Posted by John Publius Jr. on January 30th, 2009 — in Blog
Yesterday, the Illinois Senate voted 59-0 to remove Governor Rod Blagojevich from office. Lieutenant Governor Patrick Quinn was sworn in as the 41st Governor of Illinois.
This is good news for Illinois and for everyone concerned about “pay to play” government corruption. We will never eliminate government corruption, but it is encouraging when perpetrators are caught and thrown out of office.
Blagojevich chose to appear on many television shows rather than participate in his own impeachment trial. He claimed that the impeachment process was unfair and denied him the opportunity to present witnesses in his defense. His claim is false, only some witnesses were not permitted because of the ongoing criminal investigation. Many analysts believe that Blago was purposely attempting to “taint the jury pool” for his upcoming criminal trial, and of course, this may be true. He probably was also motivated to improve his public image, at least in the eyes of his family and the handful of remaining supporters.
Based on what we, the public, know so far about the Blagojevich criminal case, it is uncertain that Blago actually violated any laws. The Illinois legislature has much more leeway to impeach and remove a Governor than a criminal court has to convict someone of a crime. Impeachment is usually politically motivated. Over the years, Blagojevich made it impossible for the state legislature to work with him. The allegations of Blago’s “pay to play” deals were sufficient to move the legislature to act. Impeachment should be used sparingly, and Blagojevich is the first Governor of Illinois ever impeached.
Blagojevich has many more rights to defend himself in his criminal trial. My guess is that U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has plenty of evidence to convict Blagojevich on criminal government corruption charges. I am less concerned about this because I am mainly happy that Illinois now has a legitimate Governor. If Blago broke any laws, he should serve time in prison, obviously. I am interested to see if any other politicians will be indicted for involvement with Blago.
Political deals and fundraising happen every day in all levels of government. The Blagojevich case is interesting because it raises the question of where is the line between legitimate deal-making and criminal “pay to play” corruption. For example, the National Rifle Association (NRA) or a labor union may donate campaign contributions to a candidate that supports sympathetic positions on issues. For better or worse, this is every day legal politics. The Blagojevich case includes allegations of: selling a U.S. Senate seat to the highest bidder, supporting specific legislation on the condition of donations (Children’s Memorial Hospital), and government approval on the condition of firing editorial writers (Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Cubs deal). If any of these allegations are true (probably each is true), then Blagojevich clearly crossed the line into criminality. The line is often fuzzy, and additional ethics and campaign finance reform measures are needed to make the line clearer. Politicians should always avoid even the perception of impropriety to make sure they are always on the clean side of the line.
The Blagojevich case also raises the issue of whether Governors should have the power to appoint U.S. Senators in the event of a vacant seat. When in doubt, I generally believe “let the people decide”. U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) is proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to change the rule to mandate that special elections always take place to fill vacant U.S. Senate seats. I hope this amendment is enacted quickly, before we face another fiasco.
In Illinois, we feel as if a big weight has been lifted. We can move forward finally. Pat Quinn has an excellent reputation and has a sincere desire to run effective government. He can and will work with other elected officials to address the many important tasks facing our state. The next election for Illinios Governor is in 2010. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out when the voters finally have their say. My guess is that by 2010, Illinois voters will focus on economic issues and look to elect the person with the best plan to reduce unemployment and hold the line on taxes.
Sphere: Related Content
1 Comment »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on January 18th, 2009 — in Issues/Policy, Barack Obama, Blog
The song “Happy Days Are Here Again” was written in November, 1929, shortly after the stock market crash. It became Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1932 election campaign song, and has been the unofficial song of the Democratic Party ever since. To many, this song evokes bittersweet emotions: an acknowledgement of hard times and hope for a brighter future.
The U.S. (and global) economy is in very bad shape, the worst since the Great Depression. President Barack Obama takes office at a time when we need hope and a new beginning. I don’t expect the Obama administration to fix the economy immediately, but I want to see significant action soon. Obama also faces major foreign policy and security challenges. I’ve heard much discussion about the Bush administration recently, and it makes sense to evaluate the outgoing administration now. I am much more interested in turning a new page and looking forward to the long-awaited and promised change. I essentially gave up on the Bush administration in 2005, after its inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina.
It’s very encouraging that a large percentage of Americans are happy with the Obama transition team and the incoming Obama cabinet choices. Obama has wisely crafted policies and decisions to unite us. In spite of gloomy economic conditions, optimism is in the air. Some of the ideological warriors are showing a willingness to collaborate on solutions. The Obama Era starts with an ideal that “we are in this together”, rather than the tired paradigm of the past: “us against them, survival of the fittest”.
