59 Days and Counting

Congratulations President Obama

2009-01-21T08:25:00.002-06:00

Many congratulations to our new President. May his time in office be successful!
Yesterday's inauguration was indeed historic, because for the first time, a black man became President of the United States of America. Yet for me, apart from the history of that event, President Obama's skin color has no bearing on his work as President. It would appear I am not alone in that view. Juan Williams has expressed similar thoughts (of course, much better than I could!). In all, I think that his thoughts and mine are also summed up in those famous words of Martin Luther King Jr. about a man being judged by the content of his character not the color of his skin - truly great words.
I am sure I am not always going to agree with President Obama, but when I do disagree, I hope that I can do so within the guidelines set forth in this article by Andy Levy. If I can do that, I will not only be doing good things to advance political dialog in the US, but will also be showing myself to be more mature than those who have suffered from BDS these last eight years. A worthy goal, I think!
So, here is my first area of disagreement (didn't take long, did it - but that is the beauty of the US - I am FREE to disagree with anyone!). Instead of a bunch of stimulus spending that is inevitably going to be earmarked, wasted and go to feed political and other types of corruption, why not simply suspend the payroll (FICA) taxes for one year. Everyone who earns pays a little more than 7% of their wages in FICA taxes on the first $100K or so of their earnings. The company that employs them (or they themselves, if they are self employed) matches this payment. To not pay it for one year would reduce government income by $625 billion (see this report). This is less than the $850 billion (and climbing) currently proposed in this (first) stimulus package. Plus, this puts one's faith in the ability and collective wisdom (or lack thereof) of the American people, as opposed to the ability and collective wisdom (or lack thereof) of a bunch of politicians in Washington DC. How about it President Obama?

Starting to Think About Energy

2009-01-02T16:39:00.004-06:00

Just some initial thoughts about the US energy situation. We use energy as a nation primarily in three ways: we use electricity, we use energy for travel (primarily gas and diesel at present) and we use energy for space heating (some of this is electric, some gas, some heating oil, some wood burning, some coal, and no doubt a little bit of geothermal and solar).
Any coherent energy policy has to think about all these uses, rather than just one in isolation. As an example, suppose we decide that our policy is going to be to encourage electric cars (plug in hybrids or some such). We had best plan on increasing our electrical generating capacity significantly or we will not be able to charge those hybrids when needed.
Wikipedia has an interesting overview page on energy usage in the US. It includes a number of charts and so forth which provide some useful background. The above chart shows energy usage (not just electricity) in the US in 2004. About 45% of the residential usage is for space heating and water heating, while about 19% of commercial usage is for those purposes. Most of transportation is oil based, whether aviation (12% of transpo), diesel (21%) or gasoline (61%). The net result of this is that at least 60% of the total energy usage in the US (probably more than this, since some of that space and water heating will be electrical) has to be generated by electricity.
All of this will have to play into the mix as we try (if indeed we do try - as far as I can tell we haven't had an energy policy ever in the US, so you could argue that we don't need one now!) to work out an energy policy for the US. More to follow!

New Year's Day

2009-01-01T16:54:00.003-06:00

Greetings to all my loyal readers (which, of course, assumes I have any, which in turn seems unlikely!):
It being New Year's Day, and all, it seems an opportune time to do some thinking about the coming year. First of all, how about grounding me in reality - take a look at my last few blogs (from before the election) and see just how wrong I was - talk about Oops! In fact, about the only prognosis from last year on which I was remotely correct was one I did not talk about and did not (to my own loss) act upon. And that was my prediction that the price of oil would drop down to below $100 a barrel before the end of the year. I actually thought it might get as low as $80 a barrel, so I did not see how low it would go, but if only I had shorted oil when it was $147, I would now be amazingly rich! Of course, much more likely is that would have guaranteed that the price of oil stayed high. So, what do I know?
All of which means that my prognostications are not terribly useful, so I will try and refrain from them for the duration of the year. However, what I will do on this blog is share my thoughts about what we need as a Nation (after all, why aim for simple things?) especially in regard to energy, infrastructure, and education (about all three of which I know a bit) and the economy (about which I know almost nothing, but that won't stop me :)).
In regards to my goals for the year, well I turn 50 this year, and I need to get myself fit and healthy (a good way of celebrating that birthday milestone). To get specific, I have to lose significant weight, with a goal of 168 lbs (although I would be thrilled with anything below 180!). How big is that challenge? Well, I am 211 lbs today, so...
Of course, to get there I will need to follow the Bloom County diet - eat less and exercise! I want to do some exercise every day on either the treadmill or the elliptical, and cut back on fattening foods. On the food side, I want at the end of each day to be able to easily identify five fruit or veggie servings I have had that day. So far today, three - two satsumas and an OJ. I have also done my exercise today (48 minutes on the treadmill) so for one day at least I am being pretty good.
Other resolutions - I will have to think about those some. One good thing though - I got the last of four reports submitted yesterday, so my desk is clear of major writing assignments at this time. That means I should be able to finish one book this year, and get another well forward, and yes, those are resolutions.
So, in between my postings on energy and the like, I will try to intersperse my progress on my resolutions - we shall see...

Only four days to go

2008-10-31T16:12:00.003-05:00

Well, the end is nigh, but will it be the end that the mainstream media is predicting, or some shocking twist at the end of the complex plot that has been the 2008 election campaign?
In truth, the odds are very high that Obama will win this, but... all of that rests upon the supposition that the polls are telling a semi-coherent story. Are they? Who knows, but let's consider a few things.
First, most polls have relentlessly over-polled (according to historic norms) democrats. In 2006, the dems had a 3% advantage in voters. In 2004, it was a tie between dems and pubbies. So, any poll that samples 10% more dems than pubbies is suspect. And, to be honest, that is most of the polls.
Second, the early voting numbers are very confusing, to say the least. I have frankly not been able to make head or tail of them. Anyone who says that the early voting numbers prove that one side or the other is running away with one state or another should note, of course, that while we may have party affiliation for who has voted early, we do NOT have any hard information on which way they have voted. Also, note that the exit polls are likely to be wrong this time, just as they were wrong in 2004.
Third, the various states in play are perhaps not what the polling would lead us to expect. It appears (to judge both from who has been visiting the state in the last few days, as well as some other info out there) that Iowa is very much in play. Hmmm...
So, what of my prediction back in August that McCain would win:

McCain will win with 338 to 200 electoral college votes (how? Well, of the swing states he will get NH, FL, PA, OH, MI, IA, MN, CO, NM, and NV - I think that gives him 338 votes). I think either Romney or Palin will be his VP.

Well, I was right about Palin! As for the rest, well, I think that FL and OH are safely in McCain's hands now. I suspect that MI and MN are safely in Obama's hands. If the others (NH, PA, IA, CO, NM and NV) go McCain's way, he wins 311 to 227. If he loses CO, NM and NV it is 292 to 246. If he loses IA and NH too, it goes to 281 to 257. In short, PA is key. Its 21 electoral votes add up to 2 less than CO, NM, NV and NH.
So, can McCain do it? Well, the polls say no, but (see above) the polls are likely a little too optimistic about Obama's support. Also, Obama is not closing well, by which I mean he is not getting clearly above 50% in many of the places where he needs to get that number. For example, he is polling at 47% to 43% with 9% undecided in PA.
Isn't this all rather going against the conventional wisdom? Well, yes, it is. Why might that be? Well, perhaps the conventional wisdom is derived primarily from the mainstream media (MSM) and perhaps, the MSM are completely in the tank for Obama, and perhaps, because they are so completely in the tank for Obama, the MSM do not want people who support McCain to go out and vote, so perhaps they are trying to create the impression that it is all over, so that people who would vote for McCain will not do so? Ya think? Maybe..
There is only one cure for that, to whit - go vote!
Of course, all this analysis is likely me grasping at straws, and Obama likely has this so far in the bag it ain't even funny, which means all you folk who are thinking about voting for him don't need to do that:)

Even I did not think it would come to this!

2008-09-15T08:57:00.002-05:00

But now, it looks as if even New York might be in play for McCain - wow! If, and let's be up front and say this is a HUGE IF, this is true and stays even close to true, then stick a fork in Obama - he's done, and this will go down as a bigger debacle than Dukakis, Gore and Kerry rolled into one. This could be good for the Democrats in the long run, but only if they use it to evaluate truly what happened. A major casualty will be the mainstream media and the liberal coastal elites. BUT, all of that is rather moot for now. This remains to be confirmed and we are still more than 7 weeks away from election day, so we shall see how it all turns out, but nonetheless, WOW!

Loosing the Grip

2008-09-13T10:11:00.005-05:00

Well, I thought life was bad for Obama after the lipstick-pig thing, but he has managed to make it worse. He put out an advert yesterday that mocked McCain for not using e-mail. Turns out that this is wrong on so many fronts somebody in Obama's campaign should be fired.
First, McCain has injuries that make it difficult for him to type. In other words, the Obama advert just mocked a heroic war veteran because the injuries he sustained have handicapped him - that will go well. As Glenn Reynolds said:

Oops. Another unforced error from the Obama campaign, which seems to have had a lot of those lately. The above is from 2000 -- don't these people know how to use Google? Or NEXIS? Or something?

Second, turns out that McCain pioneered the amazing use of the Internet that has powered the Obama campaign, and McCain did that in 2000 - some Luddite he! What on earth is going on here? This suggests a level of incompetence that is almost unbelievable.
Partly I think this is the cocooning issue I discussed a couple of days ago. Nobody in the Obama campaign could think beyond the message they wanted to send, to see what negative repercussions it might bring. In short, they cannot see beyond their own (inevitably limited, by which I mean all of us have limited vision, not just the Obama campaign) vision. In a campaign that can be bad, but in a Presidency this can be disasterous. It further makes clear just how stupid Obama's claim that his experience running the campaign qualified him to be President - it don't!
Of course, all of this might have no effect, but it looks very much as if it is beginning to have a major impact. First, the Palin phenomenon continues. Increasingly, commentators are drawing attention to the solid values inherent in small towns, and inherent in the experience of many women (a far broader group than coastal elites). Neither of these aspects of her candidacy are easily comprehended by the mainstream media, so they miss the import of these insights.
But, the voters do not. And the polls are beginning to reflect that, not only in the National numbers, where change would show up soonest, since National level polling occurs daily, but also at the State level, which is of course where it actually counts.
If you look at those State level numbers, you see that of my ridiculous projections for McCain to win, the numbers do not apparently look good.
Currently in the "leans" or "likely" GOP column, I have Florida and Ohio. Three of my states are in the toss up category CO, NM, and NV. Of the remainder NH,PA, MI, IA are in the "leans" Democrat column, and MN is in the "likely" Democrat column.
That would seem to suggest absolutely no chance of my prediction that all of these would go for McCain. Add into the mix Virginia, which I had assumed would be for McCain and is in fact shown as being a toss-up. However, if we look a little closer we see that many of these States have old polling. MN for example, is based on an August 14 report at which time Obama led 46 to 42%. Think that might have changed a bit? NH was polled August 20 at which time Obama led 47 to 46%. Iowa was polled August 11 (46 to 41% for Obama). Other polls are more recent (typically September 8 or 11) but these three states (MN, NH, IA) will almost certainly show numbers more favorable to McCain when they are next polled. Obama has taken a significant hit in the last two weeks, it is only now beginning to show fully in the State polling, and if he does not move his game up several notches, he will be toast. He has to get back on message and quit making mistakes in the next week, or he may not get back into this race.
UPDATE
It would appear that I am not the only one who is feeling this way. Senior Democrats are beginning to panic, and polling indicates that FL and PA are moving out of contention.

