’t know about you but I’m tired of politically expedient politicians pandering for our votes with simple solutions to complex problems. I’m also tired of uninformed people allowing themselves to be so easily manipulated. This time, this year, this November, it has to be different.

John McCain says his energy policy consists of drilling in ANWR, and drilling offshore. Yes, that’s the ticket. T. Boone Pickens says in his recent TV advertisement “This is one crisis we can’t drill our way out of.” Who’s correct? Pickens, of course, certainly not McCain. Pickens knows the truth and is telling the American people. He knows the answer will involve a range of solutions that include aggressive development of alternative fuels, renewable energy sources, advanced technology in generating coal-fired electricity, construction of safe and secure nuclear generation facilities, and enhanced development of technology to extract petroleum from American oil shale – to name a few areas of national energy policy concentration.

That’s a lot to put on our plate, but we have to do it all. Americans need to stop looking to candidates to give them short-term knee jerk solutions to complex problems. That will not put us any closer to energy independence – which is what everyone wants. Energy independence is the only way we can regain control of our own economic destiny.

Look, when the first Arab oil embargo occurred in October 1973, lines formed around service stations, sometimes for miles, as Americans waited for gasoline. Politicians beat their breast and said “we must never again put ourselves at the mercy of the OPEC nations.” Yeah, right. We took that to heart, didn’t we? It’s time to get serious.

Obama has come to us in 2008, dismissing Hillary and John McCain’s idea of a gas tax holiday and other short term “solutions.” He has resisted the temptation to play their game. I find him refreshing in that he is truly seeking to put on the table the beginnings, at least, of a long range energy plan. He wants to:

1. Increase fuel economy standards

2. Invest in plug in hybrid electric vehicles

3. Develop the next generation of sustainable biofuels

4. Establish a national low carbon fuel standard

5. Develop and deploy clean coal technology

6. Invest in a “Smart Grid” for the reliable transmission of electricity

7. …and the list goes on and on.

I’m ready for a plan with depth and breath, aren’t you?

Candidates -- Pure and Perfect in Every Way

And then there are those who insist that candidates for President be pure and perfect in every position they have taken since leaving the crib. You cannot take one position 40 years ago and get away with changing it today. Nosirree! That won’t do. And while you’re at it, you best be aware of every social, cultural and legal change that is likely to take place in the future. Decisions you make today must be consistent with any future domestic and international developments, or you’ll be toast. In other words, to be good enough for our support you must be a cross between a Benedictine monk and the Oracle of Delphi.

Above all, the record of your life must not reflect a lapse in judgment or a mistake of any kind. Not one. As one watches the news, listens to special interest groups, or reads the political blogs, one is led to conclude neither John McCain nor Barack Obama is qualified to lead this nation.

It’s silly…and every one of us is to blame if we accept the view that persons cannot change, cannot mature, cannot reevaluate positions, cannot learn from life experiences and become better for it.

In modern times, very few members of Congress have been successful in pursuing office of President of the United States. Each one always brings a legislative record ripe for the picking. Richard Nixon and John Kennedy are the notable exceptions in the past half century. Reagan, Carter, Clinton and Bush 43 were all governors and thus had no legislative record to pick apart.

But for a member of Congress, here’s what you might face –

“Well, I see you voted to confirm __x___ for the Supreme Court. (Now comes the social issues list) "You must be against the right to bear arms,” or “You must favor abortion rights?”

“Well, you voted to raise taxes ___x ___ times," or "You voted to raise the national debt ___x ___ times. You must be one of those 'tax and spend' liberals.”

“Well, you voted against the war before you were for it. What, you don’t know your position or are you trying to have it both ways?”

This year, the person elected President will be a member of the United States Senate…so an exception is in the works. But to be safe, when John McCain and Barack Obama pick their running mates, both are likely to pick someone not in any legislative body anywhere. In other words, they are likely to pick a governor like Charlie Crist of Florida, or Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota for McCain. For Obama, it’s likely to be a governor like Ted Strickland of Ohio or Tim Kaine of Virginia – to name a few. That way, the media and special interests will not be able to spend the fall combing the voting record of their running mate, thus distracting voters from the issues important to the race.