We are in for a month-long debate about the 2009 fiscal stimulus package. Obama must work with the U.S. House and Senate to pass legislation that will produce new jobs quickly. State and local governments are facing bankruptcy. Many industries need some kind of “bail out”. Critics complain about federal spending and deficits, but we have no real choice other than to “print money” and inject the economy with many billions of new dollars. “The velocity of money” is an important concept. The federal stimulus must circulate money widely for it to work effectively. Funding “shovel ready” projects is smart and rebuilding U.S. infrastructure is necessary. This will create jobs quickly and strengthen our long-term economic standing.
Democrats prefer increased spending while Republicans emphasize tax cuts. The Obama proposal offers both. I suspect this is primarily a political decision rather than the best economic choice. Nevertheless, doing something reasonably effective now is better than fighting about the “perfect plan” for months. Rebuilding inner-city schools is a great idea even though some may label it as “pork barrel spending” and an “earmark”. Funding development, research, and production of green technologies is an obvious step and essential to our future. Restructuring the health care industry also must happen. Health care is simply too expensive for corporations, families, and individuals. How about giving nurses more power?
I hear some people still argue that Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was not effective. This argument is misguided. While it’s true that the depression lasted until World War II, Roosevelt prevented the economy from getting even worse. His administration gave people hope and that is worth more than a specific dollar amount. The U.S. depression of the 1930s was in the context of a global economic meltdown. Roosevelt kept America true to its democratic ideals while other parts of the world sank into totalitarianism. Roosevelt’s rebuilding efforts positioned the United States to enjoy tremendous prosperity once the depression ended.
Spring is just around the corner. Americans have many reasons to be grateful. By electing Barack Obama, we proved we can unite around good leadership instead of wallowing in the counter-productive ethnic conflicts of the past. Despite massive economic problems, we still enjoy a standard of living well above most of the world. As we watch the violence in the Middle East, we realize that we are lucky to be here instead of many other places.
Many people have strong opinions about the economy, regardless of their expertise on the subject. What I find interesting is that award-winning economists disagree with each other fervently. No one really knows what is the best solution or even what will work to some extent. Roosevelt did quite a bit of experimenting, and in retrospect, many believe he should have spent much more right away. Obama has a mandate for change. We need bold actions, professional follow-through, and transparency. The Obama team has great talent, and I find it annoying to get bogged down in tedious arguments about Timothy Geithner’s tax filing mistakes.
Economists agree that ultimately psychology plays a primary role in the economy. A dollar is worth a dollar because we all think it is. The word “credit” comes from the Latin word “credo”, meaning “I believe”. Our economy has fundamental structural problems. We cannot wish these away, yet optimism vs. pessimism impacts decisions throughout the economy. Ultimately, money is not important. We have our dignity and we have each other. I agree with many people who feel that Barack Obama is the right person at the right time. Through his strong leadership and intelligent decisions, we will overcome the huge financial hardships we face as individuals and as a nation. Happy days are here again, but we need to have some patience because it will take some time for the economy to recover.
Sphere: Related Content
No Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on January 11th, 2009 — in Democratic Party, Blog
The Rod Blagojevich political sideshow spawned a new spin-off series: Mr. Burris Goes To Washington. These sideshows are interesting topics, up to a point. The economy and foreign policy issues are much more urgent and important.
Just about everyone was happy that the Illinois House of Representatives voted 114-1 to impeach Governor Blagojevich. Now the Illinois Senate must hold hearings and vote on whether to remove Blagojevich from office. Soon, please.
I don’t mind Blago’s appointment of Roland Burris to the United States Senate. Burris is a fine choice, it’s only a shame that it was Blago who appointed him. Good political theater by Blago, and even better by Burris. Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid looked a bit silly refusing to acknowledge any Blago appointment. He probably didn’t even realize he was playing political chess with Blagojevich until checkmate was inevitable.
We are learning about arcane Senate rules and traditions, and it’s possible that Roland Burris would take his case to court to decide what the rules really are. More likely, the Democrats will end their counter-productive stall tactics soon and give Roland Burris his seat in the United States Senate.
Roland Burris has one of the best resumes if you search the Illinois Democratic Party talent pool database. It’s somewhat unfortunate that racial politics came into play. The upside is that it reminded us that the U.S. Senate currently does not have a single African-American. We have moved forward in racial understanding, but the U.S. Senate should be more representative of the diversity of America.
As an Illinois voter, I mainly want to see us move forward. We need a new Governor and two Senators as soon as possible. I want clean government and I want politicians to do everything they can to improve the economy quickly.
Sphere: Related Content
No Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on December 11th, 2008 — in Democratic Party, Barack Obama, Blog
Latest News - Reference: Chicago Tribune’s comprehensive Blagojevich Arrest Coverage.