Lipstick and the OODA Loop

2008-09-10T10:33:00.005-05:00

Well, what a to-do. Obama makes a comment about pigs and lipsticks - was it an attack on Palin? McCain's campaign has put out a quick response ad that suggests they think it was. Is this much ado about nothing, or is this a blatantly sexist attack by Obama on Palin?

I think the answer is yes, to both! How do I get there? Well, anyone who seriously examines Obama's attacks on Clinton will see some fairly strong sexism there, so it is not like he has not done this sort of thing before. On the other hand, the phrase about lipstick on a pig is one that has been around for a long time and does not necessarily connote sexism.

BUT, clearly the crowd at the Obama rally took it to be an attack on Palin (given her pit bull/lipstick joke at the convention) and pretty clearly Obama knew it would be taken as such. I have to think that comments of this nature are considered by candidates before they are used, to determine whether there is a downside to their use. If Obama used this phrasing without recognizing that it could be considered an attack on Palin, then he is really dumb. What he probably wanted was a nasty little attack, with plausible deniability. And that is what he thought he got, but he didn't.

This is going to explode in Obama's face with women. They will not be particularly vocal about it (we are already hearing from the vocal women) but they will not vote for him in November, and a significant number of them will vote for McCain. How do I know this? I had a conversation with a friend yesterday (before the pig thing) and much to my surprise, she opened the conversation by talking about Palin (we very rarely discuss politics - she is a liberal democrat, I am NOT!). She was delighted by the selection, did not consider it a token thing, and was clearly exercised to find out more about Palin. For example, she had researched the Bridge to Nowhere, and knew (which I did not) that the airport that was going to be connected was an International Airport! She also knew it was probably one of the world's smallest International Airports! She had sailed through the straight between the two islands that would have been joined by the bridge, and she was quite clear that the bridge to nowhere was completely inappropriate and she fully backed Palin's decision to can it (even if she had, during an election, said she supported it). I was totally taken aback by the degree to which she had investigated this, and seemed to want to have a reason to vote for Palin. I doubt if she has ever voted for Republicans in her life, and I would not bet on her doing so this November, but I am damned sure that she will not vote for Obama, not now, and especially not after the "pig" thing.

Why has Obama miscalculated so badly? Cocooning. He has listened too much to the coastal elites who think that only someone with an Ivy league education is fit to lead the US. He has heard all their sneers about Palin as being some sort of Neanderthal throwback, and he has believed them, because nobody around him thinks any differently.

But out here in the real world, Palin is resonating with folks like nobody's business. Her ability to take on her own party has largely removed the partisan issue from the table, by which I mean that people who have voted Democrat all their lives will feel able to cast a vote for her because they feel she will take on political scumbags in both parties - and given that 80% feel the country is on the wrong track, and only 9% approve of the job congress is doing, there are lots of folks out there who see a real need for someone to take on the scumbags. Plus, Sarah Palin does things like this (warning: hankies may be needed!).

Camille Paglia has an excellent article in which she warns Democrats about their response to Palin. She also very clearly and emphatically states that Palin is a feminist, and indeed goes further to indicate that Palin's type of feminism (basically, get on and do it, gut the damned moose!) is much more relevant and resonant than the dated feminism that still rules the coastal elites. Contrast her thoughtful take with an insult from above the border, and with depictions of Palin as a dominatrix into bestiality. The latter two, of course, serve only to make Paglia's point and hurt Obama's electoral chances even further. And this is why the McCain group came out with their ad which some (see the corner for example) think is a mistake. If it were aimed at Republicans, it would be, but it is not. It is aimed at those for whom the sexist attacks against Palin have been a total outrage, and it will help to ensure that those folk will not vote for Obama in November.

Why is all this happening? Well, McCain, being a fighter pilot, has got right inside Obama's OODA loop. A key quote from the Wikipedia site on OODA loops is:

How does one interfere with an opponent's OODA cycle? One of John Boyd's primary insights in fighter combat was that it is vital to change speed and direction faster than the opponent. This is not necessarily a function of the plane's ability to maneuver, rather the pilot must think and act faster than the opponent can think and act. Getting "inside" the cycle — short-circuiting the opponent's thinking processes - produces opportunities for the opponent to react inappropriately.

And that is what is happening here. Obama is reacting (still!) to the selection of Palin as the VP choice. Yesterday, Palin and McCain had an article on the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout. Obama's comments yesterday were the sort of comments you make to fire up your base. McCain has been using all the attacks on Palin to enlarge his base and strip voters away from Obama. In short, McCain is messing with Obama's mind, and it is only going to get worse. I loved one suggestion I read today about a suggested (by Mark Krikorian) suitable response by Palin to the latest Obamablunder:

I agree with the consensus that the campaign shouldn't whine about the lipstick on a pig comment. Instead, Gov. Palin should simply start each appearance by pausing briefly at the podium to touch up her lipstick, and then move on. People who get the joke will love it, and those who don't will have it explained to them by others, ensuring that pretty soon, even those who don't follow the news will hear about it, to Obama's detriment.

There will be nothing more from the McCain camp about the pig blunder other than subtle things like this. They will be onto something else and Obama will be reacting again. At some stage, the meme will start to be discussed that, given the disarray in the Obama camp, his claim that this gives him experience to be President is not that valid.

All of which makes my prediction that Obama was going to lose this election big (338 to 200) seem more likely by the day. To do this, McCain will have to win the following swing states:

NH, FL, PA, OH, MI, IA, MN, CO, NM, and NV

Florida is moving beyond Obama's reach, Colorado and Ohio are moving in that direction too. The trend in the others is all in McCain's direction. Absent a major refocusing of the Obama campaign, he is in major trouble. And that disarray is beginning to show in all the gaffes and errors.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Andrew Sullivan?

2008-09-01T16:04:00.003-05:00

The last couple of days have been interesting in this presidential race. Somehow, over on Daily Kos, and on Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish, the rumor began that Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy to cover for the pregnancy of her daughter. What a load of twaddle, but what very revealing twaddle! There was zero evidence (in the sense that sane and rational people use the word evidence, to whit, something reliable that indicates something of substance) but the stream of bile that issued forth from commenters all across the political blogosphere was disgusting to behold. The bile came, as far as I could tell, from Kossacks and the like who would like to do all within their power to denigrate Sarah Palin as a Vice Presidential candidate, most likely because they recognize on a sub-concious level (in some cases, very sub) how much of a challenge she poses to Obama, and how good a choice by McCain she was.
Then things got really wierd! This morning, Sarah Palin issued a press release to the effect that her daughter was pregnant (some five months), is engaged to be married to the father of the child, and is the recipient of loving support from her family. Oh, and would the press and everybody else respect her privacy too. Andrew Sullivan's response? He asked for a statement from the doctor who delivered Trig for Sarah stating that it was actually Sarah who gave birth to Trig (Trig who was born some four months ago - you go figure out the obgyn aspects of that if you can!). Sorry Andrew, but really...
Some very interesting responses to all this. It seems to me that Anne Althouse is getting increasingly annoyed about the Kossacks and is being driven closer and closer to McCain as a result - her posting is interesting, not least because of the insights in the comments. One commenter cogently recalled Obama's comment on out of wedlock pregnancies:

IN THE COMMENTS: mcg said:
Well, I know this is shameless of me, but my first step is admitting the problem, right? My mind immediately went to Obama's comment that if his daughters "make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
(Link for the Obama quote.)

Ms. Althouse also takes some to task for their sexist thinking:

MadisonMan said:
I think the way to support a child through a pregnancy is to be there for them, not to embark on a national campaign -- sure, it's "only" 2 months -- that will shine the spotlight on the child. Anyway, that would be my reaction as a parent.
Oh, that looks like a meme. Sarah Palin must stay home with her special needs baby. Sarah Palin must stay home with her about-to-be-married, pregnant daughter. Ladies: Put your career on hold until everything in you're family stops happening. I know, MM is a man and he's saying he'd stay home too, but would he? Would a man forgo his career to be there for a family member who is experiencing an important life transition?

Remember when John Edwards decided to go on with his campaign after his wife got a diagnosis of inoperable cancer? Now, I think Elizabeth Edwards was probably excited about the campaign and wanted to go on with it. In that light, why are you assuming that Bristol Palin isn't excited about her mother's campaign? Unlike Elizabeth Edwards, Bristol is not facing her last days. She's just starting out -- all caught up in life. Presumably, she's intense and positive about her pro-life beliefs, her love for the baby's father, her impending wedding, and the new baby on the way.

I imagine her eager to run around with the campaign, spreading the pro-life message to young people. Why should you think she would prefer to mope around the house, feeling ashamed, absorbing maternal comforting? On the campaign trail, she will be a loved and praised pro-life heroine, and she -- and her mother -- are likely to convert others to the pro-life side, with their glamorous and very positive image. Pro-choicers beware.

There is a most interesting post from Nathan Thornburgh of Time, to the effect that just about everyone in Wasilla (the Palin's hometown) knew about the pregnancy. The article is well worth the read, and is not too long, but here is a good take-away paragraph:

People in Wasilla are Alaskan tough, so not only does a thing like teen pregnancy not seem like anyone's damn business, but it's also not seen as the calamity so many people in the lower 48 might think it is. This is dangerous country — it's not just the roughneck jobs on cable reality shows. It's real life here. I listened to the absolutely heartbreaking story of how the godfather of Track Palin, Sarah's oldest son, died in small plane crash just minutes after having dropped off four kids. Another family invited me into their home and told their incredible story; with one son in Iraq, their other son was working on a conveyor line in Anchorage, got caught in the belt and had his head partially crushed. He lived to stand across the kitchen table from me and his parents, looking fully healed just three months later, grinning at his dumb luck and wondering what comes next in life. "It makes you realize that a thing like a little teenage pregnancy isn't such a big deal," his mom said. "Bristol—and lots of other girl like her out there — are going to be just fine."

Finally, to complete a trifecta of sensible posts on this issue, there is Captain Ed, who now works with Hot Air, once again sharing with us all his own family's experience with pre-marriage pregnancies. Captain Ed is his normal sensible self, so again, worth reading the whole thing (and the comments are again revealing, although not always edifying!). My take away bits?

