Oh, You Cal

Boy, are the Republicans in a bad mood this morning!

I heard that arch-conservative Cal Thomas on the radio this morning describing the debate as a waste of time. “There’s only one word for last night’s debate,” complained Cal. “Booooring!!”

On the contrary, Cal, I found it fascinating. Steady as she goes, Obama was calm and reasoned in his demeanor and clear in his description of his ideas for the future. McCain, on the other hand was petty, petulant, and picayune in just about every way. And did you notice that his voice kept going higher and higher and becoming more whiny as the night went on. His voice dripped with contempt for his fellow debater, the person he described as “that one.”

Cal Thomas said both seemed to have forgotten that it is “we the people, not them, the government.” I have news for you, Cal. “we the people IS we the government every day – because that is our system of government.” What planet are you living on?

I heard Mary Matelin on the Don Imus program today saying “people need to start focusing on the differences in these two candidates – and then the polls will move in the right direction.” Mary, I have news for you, the people have focused on the differences and they believe Obama is the best candidate for America’s future.

And then there is my Republican neighbor, who said to me as I picked up the Washington Post in my driveway, “Debates? What debates? I try not to watch, it won’t make a difference.” I have news for her. This time it will make a difference. The American treasury cannot afford another four years like the last eight. We simply cannot afford it.

Confidence is what it’s all about. Confidence and trust. When we elect Barack Obama, confidence will return to the financial markets as they realize we have an actual grown up at the helm, someone in whom we can place our trust to get America moving again. We certainly don’t need someone who believes the government works best when we send it less money and expect it to do more and more. We certainly don’t need someone who believes there is no role for government in our lives and then says government should step in to buy up all the bad mortgages, the same person by the way, who – a few minutes earlier – said we ought to freeze government spending right where it is. No wonder Republicans are in a bad mood this morning.

You out of sorts Republicans need to take two aspirins. It’ll be over soon. The Democrats will be back in power and you can join your old friend Herbert Hoover on the sidelines of history.

Out of the mouth of Bush...

President George Bush was on TV this afternoon attempting to explain what Congress did and what he did to address the credit crisis and the Wall Street meltdown. A small businessman explained the great difficulty he was having getting credit for his business operations and wanted to know what the President was doing about it.

First, President Bush said he "listened to some pretty smart people" and he followed their advice. "They said we had to make a big, bold move and we did. (shrugged his shoulders) I know some members of Congress didn't like it, they never like it when government makes a big, bold move, but we had to do something about freezing up credit."

I kid you not, that's what he said.

Is it any wonder the people are scared to death. Our leader doesn't have a clue what he is saying.

It truly is up to the candidates at the Nashville debate tonight to calm the waters if they can, to explain to the American people exactly how they would address the current financial crisis. In a very real sense, the people have stopped listening to their ersatz President and will be looking for one of these guys to help restore some measure of confidence in the financial system that makes America work. Can they do it? We'll see.

Nine Senators more "liberal" than Obama; Seven Senators more "conservative" than McCain

Let’s get one thing straight: Barack Obama is not the “most liberal member of the US Senate” despite what the GOP says.

In its analysis and rating of senators’ votes in 2007, the National Journal concluded back in June that 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.”

McCain had a lot of fun with this report in June. Now that October is here and his polling numbers are not so hot, McCain and his minions are raising the false charge again and hoping it will stick this time.

So, is the charge correct? Here's a primer on ratings and votes they measure.

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. Do they make things clearer? 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. No, the special interest groups don’t help us understand the ratings 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. I wonder what Goldwater's ACA rating would be today? It wouldn't be hard to determine. The conservative rating services would simple pick the most conservative votes to make him look really conservative and ignore any that might make him look like his friend Ted Kennedy.

All right, but what about John McCain? 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.

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 simply reading the ratings published today. That's the bottom line. So, forget 'em.

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.”