Blagojevich should resign immediately, but don’t count on it. You can contact the Governor’s office directly online:
http://www.illinois.gov/gov/contactthegovernor.cfm, or, maybe give him a call, I’m sure he would love to hear from you: 217-782-0244 or 312-814-2121.
I would like the Illinois State Legislature to immediately impeach Blagojevich and remove him from office. This is likely, except not “immediately”. I have heard that this process may take weeks, which is very disappointing. This is a crisis of confidence. Illinois elected officials need to move as quickly as possible.
I also hope Illinois holds a special election to fill Barack Obama’s seat as junior Senator of Illinois. Some Democrats worry that a special election will open the doors to allow a Republican to gain the seat. I’m tired of what happens behind the closed doors - let the voters decide and hopefully this time they will make a good choice. It’s also a good idea to amend the Illinois constitution to mandate special elections in the case of vacant seats. In any case, Illinois needs to fill this U.S. Senate seat soon. We also need a new Governor soon. In the interim we will be in good hands with the Lieutenant Governor of Illinois Pat Quinn, who has a reputation as a reformer opposed to corruption. Quinn and “Blago” have a strained relationship, although this could be said about almost anyone and Blagojevich. Right now we are in limbo because Blago is still the Governor.
As an Illinois voter, I have been outraged by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s corruption since this was first publicized several years ago. Everyone in Illinois has known that Blagojevich is corrupt and that he has been under investigation by the U.S Federal Justice Department for quite a while. For at least the last year, Illinois politicians have distanced themselves from Blago. Blagojevich was first elected governor in 2002 and used his first days in office to alienate both houses of the Illinois legislature with his arrogance and obstinance. He had few political friends or even allies. I was disappointed that the voters re-elected him in 2006. His re-election was largely due to his ability to amass a substantial “war chest” of campaign contributions, and now we are all painfully aware of how he accumulated his massive funding.
In 2005 Blagojevich achieved perhaps his only positive major accomplishment for Illinois. This was an attempt to provide universal healthcare for children in Illinois, and the program is named “All Kids”. The “All Kids” program has received mixed reviews, but is not widely known by name to all voters in Illinois. In Blagojevich’s 2006 re-election campaign, he ran against the forthright and very capable former State Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka (Republican). Topinka opposed the “All Kids” program, and there was widespread legitimate debate over the effectiveness of this program. During the campaign, Blagojevich ran the most cynical campaign commercials I have ever seen. One campaign slogan was “Judy Baar Topinka is against All Kids”. The Blagojevich campaign also cynically used the popular and sleazy “guilt by association” tactic to falsely link Topinka to former Illinois Governor George Ryan, who is currently in prison, convicted on government corruption charges.
Implications for Barack Obama and others
President-elect Barack Obama is not caught up in the Blagojevich mess. Being from Chicago, Illinois does not mean you are corrupt. I hear the right-wing guilt-by-association demagogues trying to link Obama to Blago’s corruption. These people know nothing about Chicago politics and do not understand the real dynamics here. Yes, Chicago (and other parts of Illinois) deserve a bad reputation for corrupt politics from both the Democratic and Republican parties. Chicago’s corrupt tradition goes hand-in-hand with a tradition of politicians getting caught and serving prison sentences. We also have a reform tradition, albeit much less famous or understood. Although now, everyone should understand this reform tradition because this is Barack Obama’s tradition. Obama has opposed “machine politics” and risen above it.
Obama and his transition team have known that Blagojevich is corrupt and under investigation. Everyone knew this, so it difficult to believe that anyone would be stupid enough to get tangled in Blago’s corrupt dealings. Obama has much more to gain by being clean and has no incentive for corruption. Obama team members from Chicago - David Axelod, Rahm Emmanuel, and Valerie Jarrett - are included in the discussion of Blago’s corruption. Why would anyone on Obama’s team make a deal with Blagojevich? It doesn’t make sense to me, but the right-wing “guilt-by-association” game rarely is logical.
A number of other Chicago politicians are also discussed: U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., U.S. Rep. Jan Shakowski, President of the Illinois Senate Emil Jones, and others. It is likely that some additional people will be indicted, but the public has no evidence that any of the people being discussed were involved whatsoever in corruption. Many people have much faith in the work of U.S. Attorney Peter Fitzgerald. It’s best to let the truth come out before jumping to wild conclusions. We need to strengthen Chicago’s reform tradition, so it would be most unfortunate to damage the reputations of reform-minded politicians.