What does this mean politically? I think AP has done a good job in addressing this, but really I don’t think politics will enter into it. The Palins all chose life and lived their values. That doesn’t strike me as news, as we already saw that with her commitment to her son Trig. The Democrats won’t dare mention this as a campaign issue, and even the blogs will probably leave it alone soon enough. Most people, I’d say, will wish Bristol and the Palins well. None of us quit our jobs to help our son and daughter-in-law cope, and neither will Sarah Palin, because it’s unnecessary.

We would all do better just to admire the Palins for their love and support for Bristol, Bristol’s courage in pursuing motherhood when faced with a difficult but hardly unusual situation, and agree that this has little to do with whether Sarah Palin will make a good Vice President. Families have been dealing with this since … there were families. Neither side should use Bristol to score political points. Keeping them in our prayers would also be the kindest action we can take.

The more I hear about Governor Palin, the more I am struck by how down to earth and "one of us" she is. I look forward to hearing about Vice-President Palin in a couple of months, and will do my bit to help make that happen.

Happy Labor Day!

YES - It's Sarah Palin

2008-08-29T11:37:00.005-05:00

What an amazing pick by McCain - I am totally thrilled. OK, why am I so thrilled?

1: This totally removes the air from the Democratic Convention and last night's speech by Obama - in fact his speech is now relegated to not even worth talking about. McCain has totally seized the press attention with this, and will control the news cycle through the Republican convention.

2: Who is the agent of change now? Palin got to be Governor by challenging the corrupt (GOP) party machine in Alaska and winning. Did Obama challenge the (corrupt) Democratic machine in Chicago? That would be a NO!

3: Excellent (and lived in her own life) credentials on the pro-life issues. Plus, a true conservative - this energizes the base for McCain, and that potential problem has now gone away.

4: While she is new on the political scene, she actually has executive experience, which NONE of the other three ticket people have. Running a country or a state is different from being a senator.

5: She KNOWS energy, and energy is and should be a huge issue for the US right now. She knows we have to both drill and investigate and implement alternative energy solutions. McCain will take the Democrats to the woodshed on drilling now and it will work.

Two lesser points worth making:

A: This is historic for the GOP, in just the same way that Obama is historic for the Democrats. And as a woman, she will bring a certain attraction to the GOP ticket for all the PUMAs who are feeling dissed by Obama.

B: She is way cute!

All in all, a great choice. One that excites me, and I suspect a whole lot of other GOP folk around the country. Well done, Maverick!

And here's a photo:

I'm Baaaack!

2008-08-23T12:06:00.003-05:00

Well, I held off for as long as I could but with the first of the two big conventions about to begin, and with one of the VP picks announced, I can keep quiet no longer! I just have too much to say.

About the selection of Biden as Obama's VP selection, others have said much more than I can. The consensus seems to be that he is a "safe pick," but one with lots of areas for attack by McCain (who has apparently already got an ad out with some of Biden's less flattering comments about Obama). The VP rarely wins a race for the nominee, but could certainly hamper success. I do not think this choice helps Obama, but nor does it hurt him too much.

However, what does hurt Obama is stuff like this. This author's thesis is that the only possible reason Obama could lose is because the USA is a horribly racist nation. Apparently I cannot vote for McCain because I think Obama's positions are bad for the Country and for me. Even if I think that is what I am doing, then I am wrong - secretly, I must be racist. So much for Dr. King: "I long for the day when a man is judged by the content of his character not the color of his skin." If Obama's supporters are starting to accuse those who oppose him of racism, then he has already lost the moral battle, if not the election.

And that brings me to the key point of this post - a prediction, or more specifically, several of them, about the upcoming elections. First, I am afraid that Obama has lost it. He lacks organization, he lacks a message, he has wasted his money, he has tossed too many people under the bus, and he is just not ready for prime time. McCain will win with 338 to 200 electoral college votes (how? Well, of the swing states he will get NH, FL, PA, OH, MI, IA, MN, CO, NM, and NV - I think that gives him 338 votes). I think either Romney or Palin will be his VP.

So there are two predictions, but I am not yet done. What about the senate and the house races? Prevailing wisdom suggests that the Dems will gain seats in both, extending their majorities. I am not so sure. I think in the house, the Dems will lose seats. The current balance is I believe, 236 democrats and 199 republicans. That majority (of 37 votes) will be reduced to between 5 and 15 votes (i.e. about 220 to 225 democrats, and 215 to 210 republicans). The democrats are being killed on energy policy at present, and will suffer for it in the elections. In the senate, changes will be less. Right now the senate is 49 dems, 49 reps, and two independents who generally vote with the dems. The two independents are not running this year. I predict we will end up with no more than 2 seats changed each way (thus maybe 51 dems and 47 reps or 51 reps and 47 dems at most).

I know these are not in any way standard wisdom at present, but I think this is how things are going to work out this time.

C plus 13 - post-Michigan and pre-South Carolina and Nevada

2008-01-16T09:15:00.000-06:00

Well, I was correct about Romney winning here, but wrong about the margin. He eventually won with 39% versus 30% for McCain and 16% for Huckabee. Hardly a squeaker of a victory! Hillary also won on the Democratic side, but the news for her was not very good. Nobody of any substance other than her (i.e. neither Obama not Edwards) was on the ballot, and she only got 55% of the vote - uncommitted got about 40%. Not good enough. To make it even worse, it looks like she has severely upset the African American part of the electorate - more than 70% of them voted uncommitted last night, and exit polls suggest that they would have voted for Obama if that had been an option. This is grim news for Clinton in two ways. First, if this trend of support is nationwide, it will make winning the nomination difficult at best for Hillary. Second, if she does win, she will somehow have to reconcile with the African American community or they will not come out and vote for her, and without those votes, she is toast in the national election. It may just be me, but I do not think that reconciliation is Hillary's strong suit!
So, what now? Well, the divergence between the party processes continues, with the Democrats having caucuses in Nevada on Saturday and a primary in South Carolina the following Saturday, while the Republicans have both Nevada and South Carolina this Saturday. My guesses? On the Democratic side, Obama wins in Nevada and in South Carolina, the latter with a bigger margin. Edwards fades further into irrelevance, and likely drops out after Florida. However, bear in mind what happened in New Hampshire! On the Republican side, Fred must be first or a close second in South Carolina, and I think he can do it (in fact, I think he will win). Nevada does not seem to have figured much in the Republican psyche, but Romney should win there. That would leave only Rudy Giuliani without a win and he is gearing up to try and take Florida (Tuesday January 29). If he doesn't he will be in trouble.
All in all, it is getting pretty exciting!

C plus 6 - more thoughts on my predictive powers!

2008-01-09T21:39:00.001-06:00

Well, wrong again, but this time on the Democratic side, not the Republican, which I nailed, thank you very much (well, apart from thinking that Giuliani would beat Huckabee, but there you go)! However, I do not feel at all bad about getting the Democratic side wrong, since everyone else (including the Clinton camp) did too. This raises the question of how all of us could all have been so very wrong (my prediction was very much the conventional wisdom, by the way).
Clearly, polling ain't what it used to be, if indeed it ever was. Issues with caller ID (we do not answer calls from unknown numbers, for example, nor from political campaigns), people not having land lines, and the like will make polling much more difficult this time around than it was four years ago.
So, what's next? Michigan, at least on the GOP side. Likely Romney in a squeaker over McCain, I suspect (that is not yet a prediction though - that will come next week). Richardson has dropped out on the Democratic side, and I think Edwards may be close to doing the same thing. New Hampshire had him as basically irrelevant, but given the surprise result there he may continue in the hope that something equally surprising happens to his benefit. On the Republican side, the revelations about Ron Paul's newsletter and its racist comments means, I hope, that he is no longer a serious candidate (if indeed he ever was). And Thompson has drawn a line in the metaphorical sands of South Carolina, and, to mix my metaphors horribly, has said that he is going "all in" there. Quite what that means I am not sure, but I would guess that if he does not win or place a close second, he will likely drop out. A shame, since his ideas are excellent.

C plus 6 - more thoughts on my predictive powers!

2008-01-09T21:39:00.000-06:00

C plus 4 - predicting New Hampshire

2008-01-07T14:38:00.000-06:00

Well, Romney, Thompson and Hunter all got something from Wyoming, which is more than any other Republican candidate got. Whether it means anything is another matter...
So, given my sterling reputation for prediction who do I think will win in New Hampshire? On the Democrat side, Obama will win, Hillary second, Edwards third. If Hillary is less than 5% behind Obama she can justifiably claim some sort of comeback, but I doubt that will happen. If Obama breaks 40% it is all over bar the voting. If Edwards does not get at least 15% he needs to drop out.
The Republican side is a bit more complex. First, I do not think Thompson will make any sort of showing in the race. If he gets 5% (which he might on the basis of his performance over the weekend) he has got way more than he bargained for in NH. I think McCain will win, by about 5% over Romney, with Giuliani just edging out Huckabee for third. This will stop any Huckabee bounce from Iowa dead in its tracks, and show that he was just a one state wonder. McCain plays well here but that is not the issue for him. He needs to carry that forward, and I do not think he can - immigration and McCain-Feingold are two big anchors that will drag him down. As for Romney, he will not be stopped by this result (although if he loses by 10% or more, or if the third place finisher is within 5% of him, he is in big trouble).
Anyway, there you have it. Rumors of Duncan Hunter dropping out are apparently not true, but that is simply a shame. He needs to go. If Ron Paul gets more than 10%, expect to hear a lot of media noise about it. Any less than that, and he too becomes mostly marginal.