Problems with the Republican Mantra

Many readers of this blog are Republicans in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Georgia. They always have thought provoking questions which I appreciate. Late last week, I had an exchange with one who asked me why Republicans in the House of Representatives had such a hard time voting for Treasury’s rescue bill which most seemed to agree was needed to stabilize the economy and send a message to world markets that America was getting its financial act together. Here’s part of my answer:

It is hard for "always cut your taxes, anti-big government" Republicans to swallow this kind of economic medicine. Because, if they swallow it, it undermines their pet attack line on the Democrats which is, "Democrats will raise your taxes and increase the size of government. Elect me and I will reduce your taxes and reduce the size of that big ole government that interferes too much in your life."

If this latest legislative initiative works, it pulls the rug out from under those folks and they will have to admit that government does indeed have a role in keeping this country on an even keel and taxes do have a role to play in paying for the services we all depend on. Most importantly, they will have to admit that a free market can be depended upon to “take care of things” but only so long as the people are willing to endure enormous personal pain in the process (complete collapse of the financial markets) which they are not inclined to accept in 2008.

Of course, if you take away their mantra – “I will cut your taxes and reduce the size of government” – Republican ideologues are left with nothing POSITIVE to say about why they should be elected. Note that none of the “young turk” Republicans in the House, elected after Newt Gingrich taught his party to stick to the mantra, never vary, and never try to explain or educate constituents on the “right thing to do for the country.”

I hope this is a cycle in American politics that is nearing its end, and that the Gingrich generation will soon depart so that America can get back on track and resume its place of leadership on the world stage.

"To Be Our Best Selves"

Yesterday, on NBC’s Meet the Press, Peggy Noonan, former speechwriter and adviser to President Ronald Reagan made a comment that is worth pondering by serious people interested in finding a way to “keep” this republic. Tom Brokaw made a reference to economic conditions in 2008 being similar to those of 1980 when the presidential contest was between Reagan and Jimmy Carter, and the desire of the country to find a leader to help get the country “back on track.”

Peggy Noonan responded:

Oh maybe it’s all more so, but I actually think we’re living in a different world. The intensity of our economic crisis seems to me to be greater. But, Tom, also there’s something that we all know, and it’s in the back of our minds but we don’t quite think of it enough, and it is this: We are living in the age of the unknowable, of weapons of mass destruction, of crazy people who can get and harness these things and who can come and hurt us. When you—you don’t want to be dark and you don’t want to be preoccupied, but when you keep your mind on that fact and that we may in our country face difficult days ahead, and even immediately ahead, when you keep your mind on that, you realize, whoa, this old partisan gamesmanship, this “tear out his throat,” all of that stuff, it’s over, it’s yesterday.

What we need now is grace. We need real patriotism, which patriotism isn’t used as a weapon in a campaign. Patriotism actually needs grace in order to function. We got to be our best selves right now. We got to hit our game in a higher way. We got to be forbearing. We got to be adults.

I sometimes think one of the problems in America is there are too many people that don’t want to embrace the role of the simple grown-up and show the maturity and forbearance of a grown-up.

Palin was careless, reckless, naive, foolhardy...

...and she was generally insulting to the intelligence of the American people.

Here are notes I made at the end of the "debate."

Biden spent a lot of time setting the record straight. He also displayed enormous knowledge of the facts and a clear understanding of the nuances of the issues. Biden scored over and over, but I don't think it will change many minds.

She showed she can memorize lots of text...and she also demonstrated there wasn't a question asked that would get her off the script she was given.

Her memorization was good but awkwardly presented to say the least. Her climate change comment was a little strange to me.

After the first half hour she really got tentative and uncertain of what she should say. Her coaches had obviously told her, "If you don't know the answer or don't want to answer the question, just ignore it and repeat this block of information on McCain's positions." What an insult to the voters!

Biden knows foreign policy cold. There was no way she could keep up with him on that subject. This was embarrassing. Why did she say he is looking backward when he clearly displayed a breadth of knowledge and understanding that no one else in the room had. I was surprised when she actually used the word "proliferation" -- a new word for her. I was impressed that she didn't say, "When the bad guys start throwing those nuclear hockey pucks at us...". Incidentally, did you notice she had no clue what to say on the nuclear trigger question?

If something happens to John McCain, she said she would show her maverick stripes, too, and would pursue things differently, of course. That comment alone should scare the pants off every single person in America.