Quick Background on Chicago Politics
Richard J. Daley was mayor of Chicago from 1955 until his death in 1976. He built the infamous Chicago political machine, including a massive “patronage army”. The city was corrupt even on the most mundane grassroots level. Mike Royko’s book Boss is one of the few “must read” books about politics. Boss describes how, in Chicago, bribery and sleazy deal-making were the “normal” ways of doing business, paying traffic tickets, getting out the vote, constructing a building, getting a job, and getting anything done.
The election of Chicago Mayor Harold Washington in 1983 changed Chicago politics fundamentally by challenging Richard J. Daley’s old political machine. The “old guard” fought Washington and his allies every step of the way. The corrupt tradition was led by aldermen “Fast” Eddie Vrdolyak and Richard Mell. Richard Mell is Mrs. Blago’s father. Of course, the Blagos and Mells don’t get along anymore because, remember, no one gets along with Blago. Also, Blagojevich started his career by working for Vrdolyak. Obama’s base of support in Chicago is from the Harold Washington reform tradition.
Daley’s son Richard M. Daley has been mayor of Chicago since his first election in 1989. A number of people from his office have faced corruption charges. Actually, people from all traditions have been convicted, including those scooped up in Operation Silver Shovel. It’s especially disheartening to see so-called reformers involved in corruption. Chicago and Illinois have different overlapping power-bases, unlike the old days when there was one all-powerful Daley “machine”.
We are not unique - politics and corruption have been intertwined throughout time and geography. We must hold our elected officials to the highest standards and expect justice when corruption occurs. “Guilt-by-association” politics is a frustrating distraction and does a disservice to all of us.
Sphere: Related Content
3 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on November 5th, 2008 — in Issues/Policy, Barack Obama, John McCain, Blog, Election Referee
On November 4, 2008, Illinois Senator Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States.
By electing the first African-American President of the United States, America turns an important page in our history. Over 100,000 people celebrated in Grant Park, Chicago as the election results were announced. Barack Obama addressed the crowd, which responded with euphoric chants of “Yes, We Can!”
Obama not only won all of the traditionally Democratic states, he also won the key battleground states of Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. New battleground states emerged in 2008, and Obama won them all: Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. Missouri was the only traditional battleground state that John McCain won.
The Obama campaign fulfilled the important goal of expanding the electoral map by winning states in the South and the Southwest. In Political Science, a “landslide” is when a candidate wins by more than 10%. Obama won an electoral landslide, defeating McCain 364-174. The popular vote was closer, with a margin of approximately 7%. Election officials are still counting the votes, and at this time the totals are Obama 63,893,037 (53%) and McCain 56,404,917 (46%).
Obama won for several reasons: widespread disapproval of the Bush administration and the U.S. economic meltdown made the conditions extremely difficult for John McCain. The Obama campaign was truly historic in assembling the largest grassroots organization ever in the U.S. Literally millions of people volunteered and/or donated to the Obama campaign. This led to many newly registered voters and very high turn-out for Obama on election day and even earlier due to “early voting” provisions in some states. Obama’s messages of hope and uniting Americans resounded strongly in a country tired of division and fear.
Analysts will continue discussing what this all means. The vote totals were very decisive but not overwhelming. Many states were very close, but the 2008 election was a much clearer decision than the extremely close 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.
The Democratic Party gained seats in both the Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, building on the gains Democrats made in the 2006 congressional elections. The Democrats are projected to have a minimum of a 56-40 majority over Republicans in the Senate, with results for 4 seats still being counted. Democrats are projected to have a minimum advantage of 254-173 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, with results for 8 seats still being counted. Consequently, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) have increased their power.
The Obama administration and the Democratic Party clearly have a “mandate” to enact some important changes. Voters want and expect action. The Democrats now have the power and hold that responsibility. We will hold them accountable two years from now in the 2010 congressional elections.
Simply by electing Barack Obama, the image of the United States throughout the world has improved, literally over night. This is not enough and this is not policy. The Obama administration faces many perilous global circumstances. Establishing new U.S. policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are key first steps.
Necessarily, people will focus mainly on the economy, and this is not a simple problem to solve. We have some short-term major problems and long-term major problems. The U.S federal government needs to do more to stabilize the financial markets and bring relief to the struggling middle class. We are likely in the beginning of a long, deep recession. Extending unemployment benefits and tax relief for the middle class are obvious first steps toward easing the pain. The U.S. must become more competitive in global markets and we need a strong and stable dollar. For both the short-term and the long-term, the U.S. economy must provide good jobs for the middle class.
The high costs of energy, health care, and education are long-term problems that have hampered the U.S. economy. We have an historic opportunity to restructure these vital sectors. This is likely where the political battle lines will be drawn in the early days of the new Obama administration and stronger Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. The success or failure of new economic policies will depend largely on the American people and Obama’s leadership abilities. A working majority of U.S. voters must support specific new policies in order for changes to occur and be effective.