C plus 2 - the aftermath

2008-01-05T11:43:00.000-06:00

Well, I was 100% correct in my predictions for the Democratic results here in Iowa, and 100% wrong for the Republican results! For those who do not remember, I chose on the Republican side Thompson, Romney, and either Giuliani or Huckabee in third. Instead, Huckabee won it - so my thoughts about his support draining away were clearly wrong.
In terms of post-mortem, clearly many smarter folks than I will be having their say, and of course with the Wyoming Republican caucus today, and New Hampshire primary on Tuesday we will soon have more results to ponder. Nonetheless, I will share my thoughts on what it all means, just so I can be wrong again!
I think the situation on the Democratic side is the clearer of the two. Edwards is toast - he needed to win Iowa, and did not do that. I do not see anything coming down the pike where he will win, and without a win soon (before February 5) he will be seen as irrelevant. That leaves Hillary and Obama. I could be wrong here, but I think Hillary is toast too. Too few people find her demeanor attractive. What I mean by that is she seems incapable of making enough people feel good about her and about her leadership to make the sale. Her claims that her time as first lady gives her an edge in experience over Obama and Edwards is frankly laughable, and even the MSM are not going for it. In short, I do not think she will win anything between now and February 5, and if I am right, she will be so badly wounded by then that she will end up losing on that day big time. I will say right now that I think Obama has this in the bag. What that means for the general election is very difficult to say at this point in time, because Obama is actually very much a liberal and strongly on the left wing of the democratic party, but it will be interesting.
The Republican side is very murky. If Huckabee gets a top two finish in New Hampshire, I think he will go on to win the nomination, but I do not expect that to happen. His first place in Iowa was clearly due to strong evangelical support, but looking at the numbers shows an interesting story. He got 37% of the vote, yet between 50 and 60% of the Republican caucus goers were evangelicals according to various entrance and exit polls. In other words, Huckabee did not get all of the evangelical vote (although he did very well in it - perhaps as much as 75% of it) and nowhere else will he find such strong evangelical support (South Carolina will be strongly for Fred rather than Huckabee). In short, this is Huckabee's flash in the pan, and I do not think he will carry this win forward in any meaningful way.
What about Romney? Well, he was hurt by not finishing first, but the strong evangelical presence no doubt contributed to that. He needs to finish first or second everywhere between now and February 5 to be in a commanding position. Otherwise, he is fighting for his life. Money is not an issue for him right now, but eventually he will have to decide if spending all his own money is worth it in a possibly losing fight.
Thompson lives to fight another day (yippee!) but needs to start doing better than third place. If he does not get one or two second places before February 5, he's done. He may get a second or first place finish today in Wyoming.
McCain did less well than some had indicated in Iowa, but clearly has rebounded from his low point. If he wins New Hampshire (seems likely) he is back in the thick of it, but he still has to get through South Carolina, which was his nemesis in 2000. Still, he is in good shape right now.
Giuliani has to show well in New Hampshire and South Carolina (no lower than third) and then has to win in Florida.
Ron Paul may have hit his high point with 9% in Iowa. From here on out, he fades in importance.

But, please be aware how wrong I was about the Republican caucus results, and take all of this with a large grain of salt!

C minus 2 days

2008-01-01T12:51:00.000-06:00

And a very Happy New Year to all my readers (all three of you!). A truly cold day here in Iowa - air temperature is about 10 F, and a nice wind of 20 mph (gusting to 33 mph) creates a wind chill of about -8F. Kath and I walked to the store this morning, and experienced it first hand - our verdict? It is COLD!
We are very definitely in the final furlong now. Clearly, the excitement is growing, and as a result I found myself on the front page of our local paper, the Cedar Rapids Gazette, this morning. Oh, the fame!
Some interesting stuff in the past couple of days on Fred Thompson. I should add that I have been told by a commenter on the blog that I should "stop being baised.. its pointless to promote fred.." but I do not agree. Of the candidates, I have now decided that I will support Fred. One summative reason was the video clip he put together to explain why he is running. It is some 17 minutes long, and has been viewed by more than 114,000 people on You Tube as of now. It has generated some interesting commentary from pundits, some generally positive, with others, not surprisingly, tending the other way. There was also some fuss in the last few days coming, yet again, from a journalist who selectively quoted Thompson's answer to a question about whether or not he desired the Presidency. The person who asked the question explains why, and what he thought about it all, at this location.
So, we are close to the end, and it is by all accounts coming down to the wire. I stick by my earlier predictions, but as noted at that time, these are likely wrong! However, nothing in the current polls serves as a definitive indicator of me being wrong! Bear in mind that my predictions were made 17 days ago - I feel quite proud that they are not totally out to lunch at this point in time!

C minus 5 - a snowball's chance?

2007-12-29T16:19:00.000-06:00

... in hell seem to be what many pundits are giving Fred Thompson, to win the nomination. However, Fred, in his own inimitable style, seems to have taken that snowball thing to heart, and be using it to hit back at the media! Way to go Fred! I got a tip, via the comments, for folk to try out a web site called Theelectionproject. I do not know if it is any good, but FYI there it is. There is another site that will be of value once the caucus/primary process gets started called Election 2008. It will track who has how many delegates.
And, to ensure that she stays on track with her tone deaf campaign management, it now appears that Hillary's campaign is using sock-puppetry to try and generate support and interest on the Internet. Wow - talk about dumb!

C minus 6 - and it's snowing again

2007-12-28T14:26:00.000-06:00

Would you believe it - snow, in Iowa, in late December - wow! Of course, the only people who will get excited about that are exactly the same folks as will get excited about the latest polls from the LA Times (be warned - it is in Adobe pdf format). However, as noted by Captain Ed, the numbers are less than compelling. A grand total of 174 likely Republican caucus goers were sampled, of whom 37 supported Huckabee, 23 supported Romney, and 11 supported Thompson. In other words, Huckabee has three times the support (or a little more) than Thompson - or NOT! The sample size is so small as to be meaningless. With so few people polled, there is almost no way of being certain that the sample is representative. While the standard measure of error for such things (root n over n) suggests an error of plus or minus 7.5% the reality is that a much higher degree of error is likely as a result of how the interviewees were selected. In short, the race remains as wide open as ever, and the only polls that count now are the results.
Hillary continues her tone deaf campaign by not taking any questions at her campaign stops in Iowa. Does the woman not get it, or is she simply believing her own press releases? The whole point of the early caucus in Iowa and the early primary in New Hampshire is that the candidates make themselves accessible to the public in ways that they cannot do later in the campaign. Accessibility means answering questions not brushing people off. And given how seriously folks here in Iowa (and, I have heard, in New Hampshire too!) take their responsibility in the caucuses, brushing them off like this will only result in pissing them off. Stupid, stupid, stupid. It is no wonder that Theo Caldwell of the National Post in Canada (h/t Captain Ed) states quite bluntly that the only possible choice for President is a Republican - in fact, almost any of the current crop of Republican candidates:

An obvious choice can be unnerving. When the apparent perfection of one option or the unspeakable awfulness of another makes a decision seem too easy, it is human nature to become suspicious.
This instinct intensifies as the stakes of the given choice are raised. American voters know no greater responsibility to their country and to the world than to select their president wisely. While we do not yet know who the Democrat and Republican nominees will be, any combination of the leading candidates from either party will make for the most obvious choice put to American voters in a generation. To wit, none of the Democrats has any business being president.

And that's from Canada, eh! Will it hold true in Iowa? Who knows...

C minus 10 - the Christmas Eve Special

2007-12-24T21:36:00.000-06:00

A Merry Christmas to everyone, and if you are reading this instead of spending quality Christmas time with your family, then step away from the computer, get yourself some egg nog (fortified or not) or another beverage of choice, and dive in there. If you are really stuck, do what we have just done - sit down with them all and watch National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (a tradition for us on Christmas Eve!).
While driving around on errands today, which I was glad to do since it got me out of the house, and Kath was glad for me to do for exactly the same reason, I heard adverts for Hillary a number of times. All were the same, and the theme was how marvelous she was because the Des Moines Register endorsed her. Frankly, that is lame in a major way. Fine, if you let the Register do all your thinking for you, then this endorsement means something. But most folks here in Iowa don't. The Register serves primarily as a paper for people to complain about. The advert will have done nothing to encourage undecided voters to support Hillary, and at this stage, she needs those folks pretty seriously.
And that was not the only error of hers that I learned of today. Apparently, the campaign has been handing out supporter cards with a caucus date of January 14th on them - major oops! That is an act of supreme incompetence for a campaign. If it were the only such act, that would be one thing, but the campaign has made a number of these errors of late. Why? Well, perhaps they believed their own press releases that Hillary was the inevitable candidate, and forgot to actual work at making that happen. Contributing to that may have been the media tendency to give those they favor a pass when it comes to the hard questions. That means the media favorites are not battle tested, and so in the real fight, they come up short. A similar thing may be happening to Mike Huckabee, as we get from his campaign a daily dose of bad news. The latest bad news for him, and this is I think fatal in terms of his candidacy, is that he has received significant speaking fees ($35K) from Novo Nordisk "one of the world's largest embryonic stem cell researchers." As noted in the link, the MSM seem to be burying this one, which in the long run will only serve to weaken Huckabee (just as Kerry was weakened because the press did not ask him more detailed questions about his experiences in Vietnam - had they done so, and had his campaign responded appropriately, there would have been nothing for the Swift Boat Veterans to say. But, they didn't and the rest is history).
Given all of which, a further reminder that the polls are basically rubbish for things like caucuses is served up here. The only polls that matter are the numbers that come out of the caucuses, not those going in!

C minus 11 - blizzard is an Iowa word

2007-12-23T21:44:00.000-06:00

Yep, this morning we awoke to find lots of snow, on top of a nice layer of ice. The snow had drifted, as after it stopped falling the temperature dropped like a rock and the wind picked up. Shoveling was a joy we could have done without!
How all this will affect the caucuses is unclear. If the caucuses had been last night, would I have attended? Yes, absolutely. Would everyone who plans to attend on January 3? Who knows - caucus goers are a pretty dedicated bunch. So, who will win if the weather is bad? Probably the same person as will win regardless! Probably naive of me, but there you go.
So, what to consider on a day like today, which first of all is a pre-Christmas family day, and second is cold, snowy, windy, and full of driveways to be plowed? How about considering immigration!
Of my four remaining possible choices (Thompson, Giuliani, Romney, and McCain) this is probably an issue in which Thompson is strongest. His proposal for dealing with this is clear, and in many ways similar to the others (enforce the laws, reform the current system so it works efficiently, and then, and only then, consider making changes). As an approach it is eminently sensible, and as noted, the four candidates all pretty much agree on this, so why does Thompson have an edge?
Put simply, the issue is credibility. Both Giuliani and Romney have incidents in their past in which their commitment to the enforcement of the immigration laws were less than stellar. While both are currently talking the talk, and both sound credible in what they say, there is a question that can fairly be lodged against both candidates about their past practices. With McCain, this issue is magnified. Earlier this year McCain was strongly in favor of a bill that essentially granted amnesty, in all but name, to illegal immigrants. He claims he has "heard the people speak" and will thus change his approach in the future, but...
So, on the issue of immigration, the award clearly goes to Thompson. Not that the others could not do a good job if they actually do what they say they will do, but he has a much better record than any of them on this issue.

C minus 12 - polls and stuff

2007-12-22T13:45:00.000-06:00

A couple of interesting results from on-line polls on right leaning web sites. The first, on Michelle Malkin's site, has Thompson leading with 37% of the vote, more even than Ron Paul (who normally manages to dominate such on-line polls). The second poll, still active, on Captain's Quarters, also has Thompson leading, although to be fair this one is about which candidate you would like to have an egg nog with, rather than which you would vote for!
So, what do these on-line polls mean? Traditionally, the answer has been not very much, and indeed that may well be the case today, but...
Maybe on-line polls are not much less accurate than traditional phone polls. The phone polls today face a number of challenges (e.g. people not having land lines, multiple candidates and small sample sizes, etc.) and we know that the folks who take the on-line polls are likely reading about issues relating to the race on the blogs where they vote. Of course, the on-line polls can be deliberately skewed if a single candidate's campaign gets a bunch of people to go to the blog and do Chicago style voting (early and often) and there is some evidence that the Paul campaign has done this in the past. However, I think in this case the on-line polling may be hooking into a strong phenomenon of growing support for Thompson. I think he will get a very pleasant surprise come early January!