She also said she hoped the Constitution will allow more authority for the VP should she decide to assert it. What!!?? Thankfully, Joe Biden straightened her out by citing Article 1 of the US Constitution, stated the duties of the VP and made clear for Palin -- and Dick Cheney -- that the VP IS part of the Executive branch. Period. This part was weird.

And when asked to name the worst thing Dick Cheney did, she responded, "I think it was the hunting accident."

With 15 minutes to go, Palin "left the building." She never answered the question, "what is your Achilles heel?" Obviously, this was not a block of text presented to her and memorized in rehearsal. Actually, it could be that she did not understand the question. Maybe Sarah did not understand that Gwen Ifil was asking her to name a personal area of weakness or vulnerability.

SHE WAS A ROBOT...RECITING ALL SHE HAD MEMORIZED...IGNORING THE MODERATOR...DELIVERING BLOCKETTES OF A SPEECH.

Bottom line: she was much better than anyone expected...BUT... on a scale of 1 to 10, Joe Biden scored 9 and Sarah Palin scored 1.5. What does that say? It says she was a disaster.

The only thing that saved her was the perception that she was better than expected. Like the old Peggy Lee song, "Is that all there is?" Or, perhaps I should say, "Is that all we are looking for in a VP?

I don't think we will hear much more about Sarah Palin because everyone finally knows exactly what's in that skirt -- nothin'. She does have beautiful brown eyes (you betcha') and when she bats those over sized lashes (gonna wow ya'), she starts a veritable breeze in the room. Let's acknowledge she is the cutest VP candidate we've ever had (let's see that wink one more time).

Republicans will ignore the fact that she is absolutely vacuous. There are no brain cells processing incoming information not to mention questions. She has Ronald Reagan's ability to memorize significant blockettes of information that she can recall when she has nothing to say or is unable to respond to a specific question. And that's all the Republican base needs to know.

Democrats, on the other hand, saw what they needed to see, too: she is as much an "empty skirt" as George Bush was an "empty suit." Americans bought that empty suit before and we won't make that mistake again -- no matter how many times she twitches that nose.

Ben Frankllin would be proud of Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md)

I don’t know Wayne Gilchrest, the moderate Republican member of Congress, defeated for re-election in a primary earlier this year, but old Ben would be proud of the way he tried to represent his constituents, and Ben would endorse the comments of Gilchrest as reported in Marc Fisher’s Washington Post column today. I have excerpted Gilchrest’s remarks from the column:

“The Republican Party has become more narrow, more self-serving, more centered around ‘I want, I want, I want.’ I’ve had it with my colleagues who don’t understand the issues, who not only don’t read the Financial Times, they have never heard of the Financial Times. We’re in this bad place as a country because of the evangelicals, the neo cons, the nasty, bitter and mean…very clever ideological groups that use money, technology, fear and bigotry to lead people around. Voting according to your knowledge and experience – that’s out the window. Competence and prudence? Forget it.”

He also had a few choice words for the American citizen:

“We’ve become a country that sits down in front of the boob tube and listens to people shouting about freedom, but now people equate freedom not with the acquisition of knowledge but with comfort. ‘Give me my flat-screen TV, the gas-guzzling car, the goods made in China.’ The whole concept of freedom has become the idea of comfort, with a complete lack of responsibility.”

What about his party’s standard bearer, John McCain? Gilchrest had this to say:

“John McCain just recites memorized pieces of information in a narrow way, whereas Barack Obama is constantly evaluating information, using his judgment. One guy just recites what’s in front of him, and the other has initiative and reason and prudence and wisdom.”

OK….no wonder the ideological purists of his party are happy to see him go. He tells the truth, and that is not something the right wing ideologues can truck. No sireee!

Now you know why Ben Franklin’s quote is the inspiration for this blog. He said, “You have a republic…if you can keep it.” Ben knew that if our representatives reach the point where they set aside their own intellect, their own judgment and simply be guided by public opinion, we would be in danger of losing the republic. Writing to “The Electors at Bristol” in 1790, Sir Edmund Burke eloquently expressed this sentiment when he wrote, “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays rather than serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

American needs a lot more like Rep. Wayne Gilchrest!