John McCain gave a magnanimous concession speech, which included this call for unity:
I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together, to find the necessary compromises, to bridge our differences, and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited.
Whatever our differences, we are fellow Americans. And please believe me when I say no association has ever meant more to me than that.
The United States has changed. For the momemt, U.S. politics have shifted toward the left. It is up to the Democratic Party to work with the American people in forming new policies that will improve our country.
Sphere: Related Content
8 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on November 2nd, 2008 — in Barack Obama, John McCain, Blog, Election Referee
The presidential election is Tuesday, November 4th.
For me, the choice is easy, obvious, and necessary. The United States has a two-party system. Every four years we have an opportunity to vote for either a continuation of current policies or to try the alternative.
The U.S. economy is in serious trouble. This has made foreign policy a secondary issue, but U.S. foreign policy is also in serious trouble. The current Republican Party policies have been a disaster. Read a newspaper, watch the news.
Barack Obama has run an historic campaign in reaching out across America, attempting to unite a new majority of voters beyond the recently rigid electoral map of red states vs. blue states. A year ago many compared Obama to John F. Kennedy. Given today’s economic meltdown, America needs leadership more reminiscent of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Obama appears ready and able to meet this challenge. I admire John McCain, but not his policies, especially not now.
From the beginning of the whole presidential campaign cycle, it has been obvious that this election was about whether or not voters want change. That may sound simplistic, but remember on Tuesday you have a simple choice: Obama or McCain. This isn’t an essay question.
Don’t believe any of the non-sense from the Obama-bashers. Communist, terrorist-sympathizer, Muslim, Socialist, radical, un-American. I’m sorry I haven’t had time to address each of these wild accusations. I wanted to post on this blog more often, but I have been working very long hours trying to pay my bills.
First of all, Obama is not a Muslim, but so what if a candidate were a Muslim? People should not be prejudiced against or that ignorant about Muslims anyway. So this accusation is very dumb on two levels. Attempting to frighten people by appealing to prejudice is disgraceful.
In the last month, Obama voted to help save our capitalist system. His tax policies are hardly radical. Tweaking the tax code by a few percentage points to help the middle class is not socialism. Please look it up. Read a book.
Radical associations? I’ve known gun-nuts, anti-abortion extremists, former Black Panthers, ex-felons, ex-gang-bangers, former ’60s radicals, Christian fundamentalists, former ’30s radicals, witches, Jews for Jesus, and musicians. The United States has over 300 million people. Try to get to know someone who isn’t exactly like you. Guilt by association is against the U.S. Constitution. Obama knows many thousands of people. The isolated insular style of the Bush Administration is one cause of our problems.
Obama’s story is the American dream. The attacks against Obama’s character are shameful attempts to fool and frighten people.
I sincerely attempt to be as objective as possible on this blog. I have heard more than enough of the right-wing attacks. I especially object to the idea of “real Americans” vs. the rest of us. The president’s duty is to represent all of us. We have more than enough division in America. Obama has proven he can bridge the gap between people. Now more than any time in my lifetime, the United States needs leadership based on bringing us together and working with us to solve the many problems we face.
Whoever wins the election on Tuesday, we all need to accept the outcome and give the new president a chance.
Sphere: Related Content
2 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on August 31st, 2008 — in Opinion Polls - VOTE!, John McCain, Blog
In a surprising move on Friday, John McCain announced that his running mate is Republican Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. The most remarkable election year in generations became even more interesting.
Loading …
McCain’s Palin announcement was a successful media coup to change the story headlines quickly. Apparently, the McCain campaign agreed with many people in thinking that Barack Obama gave a sensational speech on Thursday to cap off a highly energized and united Democratic Party Convention. One day later, media attention understandably focused on the first female Republican nominee for the Vice-Presidency.
This tactic certainly worked on me. As an amateur blogger, I have unfortunately little time to devote to this blog. I try to address the big issues as they arise, and the Palin nomination is certainly important and historic. Consequently, I am delaying my post on the Democratic Convention briefly, even though this story is also very big news.
Sarah Palin is NOT well-known. We have learned she has been governor of Alaska since 2006, and before that Palin was mayor of Wasilla (population of less than 10,000). She also was runner-up in the Miss Alaska contest of 1984. Palin is 44 years old, has a lifetime membership in the National Rifle Association (NRA), and enjoys mooseburgers. Her social politics: she wants to outlaw ALL abortions and opposes gay marriage. She was FOR Alaska’s “bridge to nowhere” before she was AGAINST it. Like John McCain, Sarah Palin embraces the maverick label, although critics argue that both McCain and Palin support virtually all of the same policies as George Bush.