C minus 13 - miscellany

2007-12-21T09:45:00.000-06:00

The Inestimable Iowahawk explains here, as only he can, why it is that Iowa has the first in the Nation caucuses. Eat your heart out, those of you on the left and right coasts - the heartland is where it's at!
Bob Krumm explains who he has endorsed, and why, at this post. He uses an excellent system of analysis for this, but I have to admit to skepticism, if only because of this quote of his:

Depending on how you look at it, I am either blessed or cursed with an analytical mind. So when making big decisions I’ve long attempted to quantify the relative merits of the choices available to me. One simple tool I have found useful is the decision matrix. Even my wife has become a convert to its utility. We’ve used decision matrices to buy three different cars, select a dog breed, and choose our vacation destinations. And so, I have again turned to a decision matrix to help determine who I support for President.

I have bolded the sentence I find particularly troublesome. If, indeed, he has persuaded his wife to use decision matrices, he owes it to all other males on the planet to share his methods for doing so!
Tancredo has dropped out and endorsed Romney, which is a little bit surprising. Tancredo's main concern is, and has been consistently for a number of years, illegal immigration. I am not sure that Romney is the one I would choose as being the strongest on illegal immigration, but then again, the endorsement is Tancredo's to give, not mine!
And I am thankful to learn that I am not the only one who was deeply troubled by the Hillary Christmas Ad. Ann Althouse has put it splendidly (ht: Instapundit):

Isn't this like when you get presents from family members and you know they charged it on your credit card?

Exactly! After all, it IS our money that is paying for all those gifts Hillary is wrapping - not hers...

A thoughtful choice by someone else

2007-12-20T21:14:00.000-06:00

A blogger I sometimes read, who goes by the name of Beldar, has written an extensive column on who he has chosen as his Republican candidate to support in the primaries. He came down for Thompson, but his column goes into great detail as to why him, and why not one of the others. Well worth a read...

C minus 14 - discovery of media bias

2007-12-20T09:05:00.000-06:00

I am shocked, shocked I tell you to hear that ~~there is gambling going on in Rick's Casino~~ there is clear evidence of media bias against Fred Thompson (great roundup of it all here with suitable links), but it would appear that there is! A report about his bus tour on Tuesday covered a trip to a fire station, and seemed to show a grumpy old man who could not relate to his audience. The video of the event was rather different. When will mainstream media folk learn that the world in which they and they alone controlled the content is no longer with us? (sorry - a rhetorical question).
Anyway, I went to the Thompson event in Coralville yesterday, a Town Hall type meeting on one of the local radio stations (KCJJ) and was suitably impressed. Thompson gave very thoughtful and complete answers to his questioners, but most impressive of all was when he was asked a question by a member of the Meskwaki tribe about relations between Native American Tribes and the Federal Government. Thompson said he did not know enough about the particular issue to respond, but he would find out so that he could act appropriately. In other words, he was willing to say that he did not know - a huge and potentially dangerous admission for a politician to make, but also absolutely the right thing to do. This is I think part of what makes him a very impressive candidate, plus, as others have noted, his wife is indeed extremely cute (not, of course, that that should make any difference :)). Oh, and I do know the photo is not exactly the best in the world. Getting a clear shot was almost impossible - the traditional media photographers were like piranhas with a crippled cow for lunch.

C minus 16 - the endgame begins

2007-12-18T15:49:00.000-06:00

I think that we are starting to see the final shape of the caucuses begin to take form. Now, all that is highly speculative, so what makes me think that? Well, time is an issue - only about two weeks left for folks to make decisions. Also, we are beginning to see some movement in various ways. A lot of endorsements are coming out. Some (e.g. Congressman King for Thompson) are your political endorsements, others are the old media (e.g. the Des Moines Register for McCain) and still others are the new media (e.g. Redstate for Thompson). Do these matter? In one sense, no. Most voters will not be swayed by what a single politician or a newspaper thinks. However, it does create a sense of time running out, which is appropriate!
Given that, it begins to look like Fred Thompson may be surging at the right time. He began his bus tour of Iowa yesterday in Dubuque, and tomorrow will be in this neck of the woods, so I will try to hear him. There is a little bit of a buzz that he might well be on the rise, but is it real? Time will tell.
This ties in with a sense that the momentum for Huckabee may be stalling (but as noted in the link all it shows is that his support is not increasing, rather than that it is decreasing). I remain confident in my predictions, but given my track record on such things, I would strongly suggest that nobody puts any money on said predictions!

C minus 19 - snowing again

2007-12-15T11:33:00.000-06:00

And looking mighty pretty while it does it, I might add! However, this does mean that the drive will have to be shoveled - chances that the children will do it (those living at home)? Close to zero - ah well, such is life as a parent!
We are now less than three weeks until caucus night, and the race seems as interesting as ever. Right now, it looks like Huckabee is leading, Romney is second, Thompson and Guiliani are pretty close for third place, with McCain running in fifth, at least in part because he, commendably, insists on telling us here in Iowa that subsidies for ethanol are a bad idea. Good policy, but probably less good for his chances in the caucuses!
However, I do not expect the race to finish this way. I think that Huckabee will begin to fade fairly rapidly from here on in. His conservative credentials are lacking in some important areas and the scrutiny he is receiving is beginning to demonstrate these. What I think we will see happening, and I am not alone, is Thompson beginning to get a lot of interest and support. In part this will come from his bus tour across Iowa, but I think it will also come as support drains away from Huckabee to Thompson. Obviously, a lot can change in this time, but I will stick my neck out and predict Thompson wins Iowa, with Romney second, and Guiliani and Huckabee pretty close together in third place. Likely I am totally wrong, but remember, you saw it here first!

C minus 21 - ice storm recovery, and a narrowing of the field

2007-12-13T20:06:00.000-06:00

Having been without power part of the last two days because of the ice storm, it is a great pleasure to be back on the grid. However the two days were not without value. In the gloom and dark of a house without lights, I was able to think about the five candidates and consider which of them I should drop (to help me narrow my choice to four, now that the caucuses are only three weeks away.
I think that at this time, if one of my five potential choices is to be dropped, it should be Mike Huckabee. While he has the executive experience of running the State of Arkansas as governor, the record would suggest that from the point of view of fiscal policy, he was not particularly conservative. I am also concerned that he seems overly committed to a "nanny state." So, given that, I am now down to four candidates, and I shall see how my thinking develops on them over the next three weeks.

C minus 24 - the ice storm cometh

2007-12-10T21:06:00.000-06:00

After struggling yesterday to try and set down my thoughts on leadership, I came across a piece today that typifies the obverse, or what might be called anti-leadership. The piece discusses concerns raised by hard core democratic voters about Hillary Clinton. Here are some typical quotes:

The concerns about Clinton, 60, a New York senator, are that she is devious, calculating and, fairly or not, a divisive figure in American politics.

Those are a lot tougher to overcome.

It was revealing, too, when Hart pushed them to envision these senators as leaders of the country or, as he put it, their ``boss.'' Obama, they say, would be inspirational, motivating, charismatic and compassionate. After praising Clinton's experience and intelligence, they say she would be demanding, difficult, maybe even a little scary.

Now in some ways, this is unfair. A scary leader may not be a bad leader, but there is unfortunately more bade news for Senator Clinton:

Candor and authenticity were repeatedly cited. ``I don't feel like I look at her and see someone who's telling me the whole truth,'' says Allison Lowrey, a 30-year-old human- resources consultant. ``I'd like to see her approach a problem without the polls'' helping her make her decision, says Andrew Alebergo, a 39-year-old tanning-salon operator.

Even strong Hillary supporters acknowledge the electorate's deep-seated concerns. ``She is walking a fine tightrope now, because she is such a divisive personality,'' says Lynda Connelly, a thoughtful 58-year-old Red Cross manager. She plans to vote for Clinton while fearing that, if elected, ``the right- wing noise machine is going to do everything it can to derail her.''

This isn't an anti-Hillary crowd. She gets high marks for her experience, intelligence and toughness; these qualities, they suspect, are what voters demand.

Their hopes and dreams, though, are with Obama, 46. If he can dispel misgivings about his electability or experience, the formidable Clinton forces may be powerless.

This is one reason why I was so impressed by Obama speaking out about social security. That was the mark of a leader - someone willing to tackle difficult issues even if they know that what they say will not be popular. If you are poll driven, then you will never have the courage to speak out like that.

In the long run, I think that leadership is what counts. There is a lot of discussion, for example, on right wing blogs about the stance that Bush took on embryonic stem cell research. Some agreed with him, and some did not, but as far as I could tell everyone thought that he did well to speak about it.

So, which of the Republican five have the most leadership quality in this regard. I think Fred Thompson has shown a willingness to tackle awkward topics well and has demonstrated leadership by doing so. I think Rudy has shown this by his forthright manner of addressing the differences he has with some on topics of abortion. McCain has shown leadership by the stance he has taken on immigration and campaign finance reform (although I think he is wrong on both counts). McCain may well be the one who shows the limitations on such leadership. People will follow a leader up to the point when that leader's views on critical issues diverge from their own too much. How much is too much? A very personal issue that each one of us has to decide! Sorry, but on that score there are no easy answers.

My apologies too for the rather cryptic title to this post. A major ice storm is forecast to start in about three hours, and will likely close down much of eastern Iowa, including Iowa City. I may or may not get to blog tomorrow - I know, the suspense is killing you!