But this is not the way it should be. In the record of every man and woman offering his life in the service of the nation, mistakes will be found. Sometimes major mistakes will be found. We have to find a way to get over throwing the candidate out who has ever stumbled. The question we should ask candidates is not “Have you ever made a mistake,” rather it should be, “Have you learned from your mistakes and what have you learned?” The answer to that question should be the only thing that is weighed in the balance.

We should be very afraid of the candidate – or officeholder – who says he has not made a mistake. Remember when Bush 43 told a press conference at The White House he could not think of a single mistake he had made in his Presidency? Bush 43 likes to compare himself to George Washington. Well, Washington made plenty of mistakes, and he admitted to most of them. The difference is George Washington learned from his mistakes and the record shows he worked diligently never to repeat them.

The father of our country was a great man, a great leader, and like all fathers, flawed. That’s the candidate I want to support for office. I want a candidate not afraid to make mistakes, confident enough to admit to his mistakes and wise enough to apply the lessons learned to strengthen this republic.

Obama or McCain -- Liberal or Conservative?

Let’s get one thing straight: Barack Obama is not the “most liberal member of the US Senate” despite what the National Journal says. And John McCain doesn’t think so either.

John McCain is known to point out that Obama supports the President at least 50 percent of the time. The National Journal disagrees. In its analysis and rating of senators’ votes in 2007, the Journal concluded Obama is the “most liberal member of the Senate.” The GOP jumped on it, sending out press releases to all media. The right-wing bloggers jumped on it too, as further evidence that Obama is just another one of those “tax and spend liberals.”

So, which is it? Is McCain right or is National Journal right? The GOP can’t have it both ways.

Frankly, in my view, neither conclusion is correct.

The ratings are often based on a very subjective analysis of votes cast. For example, in the judgment of editors of the National Journal, Obama’s vote to establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity should be counted as a liberal vote. Who knew? Wouldn’t you think that vote would be neither liberal nor conservative? Could there be anything more deserving of bipartisan support?

What about those ratings of special interest groups. Are they any help? I’m talking about organizations like Americans for Democratic Action, American Civil Liberties Union, National Federation of Independent Business, the Americans for Constitutional Action – to name just a few. Their ratings are so important they appear at the end of every member’s bio in The Almanac of American Politics. These ratings, however, are based on a select list of 10 or 12 votes from among hundreds of votes cast in a single year, and they’re mostly designed to be used as a lobbying tool. Nope, the special interest groups don’t help because typically they use their ratings to polarize the electorate.

I worked in the US Senate for 17 years and I can tell you with confidence that nothing so frustrates the members – all members of both parties – like these arbitrary ratings. Anyone can pick a dozen votes to make a member look “liberal” or “conservative.” I remember well, Barry Goldwater, THE father of the modern conservative movement, and he voted frequently with his more liberal colleagues. Ted Kennedy is well known to support conservative issues; indeed, he worked closely with President Bush to pass education legislation.

Let’s be blunt: Most of the analysis and ratings are not an accurate reflection of the political ideology of a given Senator. You may be able to discern someone leaning one way or another…but it is not possible to gauge who is the “most liberal” or “most conservative” by reading the ratings published today.

All right, but is McCain “liberal” or “conservative?” Conservatives certainly don’t like it when he partners with Democrats like Russ Feingold in writing campaign finance reform legislation. McCain certainly sounds liberal, doesn’t he?

Is Obama liberal or conservative? Liberals don’t like it when he says he wants to bring the best minds into his administration, even Republicans! Obama certainly sounds like a conservative, doesn’t he?

Can political scientists give us an objective answer?

One respected Internet site, Voteview.com, created by political scientists, reports there are nine senators more liberal than Obama, and seven senators more conservative than McCain.

Darn, this is hard. Maybe we should quit trying to peg a member as a “liberal” or “conservative.” Maybe we should quit using those words with pejorative intent, too. Maybe we should look at the totality of the member’s record. Maybe we should listen to the member explain his vote when it’s in question.

Yes, its a little work, but Jefferson and the others never said preserving this republic would be easy. They said it would require each new generation to renew their commitment to think before they vote. Isn’t it time to do some of that?

So when someone says to you, “I’m not voting for Obama because he is the most liberal member of the US Senate,” tell them, “That’s not true; the record doesn’t show that. Find another reason, please, and then we’ll talk.”