Immediately upon her selection as running mate, media voices on the left denounced her and those on the right praised her.
Many Democrats criticize McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as a gimmick and a clumsy attempt to win over disgruntled supporters of Hillary Clinton. They characterize Palin as a “lightweight” given her very limited relevant governmental experience. Many Democrats strongly question Palin’s ability to be an effective President of the United States, which of course is the primary requirement for a Vice-President. McCain’s advanced age (72) and past health problems increase the chances that Palin would need to step into the presidency. Some argue that the Palin nomination is insulting to women because McCain passed over other female Republican officials who are much better suited for the role (e.g., Christine Todd Whitman).
The selection of Sarah Palin energized the John McCain campaign really for the first time. Many Republicans are celebrating the Palin choice for several reasons. Many believe Governor Palin represents the true core conservative principles while also being a Washington outsider and maverick. “Culturally”, Palin reflects the “true American values” and lifestyle of Main Street USA - who doesn’t love mooseburgers? Republicans now are showing much more enthusiasm for John McCain because they believe the Palin nomination proves that McCain is a bold leader with vision. Sarah Palin helps to unite and motivate the Republican base. Furthermore, some argue the choice is “tactically brilliant” because the McCain/Palin ticket offers Republicans a solid ability to win over more undecided women, especially the Hillary Clinton supporters who have resisted jumping on the Barack Obama bandwagon. Sarah Palin may also appeal to younger voters, and her selection shows that John McCain is also ready to “pass the torch” to a new generation.
Like most voters, I am still trying to figure out “who is Sarah Palin”? I am happy that John McCain chose a woman. We are long overdue to break the glass ceiling that has blocked woman and non-whites from attaining the highest levels of power. I worry that Palin’s policy positions continue the same old George Bush ideology that has devastated our economy, harmed our international standing, and unnecessarily divided us at a time when we especially need to come together. But we will see - I never really thought about Sarah Palin until Friday.
Republicans have criticized Barack Obama for “lack of experience”, but the Palin selection removes this as a credible argument against Obama. The “founding fathers”, the framers of the Constitution wanted all elected officials to be ordinary citizens as opposed to creating a professional leadership class. The world is more complicated now and our leaders may need a bit more experience than in the 18th century. Nevertheless, the principle still applies. We are better off electing people with wise judgment, who communicate well, have a vision for our future, and who will enact effective policies. The alternative is to elect only technocrats (who are more helpful “behind the scenes”), or even worse, for members of an elite class to continually hold power.
The selection of Sarah Palin is an important breakthrough in U.S. politics. This choice likely demonstrates that the McCain campaign is worried about their chances. They probably felt they needed to make a dramatic and exciting move to change the dynamics of the presidential race. But more importantly, I am hearing two iconic 1960’s songs in my head. Buffalo Springfield’s song “For What It’s Worth”, with the famous lyrics, “there’s something happening here, what it is ain’t exactly clear”. And Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are A-Changing”. When even the Republicans see a need to open up the halls of government, to break glass ceilings, we must acknowledge that this is a “change year”. Whether the Palin selection is a good or bad choice, politically pandering or not, the election of 2008 has already changed the American political landscape. Sarah Palin is the latest example. One day earlier, Barack Obama’s speech before a record crowd of 84,000 at Denver’s Mile High Stadium was another dramatic highlight in an amazing year of historic news. In 2008 we are finally recording a new soundtrack.
Sphere: Related Content
1 Comment »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on August 22nd, 2008 — in Barack Obama, Blog
On Saturday, Barack Obama announced that Democratic Senator Joe Biden of Delaware will be his running mate in the 2008 presidential election.
Obama’s selection of Biden for the vice-presidential slot surprised no one. Joe Biden best embodies all of the desirable qualities Obama described in a recent CBS interview:
“Obviously, the most important question is: Is this person prepared to be president?” he said.
“The second most important question, from my perspective, is: Can this person help me govern? Are they going to be an effective partner in creating the kind of economic opportunity here at home, and guiding us through some dangerous waters internationally?” he added.
“And the third criteria for me, I think, was independence. I want somebody who is going to be able to challenge my thinking and not simply be a yes-person when it comes to policy-making.”
The third point is especially notable because it demonstrates Barack Obama’s message of change, and is vastly different from the Bush administration’s perilous mode of “group think” in which dissent is punished. The Iraq War is largely the result of the “neo-con” faction of the right-wing, recklessly pushing through an agenda regardless of intelligent contrary opinion. Obama recently stated his admiration of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s important book: Team of Rivals: the Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, which describes how Lincoln assembled his cabinet by choosing the most talented politicians available, especially his rivals.