C minus 25 - the leadership conundrum

2007-12-09T21:12:00.000-06:00

It is quite possible for an aspiring presidential candidate to have excellent policy ideas, and yet fail utterly to capture the imagination of the voters sufficiently to persuade them to vote for said candidate. Obviously, a certain sort of personality is needed to encourage people to give you their vote, but on top of this, especially with the Presidency, a candidate must persuade voters that she or he is a leader.
Leadership is one of those things that are difficult to define, but obvious when seen. It is sometimes confused with good management, yet the two are fundamentally different. In a discussion over Thanksgiving (and a good malt whisky) a good friend of mine and I decided that leadership is to management as vision is to strategy. This, while no doubt very profound (as such deep thoughts, spawned in a good malt, so often are) is still less than illuminating.
So, given this tricky issue, what sort of leadership do I see in the five Republican candidates that I am considering? Clearly Huckabee, Romney, and Guiliani all have governmental executive experience, having been either governor or mayor themselves. This is no small thing. In the last 40 years, only President George H. W. Bush (Bush the elder) has been elected President without having been a governor, and he had executive experience running the CIA. The fact that Guiliani has only been a mayor rather than a governor is irrelevant, given that he was mayor of New York, which has significantly more residents than either Arkansas or Massachusetts.
However, not having been a governor (or big city mayor) need not be a barrier to the Presidency (in spite of recent history). Clearly, the Democrats do not think so, since their last two Presidential nominees have not been governors, nor do any of their current front runners have gubernatorial experience. And certainly, John McCain's experience in the Hanoi Hilton was clear evidence of significant leadership under the most appalling conditions. Whether Fred Thompson has that leadership experience is less clear.
And yet, in these words I am making the same confusion between managerial skill and leadership as I warned against above. Leadership is something more than running a large organization, whether that be a state, one of the world's great cities, a major government bureaucracy, or a corporation. It is the ability to inspire people under the worst possible conditions. And that is why both McCain and Guiliani are such formidable candidates, because both have shown that ability to lead. McCain's demonstration was in the darkest of days, and was conducted under almost invisible conditions. Guiliani's leadership took place on the world stage, under the spotlight, and was singularly effective. Those who are now trying to attack Guiliani for his role as mayor in the aftermath of 9/11 are doing so because they recognize, whether explicitly or not, just how important and appealing the leadership he showed then is to the presidential race.
Clearly leadership is not the only desirable quality in a presidential candidate, nor do I wish to diminish the possible leadership qualities of Huckabee, Romney, and Thompson, but McCain and Guiliani are both very clearly leaders. Next November, that could be critical.

C minus 26 - has Huckabee peaked?

2007-12-08T20:04:00.000-06:00

The big, and good, news for Mike Huckabee over the last week or so is his meteoric rise in the polls. A Newsweek poll now has him at about twice the support of his next closest rival (Romney) in Iowa, although some think the poll (of only 275 people) is a bit suspect. Nonetheless, it must feel good to go from nowhere to everywhere in nothing flat!
Of course, what goes up, must come down, both in gravitational fields and in politics. And with more than three weeks to go before caucus night it maybe that this rise is too soon. With good numbers come increased scrutiny, and the scrutiny has not been kind so far. News has come out that he supported an AIDS quarantine, in 1992, and is also on record as saying that homosexuality is sinful (again, in 1992 - by which I mean that he said it in 1992, not that homosexuality was sinful, according to Huckabee, only in 1992 - clearly my grammar needs work!). Various other issues are being raised, such as his role in paroling a rapist who subsequently raped and killed someone, his fiscal actions while governor of Arkansas, and his tendency toward "Nanny Statism" with regard to health care. None of these may hurt him with his base here in Iowa, but they may limit his ability to grow beyond his base.
A ripple effect of the surge of Huckabee is that it may make life a little easier for Romney. Romney did very well with his speech on Thursday (see here for some quotes) and will likely see a bump in the polls as a result. The Sunday morning news shows tomorrow will likely focus on this a lot, along with another recent development, which is...
That Fred Thompson has decided to roll the dice in Iowa in a major way (hat tip to the Corner). He will be in the State, traveling around by bus, every day between now and the caucuses except for Christmas day. I, and others, have been waiting, with increasing impatience, for Fred to get moving. His policy statements are great, his ideas are excellent and exciting, but he needs to close the deal. Perhaps, by bus, he can do it! His Senatorial campaign succeeded on the basis of a state tour in a red pickup - maybe the bus will do the same for him.
So, lots of excitement in the coming weeks here in Iowa. And on the home front, I got a visit this evening from a couple who are the precinct captains for Obama. Very friendly and pleasant, and if this is indicative of the level of organization of the Obama team, a good sign for him. It should be noted that while I am a registered Republican, my daughter, who is living at home at present, is a registered Democrat, and it was her they were coming to see!

C minus 29 - a long break caused by failing technology

2007-12-05T12:20:00.001-06:00

My apologies for not blogging for a while. As noted in my last comment, I headed to England over the past week, and had hoped to be able to blog there by means of various bits of technology. Sadly, this did not happen, and since I cannot blame this on any of the Presidential candidates, I will say no more!
On the Democratic side it looks to me as if the wheels are falling off the Hillary campaign. She still has time to fix the problems, although Iowa may have slipped beyond her grasp, but her response to her falling poll numbers has been incredibly incompetent to date. Attacking Obama because he wrote an essay about wanting to be President in kindergarten is pathetic. The only reason she has not been buried already is that her opponents have been slow to hammer her. I can only speculate that Obama in particular is waiting for a particularly heinous example of Hillary panic, and he will then strike - the closer the caucuses get, the more payoff this might give him, but it is a somewhat risky project.
In terms of the yard sign watch, the number is still small. The only new one I have seen lately is for Biden, so things are just as uncertain as before.
The big news on the Republican side is the surge of Huckabee in Iowa, and nationally. It is quite clear that he has suddenly hit the prime time. The good side of this for him is obvious, but the drawback will be the attention his ideas now receive. I say this not as an implied criticism of Huckabee, but more as a general comment. Jim Geraghty examines his foreign policy, noting where it particularly differs from the conservative mainstream. In contrast with Huckabee's rise, there is the apparent disappearance of team Fred from the radar screen, almost totally. About the only thing I have seen about Fred recently is a quote from Rush Limbaugh, that Jim Geraghty thought was pretty close to a non-endorsement endorsement by Rush. If Thompson wants to do well enough in Iowa, he needs to start being more "present" in the news, regardless of his pollster's valid comments.
Romney is due to give his big "religion" talk tomorrow. Whether this helps him in Iowa remains to be seen, but it will likely give him a boost nationally. Guiliani has taken some hits of late, and McCain does not seem to be moving much in either direction.
In short, on both sides, the race is extremely volatile, so the excitement continues to build.

C minus 39 - the end of the long weekend

2007-11-25T20:31:00.000-06:00

Hugh Hewitt is of the opinion that the Republican nomination is now a two horse race, specifically between Rudy and Mitt. It should be noted that Hugh has been a supporter of Mitt Romney since the word go in this campaign, but his arguments make interesting reading, not least because he poses them in terms of a debunking of the political pundits. His piece suggests that the spin machine which worked so well for politicians in the past is now a broken and outdated thing, and its influence on this election will be minimal. We shall see! The Money quote from Hugh:

Republican voters believe Hillary will be the nominee and that she will be extraordinarily tough to beat.
They also know it will require an enormous amount of money and energy to beat her.
The vast majority of them know this political context limits their choices to one of two candidates: Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.
There isn't going to a stampede to Huckabee or a Fred Revival, period. If Romney can deliver three or four early wins and back it up with the cash he has amassed plus much of his own on February 5, he will be the nominee.
If he can't, Rudy will be the nominee.

So, track and see whether or not he is correct...

Fred Thompson has been making a bit of a splash today, first of all with the release of his plan for income taxes, which is pretty interesting. It offers a simple option, with very limited deductions (for example, no deduction for mortgage interest payments) and only two rates (10% up to $100,000 for couples filing jointly, and 25% above that). The personal deductions and those for children are such that a family of four would pay no tax at all on earnings up to $39,000. Feasible? Who knows, but it is a plan, and serves as a good point of discussion. As might be expected, some folk are already saying that the country cannot afford it (see the comments on this site). This is a legitimate area for discussion, but it should be remembered that Fred has given us something concrete to discuss, and that should be considered good.

Another issue with Fred Thompson has been the charge that he is lazy when campaigning. It would appear that this is not the case. I wonder who might spread such tales, and why? In addition to that, Fred was on Fox News Sunday today. Some said he did well, others thought he did poorly. I think he is playing the game a different way, and that carries both risks and rewards. For Fred, he has to make it to South Carolina, win there, and still have enough momentum (or cash - the two may be effectively equivalent) to do well in the Southern States on February 5. Watch this space...

The pace will pick up relentlessly between now and Christmas, so I will leave tomorrow for Europe, to see what they are saying about the race over there (if anything!). With luck, and a certain degree of electronic cooperation, I shall be able to post while over there.

C Minus 40 - Post-Thanksgiving Turkey Hunt

2007-11-24T16:12:00.000-06:00

Now that Thanksgiving has come and gone, and everyone is asking who exactly it is that gets up at ungodly hours the day after large dinners to go to the mall (or at least, everyone I know is asking that!), we are entering into the final stretch of the campaign here in Iowa. It remains wide open, at least as far as I can tell. An informal review of yard signs indicate approximately equal (albeit very sparse) support for Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, with one sign for Dodd spotted, and no other signs for candidates (that's right - there are no Republican signs out anyway, because this is Iowa City, a nuclear free zone, if you did not know!). If anyone is leading in terms of signs it is Obama, but the margin is very small! What is interesting is that there are a number of yards with "troops out now" signs and the like, but without any sign for a specific candidate. There are a LOT of undecided voters here in Iowa, and that should be borne in mind whenever you read a poll.

According to some, the focus for the Democrats is now going to be all Iowa, all the time, until January 3. I think that may overstate things, but it does seem as if the Iowa Caucuses will be far more important for the Dems than for the Republicans. Whichever of the big three Dems gets a win here will be given a big boost, whereas there seems to be much less likelihood of a bounce on the Republican side. If Romney wins, well he should, given all the money he has spent here. If he loses, he will be hurt for that same reason, but it is unlikely to be a deadly blow. McCain has not put much effort into the state, apparently because his stance on things like corn subsidies make it a very hard win for him (see this Washington Post article, which includes a quote from one of my colleagues - I do love to bask in reflected fame!). Huckabee needs a win or a second place in Iowa or he will wither on the vine, but he is a long shot at present anyway. Rudy is fighting here, but seems more invested in New Hampshire. And Fred is also here, but not much, and is more invested in South Carolina. So, much less fireworks likely on January 3 on the GOP side than on the Dems.

The uneasiness about Hillary in some quarters continues. The sense that she is trying to manage the press and avoid any embarrassing (or, perhaps more accurately, any worthwhile and pointed) questions is captured here. She has also put together an advert that, according to Howard Kurtz is meant to protect her, or as the "Divine Ms. Althouse" puts it: "How dare you questions her!" A more direct approach against Hillary is taken by Grover Norquist, who is promoting an anti-nepotism amendment to the constitution, specifically to neuter political dynasties.

Of interest in all this is an excellent report in the Telegraph (based in England). Two reporters crossed the USA from Portland Maine to San Diego, and then again from Seattle to Florida, doing a lot of listening on the way, and spending a lot of time in flyover country. Their findings are interesting. Of Hillary, they note:

While we found many people who hated Mrs Clinton, those who loved her were few and far between. Certainly, many said they would vote for her, but the reasons cited tended to be her status as the top Democrat, the fact that she was battle-tested against Republicans and - for some women - the fact that she would be the first female president.
Such support might register in the opinion polls, but could melt away should the former First Lady lose in Iowa. And the frequently expressed nightmare for Democrats is that she will win their party's nomination but lose to a Republican next November when most Americans decide they don't much like her.
"I'm always amazed how we can screw things up," said Steve Ayers, a coffee-shop owner in Hannibal. "Maybe the way we screw it up this time is by nominating Hillary - across the Midwest that would be the only way of unifying Republicans."