Joe Biden enjoys widespread popularity among Democrats. Although he is not especially well-known, all political junkies have seen him on TV talk shows. He is especially articulate in speaking about foreign policy, and he was an early forceful critic of the Bush administration’s mishandling of the Iraq War.
As the Democrats and Barack Obama work to assemble a winning coalition, Joe Biden certainly brings more depth to the ticket, and he is potentially appealing to some undecided voters. Biden communicates well by conveying obvious intelligence and in-depth knowledge in a way that “the rest of us” can understand and appreciate. Recent American politics have given us some candidates that seem too aloof or effete, or the other extreme of being anti-intellectual or immature. Joe Biden is “a regular guy” with a brain and a heart.
Joe Biden also fits a target demographic in a year of “identity politics”: he is Catholic, has a working class background, and was born in Pennsylvania. If voters of similar demographic characteristics vote Democrat in November, Obama will be the next president. Unlike John McCain, Joe Biden knows how many houses he owns.
For more information, read this article from the Washington Post: Obama Picks Biden as VP.
Loading …
2 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on July 22nd, 2008 — in Comic Relief, Barack Obama, John McCain, Blog
JibJab is at again, providing much needed comic relief with a very silly video cartoon featuring some of our favorite characters: John McCain, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Hillary Clinton.
This may not be the greatest political satire, but that’s not really the point. It’s a fun ditty set to the tune of Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are A-Changing”.
I enjoyed this and I hope you do to!
Sphere: Related Content
2 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on July 19th, 2008 — in Issues/Policy, Talk Radio, John McCain, Blog
John McCain and Barack Obama face the same challenge of all presidential candidates: to consolidate and energize the party base while winning over the center.
This challenge presents many dimensions for each candidate. Today I focus on John McCain and the Republicans, and soon I will post a separate article about Obama’s coalition.
John McCain is remarkably unpopular among conservative Republicans. During the Republican primaries, conservative voices such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity continually criticized McCain. At times their attacks were so vicious that they reached the level usually reserved for Democrats and liberals. One of my first articles on this blog was about this phenomenon: The right-wing attacks on John McCain.
According to some critics on the political right, John McCain is not a “true believer” in core conservative principles, especially on these specific issues: taxes, immigration, and the environment. McCain’s advocacy of campaign finance reform angered some conservatives. They especially dislike McCain’s willingness to sometimes work with Democrats. For purists of all ideologies, “compromise” is one of the most hated words and deeds, and McCain is guilty of occasionally committing this political sin.
Once McCain clinched the Republican nomination, criticisms of him from the traditional right diminished considerably as conservative talk radio shows shifted their focus back to what they do best: attack Democrats. “Hold your nose and vote!” This is a popular slogan for purists in both parties every four years. Most conservatives dislike McCain, but they see him as “the lesser of two evils”. In their perception of political reality, McCain may be a “liberal”, but he is much less dangerous than that “radical leftist”, Barack Obama.
The Three Legs of the Republican Stool
I always thought “stool” was a poor choice of words, but it holds an honored place in the Republican lexicon. Technically, “modern” conservative Republican thought goes back to William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater, but Ronald Reagan was the culmination of theory and practice. Reagan effectively combined three key elements: 1) strong national defense, 2) limited federal government (especially low taxes), and 3) social conservatism.
These three concepts held special and specific meaning when Reagan was first elected president in 1980. The United States and the world have changed significantly since then. The Reagan administration was part of that change. In 2008, we face new challenges and none of the Republican candidates in 2008 effectively captured the hearts and minds of today’s conservative Republican voters.
John McCain won the nomination largely by default. He was perhaps the candidate closest to representing conservative principles simply by not violating any one of them too much. His biography as a war hero and one who has sacrificed so much is beyond reproach. McCain is especially popular with moderate Republicans and some independents. These voters gave McCain an important edge over his competitors. Without a Ronald Reagan in the mix, John McCain ultimately emerged as the compromise candidate for Republicans.
The Traditional Republican Base is in a Quandary
Of course, most people who voted for George W. Bush will vote for John McCain. Bush’s approval rating is among the lowest ever recorded at about 28%, but that still translates into approximately 34 million voters (Bush won over 62 million votes in 2004). Many believe that President Bush and his administration have greatly damaged the “Republican brand”.
A very effective theme for the Democrats in 2008 is: “John McCain would be Bush’s third term”. It would be political campaign malpractice for the Democrats NOT to use this.
Most of the Rush Limbaugh “ditto-head” Republican base will vote for John McCain. Again, the emphasis is on voting against the Democrat Obama. Many voters in every election vote against someone rather than voting for someone.
A segment of conservative voters may reject McCain and instead vote for Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr. (See my previous article: Libertarians, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and the “Revolution”). Libertarians know that Bob Barr is not going to win the presidency in 2008.
Additionally, John McCain is not especially popular among “conservative Christians”, many of whom supported Mike Huckabee in the 2008 Republican primaries. This church-based constituency was a key to the success of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Political organizing of this base has been a cost-effective way for campaigns to tap into volunteers, resources, and many votes.
John McCain shares the same positions on some issues important to conservative Christians, especially his opposition to both abortion rights and gay marriage. However, candidates like Huckabee and Bush more “speak their language”, while McCain appears less comfortable talking about religion. McCain’s lack of familiarity with this community resulted in making ill-conceived alliances with “televangelists” John Hagee and Rod Parsley.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama hopes to attract some of this constituency and widen the discussion with this community to include other topics central to Christianity, such as caring for the less fortunate. Conservative Christians are often misunderstood and unfairly pigeon-holed. Labels often cause confusion, for example, someone may be “conservative” in their religious beliefs without necessarily being politically conservative. Political campaigns would be wise to pay attention to these voters and avoid making assumptions about them.
Turnout is Key
The 2008 presidential election may be very close, especially if recent history is a guide. Both Barack Obama and John McCain must win overwhelmingly among traditional party voters of their respective parties. Turnout is perhaps the most under-rated key to winning elections. Even if McCain wins more than 90% of traditionally Republican votes, how many will turn out to vote? Obama’s success in the Democratic primaries was largely due to high turnout.
Beginning with Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, Republican presidential candidates especially have enjoyed the benefit of good grassroots “get out the vote” organizational efforts to produce high turnout on election day. While high turnout (for your candidate) is an important key to winning an election, having many highly motivated volunteers is a key to producing high turnout. This is perhaps John McCain’s biggest vulnerability. Many Republicans may “hold their nose and vote” for McCain, but few are motivated to work on getting their friends, neighbors, and undecided voters to do likewise.
McCain suffers “an enthusiasm gap” as reported in this article by Yahoo News:
For now, the numbers favor Obama: 38 percent of his supporters say the election is exciting compared to 9 percent of McCain’s. Sixty-five percent of Obama’s backers say they are hopeful about the campaign, double McCain’s, and the Democrat’s supporters are three times likelier to express pride.
The Fight for the Center:
John McCain and Barack Obama want to win over the center, the undecided voters, independents. At the same time, they need to keep their respective party bases happy and enthused. John McCain especially has enjoyed a successful political career by gaining the favorable label of a “maverick”. He does NOT mindlessly vote the “party line”, instead he sometimes “reaches across the aisle” to the other party in order to get legislation passed.
See my recent article McCain and Obama Are Both Flip-Floppers, So What? and check out our Interactive 2008 Electoral Map Calculator. The campaigns are focused on having a winning electoral map strategy, and honing optimal policy positions on key issues is essential to achieve this.
A good case study is John McCain’s recent flip-flop on offshore oil drilling. His earlier opposition to offshore drilling fit his somewhat popular maverick image by taking a pro-environmental stand contradictory to most of his party members. Voters in Florida are especially concerned about potential environmental hazards of drilling for oil off the Florida coasts. Soaring gas prices emerged as an immediate concern for many voters across the map and the ideological spectrum. The McCain campaign calculation is that flip-flopping to now support offshore oil drilling will pay off. They are hoping McCain’s flip-flop will gain votes in some key swing states while maintaining enough support in Florida to win there as well. It’s also a nice sop to the voracious ideological appetite of the conservative Republican base.
Republican political strategist Dick Morris is well known for his work in Bill Clinton’s presidential administration. His advice has often been effective, at least in terms of helping politicians increase their short-term popularity. Morris is especially associated with the concept of triangulation: take policy positions that remove an argument from the opposition, help win over the center, and leave your base with no where else to turn. Bill Clinton’s support of welfare reform and Bush 43’s policy of extending federal prescription drug benefits to seniors are two recent examples of political triangulation.
I have seen Dick Morris on the Fox News show Hannity and Colmes several times recently. Sean Hannity, in case you don’t know, is one the guardians of conservative Republican ideological purity. While Hannity continues to urge John McCain to move to the right, Morris argues for the opposite approach. Read this Dick Morris article published by the Washington Post. This short excerpt sums up Morris’ broad strategy advice:
McCain can win by running to the center . . . His base will be there for him; indeed, it will turn out in massive numbers.
In some elections one candidate is able to unite and enthuse the base while also winning over voters in the middle. That candidate becomes President.
Note: Coming Soon - an article about Barack Obama’s coalition building challenges.
Sphere: Related Content
3 Comments »