The interesting thing here is that this report is probably about as objective as you can get at this point in time. These folks do not have a horse in this race, yet they seem to be indicating that the story in the media is seriously incorrect. They also seem to be saying that this year, as perhaps never before, the field is wide open. That is a continuing theme, and will likely have a great deal more importance than any other factor at this time. Here in Iowa, a lot of folk will be going to the caucuses without their final decisions having been made.

And just to further confound conventional wisdom, there is now a report out that the Democrats, and not the GOP, are the party of the rich. What impact, if any, this will have is unknown...

Stem Cells off the Table

2007-11-20T21:29:00.000-06:00

A couple of scientific papers, published today, have, I think, essentially removed the issue of embryonic stem cell research from the 2008 election. The breakthrough, which is well described in both the New York Times, and the Washington Post, was developed essentially simultaneously by two research groups, one in Japan, and the other in Wisconsin. In essence, the results are that it is possible to create pluripotent stem cells (which previously had been thought to be only available from embryos) from ordinary human skin cells, by introducing four genes into the adult stem cell. What is especially nice about this research finding is that this means it would be possible, perhaps, to take some of my skin cells and transform them in such a way as to grow me some new nerves, or even a whole new heart. That means I could, at least in theory, be given a completely new heart that is a perfect genetic match to me (since it grew from my own cells) and thus I would not need any anti-rejection medication. Of course, what was reported in these two scientific papers today is only the first step on a very long road toward growing our own replacement organs, but it is a great step, and it means we can go down that road without having to use embryos. As you may know, President Bush has vetoed a couple of bills that proposed funding embryonic stem cell research, and has also acted to ban federal funding of embryonic stem cell research apart from that done on a limited number of existing embryonic stem cell lines. In one sense, some may see today's news as vindicating his stance, and I think that is a reasonable way to view it. In all this is great news in that science has managed to find a morally acceptable way to investigate the potentially huge benefits of pluripotent stem cells.

There has been some political response to the news today. Not surprisingly, there was a very upbeat comment from the White House. To my mind, a critical quote from that is the following:

The President believes medical problems can be solved without compromising either the high aims of science or the sanctity of human life. We will continue to encourage scientists to expand the frontiers of stem cell research and continue to advance the understanding of human biology in an ethically responsible way.

We need to consider the ethical implications of scientific advances more than we typically do, and I hope that the stem cell issue will prove to be a good case study for this. Romney can claim a certain prescience on this issue because of his remarks on this topic in June of this year. Fred Thompson had a comment on this topic, and he noted, quite correctly, that adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells have far more successes to their name than do embryonic stem cells:

There is exciting news for patients today. In yet another breakthrough for adult cell research, scientists have made normal human skin cells take on the relevant properties of embryonic stem cells. That is in addition to 73 breakthroughs for adult and cord blood research to date. There are still no embryonic stem cell breakthroughs.

Anyway, regardless of who makes political hay on this topic, it is good news, and once again congratulations to those scientists who made the breakthrough happen.

C minus 44 and counting

2007-11-20T21:09:00.000-06:00

Watched Bones and House tonight, and only four adverts during the two programs; one each from Thompson, Romney, Obama, and Clinton. Of interest, perhaps, is that only the Thompson advert addressed a specific issue with specific solutions - his dealt with immigration. Obama talked about helping middle class people, Romney focused on the family, and Clinton's ad was about how she helped someone get a bone marrow transplant for their son, and therefore we should trust her (not sure about the logic there, but that may be as much because I do not trust Clinton as because of anything else). I was a bit surprised, given that Huckabee is meant to be surging in Iowa, not to see an advert from him, but I understand that he is somewhat short of funds, so he may be waiting for some pivotal moment at which to let loose his words of wisdom!

In other daily dose news, Hillary took a swing at Obama today on his supposed experience from living overseas. So much for her not being negative... It is not impossible that this is in response to the latest poll numbers from Iowa, which show her losing her lead there. Some folks are suggesting that it might be best for her to finish third there, which does not sound so good to me, but who knows? Mickey Kaus paints a not-unreasonable scenario that would have Hillary pulling out of Iowa in about three weeks time if she is not moving back into the lead by then. He makes a good argument, so I guess we should keep watching that one.

Lengthy Conversations on the War on Terror

2007-11-19T20:57:00.000-06:00

An organization called Pajamas Media is conducting fairly lengthy (of the order of 5 to 10 minutes) interviews with Presidential candidates to explore the candidates' thoughts on the war on terror. They call these their War on Terror Conversations, and the first one, with Fred Thompson, is up and available. I listened and liked what I heard for two reasons. First, it does give a candidate an opportunity to speak in something beyond the standard 15 second soundbite, which can only improve the quality of political discourse in this campaign (at least, in my opinion!). Second, I thought that Fred did a commendably good job in his conversation. Take a listen yourself, and see what you think.

C minus 45 and counting - Chuck Norris enters the Fray!

2007-11-19T20:11:00.000-06:00

I had heard about this one, but after seeing it myself I have to say it is a great advert. Mike Huckabee is clearly making the most of the endorsement he received from Chuck Norris, and good for him. A very enjoyable ad, and I hope we see more ads with such humor in them.
That said, not all went well for Mike Hukabee today. The National Review Online had a lead article on his candidacy, and labeled him as offering:

a mixture of populism and big-government liberalism

Clearly in their view anyway, he is not a good candidate. Hmmm!

In other news today, there has been a bit of a kerfuffle about some rather unpleasant push polling in New Hampshire. I do not think we have got to the bottom of this yet, but it sounds as if someone is doing some phone polling to attack Romney on the basis of his religious affiliation (he is, if you did not know it, a Mormon). A good article by Mark Hemingway digs into this further with some potentially surprising results! Oh what fun and games...

Talking of fun and games, Mitt Romney is attacking Rudy for his past actions on immigration. Specifically, Mitt claims that Rudy supported sanctuary cities, and it is true that you can find quotes from some years ago (pre 9/11) by Rudy to that effect. The extent to which these attacks on Rudy will stick remains to be seen. It seems to me to be an attempt to label Rudy with the "flip flop" label. Given that Mitt has had that label thrown at him a lot, I am not sure it is a wise strategy on his part to draw attention to anyone doing any flip-flopping.

Hillary cannot be pleased by a recent poll in Iowa, reported today by the Washington Post, which has Obama ahead of her, 30% to 26%. I remain unconvinced over the value of these various polls some 45 days out, but certainly the trend here (toward Obama and away from Hillary) cannot be pleasing to the junior Senator from New York.

Another poll in New Hampshire reported by CNN shows Romney gaining ground and both Guiliani and Thompson losing ground. Again, I am a bit skeptical about these polls, and I think the most important thing noted in this poll report was the final paragraph, to whit:

But the poll suggests the GOP race remains fluid with about two months left before the New Hampshire primary, the official date of which remains unsettled. Only 14 percent of those surveyed said they had definitely decided on a candidate, while 29 percent said they were leaning toward one — and 56 percent were still trying to decide.

In short, the race on both sides is still wide open!

C minus 47 and counting - Democratic debate fall-out

2007-11-17T18:08:00.000-06:00

Before the debate last Thursday, I made this comment:

Does tonight's debate matter? Normally they don't but I think this one matters a lot. If Hillary does not do well, then the "taste" of the last debate (which was a disaster for her) sticks around. If she is as bad as last time out, then the wheels come off totally. If she is somewhere in between (most likely outcome) then she will continue to lose her lead, but it will still be reversible. We shall see...

So, in light of that, what do I think happened? Well, the initial result seemed to be pretty good for Hillary. The crowd was with her, and she managed to avoid any pitfalls in her responses. Also, Wolf Blitzer was a total wimp and asked no hard questions at all, and when handed the chance on a plate to follow up to her replies, failed to do so.

But now it turns out that the deck in Vegas was stacked for Hillary. Given that, it is no wonder she did so well. So, what does this mean? First, the Vegas debate does nothing good for Hillary in terms of overcoming her previous debate performance. Her relatively reasonable performance is meaningless in light of all the help she had. But more importantly, this appears to continue the theme of Hillary - that she never answered a question she didn't plant. The debate was planted, her meetings in Iowa are full of planted questions, and the one time she gets asked a mildly difficult question that wasn't planted, she lost it. This sends the message, if people wish to hear it, that she is not ready for prime time. And the Iowa voters may well hear that message loud and clear. As of now (and there are still 47 days to go) I do not think Hillary will win in Iowa.

Thompson at C minus 49

2007-11-15T18:49:00.001-06:00

Since I am trying to choose between the five candidates it is only appropriate that I should spend some time considering them. I am starting with Fred (and by the way, I am sure I will be revisiting all the candidates more than once) because if the caucuses were tonight, he is the one for whom I would vote.

What do I like about him? The first thing is that he is putting out specific ideas or policies that he would pursue (or that he says he would pursue) if elected. As others have noted, he is putting out clear ideas on social security, immigration, and the size of the military.

Of the three things he has touched on in detail so far, two of them (social security and immigration) are topics that I think are extremely important. His ideas on social security seem, at the very least, like a good starting point. Clearly, in going from his proposal to a change in the current system would involve a lot of horse trading, and the final result would no doubt be different from what he has proposed, but I think I could live with his proposal, and more importantly, I think my children could too. Under the current system, I will likely get something from social security, but my children would not (it will be bankrupt long before they get to retire). Fred's proposals address this. Yes, they include the big left wing bogeyman of Personal Retirement Accounts but any feasible solution will likely have to do that. He includes some good charts that clearly show the fiscal benefits of his program compared with the current one, although some will no doubt argue with his assumption of a 23% cut in benefits in 2041 if no changes are made. In short, there is enough detail in his plan to make it debatable (by which I mean, you can actually discuss the plan on its merits!) and that serves us all.

His ideas on immigration are also very clear and thorough. I particularly like that he is suggesting a fairly simple approach initially (basically, enforce existing laws). The ideas he suggest seem fair. In fact, they are a great deal fairer than Mexico is in its immigration law! He also makes it clear that he is firmly against any amnesty program (well, it didn't exactly work as promised last time, did it?) and firmly behind requiring employers to verify the legality of their employees. He takes that one a step further and proposes denying employers of illegal aliens tax deductions for wages paid to those illegal aliens. Finally, he has some good ideas for improving and streamlining (which it desperately needs) the current legal immigration process. I am sure there will be some debate about the English as the official language proposal that he has, but it seems to me that proposal is a suitable topic for discussion. There are pros and cons to it, and we should, as a society, discuss them. It would be unfortunate indeed if such a discussion were hampered by overemotional and unfounded charges of xenophobia and bigotry.

I am less familiar with Fred's stance on the military, but again, I welcome the fact that he has made a clear stance. There is lots in his program that will generate some heated discussion. He calls for a strong missile defense program, and for what I understand to be some significant changes (increases) in force levels. He also stresses the need to stay strong in space (The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, anyone?) and the need for strong intelligence and cybersecurity abilities. In doing all this, he does not shy away from the issue of cost, attaching a target spending goal of 4.5% of GDP to meet his goals. That is a significant boost from current levels, but he feels it is needed, and spells out in detail why it is needed. Again, the final form of this program would not be exactly what he is suggesting, but as the old saying goes, if you don't know where you are going, you will end up somewhere else.

Fred also has position papers up on his site on Israel and on Traditional American Values. The values white paper is less detailed than others, but the Israel paper covers a lot of ground and is fairly specific. The value of these two papers, as with the others above, is that they create a space within which a well-reasoned discussion can take place.

In addition to the white papers, Fred has a number of shorter statements on a variety of issues (e.g. tax reform, healthcare, education). While these statements do not include the details of the white papers, they clearly are a first step in framing a discussion on these issues. I like that!

In fact, the willingness of Fred Thompson to be so specific and forthright in his views and ideas, and thereby to frame a whole number of discussions is a clear sign of leadership on Fred's part. He has made a point of being "different" in his approach to the campaign, and while some would no doubt term this merely a gimmick, I like it. Politics as usual has not been terribly successful, after all! I think the first sign I got of this unique aspect of Fred's approach was when he did his famous video rebuttal to Michael Moore on the issue of health care in Cuba - if you haven't seen it, make sure you do - it is a thirty eight second classic.

Anyway, I am currently very impressed with Fred, and as noted above I think if the caucus were tonight, he would get my vote. A week is of course a long time in politics, and we are seven weeks away, but nonetheless...

C minus 49 and counting

2007-11-15T16:30:00.000-06:00

Tonight, of course, we have the next Democratic debate, set in Las Vegas. It remains to be seen whether any of the non-Hillary democrats are willing to gamble big time by going after her. Certainly, Wolf Blitzer will have to, otherwise, as noted by others, he will seem like a total wuss. Of course, if he is clever, which I suspect he is, then he will ask all candidates hard questions. This will not make any difference at all to those who cried foul when Tim Russert asked a perfectly reasonable question of Hillary last time out.

What will Wolf ask? I would think that the Chinese fundraising issue might be a good topic, or the money donated by people that Bill pardoned. Either one deserves an answer. Perhaps some other topic will come up, or maybe he will go back to the immigration issue. James Pinkerton thinks that Hillary is now mortally wounded on this - we shall see.

Does tonight's debate matter? Normally they don't but I think this one matters a lot. If Hillary does not do well, then the "taste" of the last debate (which was a disaster for her) sticks around. If she is as bad as last time out, then the wheels come off totally. If she is somewhere in between (most likely outcome) then she will continue to lose her lead, but it will still be reversible. We shall see...

Some interesting thoughts by Brian Pickrell on the race in Iowa. He indicates that most folk have not decided yet, and I think that is probably correct. I know I haven't and while anecdotes have limited value, it is worth noting that on my walk into and back home from work (about two miles through residential Iowa City) there are very few yard signs out yet. Put simply, the poll numbers in Iowa, for both parties, are very soft right now. I think that any of five people on each side could win here, and it will come down to the wire. With only seven or so weeks to go, this is getting rather exciting! Oh, and no political adverts during "House" this week, either - wonder why not?

Rather sad to find that there are those on the left wing who are attacking Obama for raising the issue of social security. Kind of suggests they would rather not talk specifics at all, lest some find their ideas repugnant...

Sources of Information

2007-11-08T09:45:00.001-06:00

A key question we should all ask when getting information from the Internet (or indeed, anywhere) is how reliable is the source of the information? I think that the information I get and use in making my judgments is pretty good, but think it would be of value to share with you the locations at which I get most of my information, so you can see and judge for yourselves.

In terms of local information, I get my news from one of our local papers, the Cedar Rapids Gazette. They are maintaining a site specifically for the caucuses, called Iowa Caucuses. That primarily covers the local news. I should add that I was one of about 30 people who took part in a couple of discussion sessions with editors and reporters from the Gazette last week on the topic of the caucuses. The session I went to was very interesting, with a wide diversity of interests and a very broad political representation in the room. I would say that maybe 5 of the fifteen folk had firmly made up their minds to back a particular candidate, while the rest of us, myself included, were firmly undecided!

Going further afield, I have a number of sites I visit fairly regularly. The first of these is the site maintained by Professor Glenn Reynolds - Instapundit.com Next up on my daily visit list is Captain's Quarters, run by Ed Morrissey. In addition to providing excellent commentary, he also has the wonderful "Day by Day" cartoon by Chris Muir. I also regularly check a couple of blogs at the National Review Online. The first, the Campaign Spot, is run by Jim Geraghty, and includes all news related to the campaigns. The second is the Corner, which includes a veritable host of posters, including such notables as Mark Steyn and Jonah Goldberg. There are others that I visit, but these make up the ones I visit most every day. Hope this is of help.

C minus 56 and counting

2007-11-08T09:36:00.000-06:00

Well, I had hoped to get to an Ann Romney speech yesterday, but did not make it, which was a shame. The sense that things might not be quite so inevitable for Hillary seems to be growing, or is at least providing good subjects for columns by the inestimable David Yepsen in the Des Moines Register. Of course, with eight weeks to go, this should not be surprising. Four years ago, Dean would have seemed inevitable to many, and we all know where that went...
In other news, Barack Obama was late for a speech at Kirkwood Community College in Cedar Rapids, because his plane had landed in Des Moines instead of Cedar Rapids. I can understand that sort of error if you are coming from a long way away, but he was coming from Chicago, for heaven's sake! Someone in his campaign needs to get on top of this Iowa geography stuff if he is going to be successful here.
Other than that, a relatively quiet day in Iowa, so far...

Issue Musings

2007-11-06T21:08:00.000-06:00

Clearly part of what should drive anyone's decision about their candidate of choice is the issues. However, what constitutes an issue is clearly at least somewhat a matter of personal choice. During the next 58 days I will from time to time muse on issues without too much specific attention to candidates' positions. So, what are my issues? The following list is a first attempt at a brain dump of what I think some of the major issues are:

International: the war on terror (or whatever your personal choice for the name might be) is clearly a major issue, with its current components in Afghanistan, Iraq, and possible future components who knows where. The need to express a consistent approach in this is paramount. This also includes dealing with all the fun stuff like North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, and of course, the whole West Bank, Gaza, Palestine mess. Oh yippee.
The Economy: Which, by the way, seems to be doing very well, although the current value of the dollar (which is resulting, at least in part, in high oil and gold prices) is a bit troubling. This is an interesting issue, since by and large there is not a lot a president can do about it, except for one area, to whit:
Taxes: I want a President who will make the Bush tax cuts permanent, get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax, and ideally reform the whole damn tax code so that one single person of reasonable intelligence can understand all of it with less than one hour of study. That should not be impossible to achieve, and if achieved would do a great deal to stamp out corruption in congress. Which raises another issue:
Pork: I want a President who will veto bills that are sent to him (or her) laden with pork. If President Bush had done this consistently from the start of his administration we would for sure have less of a deficit than we do right now, and we might even have a Republican congress and senate - sigh. But I'm not done on economic issues, because there is always:
Social Security: and let's not forget Medicare, but for now we can focus on Social Security. And kudos, by the way, to Senator Obama for being willing to raise this issue. We have to address this and the sooner we do so, the better. I'm willing to consider any plan, as long as it is clear and honest. I would prefer not raising taxes, and my own preference would be (in the absence of some sort of personal account system) to delay the age at which people can start to take benefits, and also to choose a more suitable index for the annual inflationary adjustments. But, I need to see a plan.
Immigration: I think that this is going to be a really crucial issue in the election next year. I will likely be proved wrong, because a week is a long time in politics, never mind a year, but there does seem to be a genuine need for a change in the current way that we are dealing (or rather, not dealing) with illegal immigration. It is no surprise that states like Arizona are taking draconian measures, and I expect to see more such local actions. First step has to be enforcement. And that has to include holding employers responsible (as they are right now - every employee must produce an I-9) for the people they hire. Yes, there are problems with however this is done, so some sort of appeal process would be needed, but we have to start enforcing the law here. In the long term, it would be good to consider why it is that so many people from Mexico (which seems to provide the lion's share of illegal immigrants, although I could be mistaken) want to come to the US. What is Mexico doing wrong? Mexico is a country blessed with amazing natural resources - they should be as wealthy, on a per capita basis, as the US (or at the very least, as wealthy as Canada). Are there systemic issues that hold people in Mexico in a position of poverty? Don't know, but this may be one of those questions that never get asked because it is somehow not right to ask them... Anyway, immigration or more specifically illegal immigration, is a key issue.

I do have some other issues (and some of you might say I have a whole host of them, but that's your problem not mine!). Those would include health care, education, the environment, maintaining and improving the crumbling infrastructure of the nation, and one that will not be on most people's radar screens but is definitely on mine, namely the technological singularity! I will muse on these on another day!

C minus 58 and counting

2007-11-06T21:03:00.000-06:00

In case you are wondering, that means 58 days until caucus night. Watched Fox tonight (Bones, then House) and saw five political ads - two different ones for Obama, one each for Edwards, Clinton and Romney. None were particularly memorable. The House episode was good though! Today was also election day. Probably the biggest thing on the ballot here was a petition on requiring that all bars exclude people under 21 years of age after 10 p.m. Looks like it will fail (although not by much - currently 52 to 48%) most likely due to high student turnout (duh!).
The good news is that in only one year (give or take) this round of Presidential electioneering will be done! Can we survive the next 366 days? Who can tell? We'll just have to live it and see...

Welcome

2007-11-05T19:34:00.000-06:00

Greetings, and welcome to 59 days and counting. 59 days to what, you ask? Well, as of today (November 5, 2007) 59 days to the Iowa Caucuses, assuming they actually get held on January 3, 2008, and not on Boxing Day, or some other date in early December.
What is the purpose of this blog? Well, this is simply my journey up to the caucuses. That needs a bit of context, so here goes.
I am an immigrant to the United States. I came here, from the United Kingdom, with my wife and some of my children, in 1984, originally intending to stay for one year while I did a post-doctorate at the Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth College. That one year turned into three years at Dartmouth, followed by a move to Iowa in 1987, where I have been ever since, working as a professor of civil engineering at the University of Iowa. My wife and I became citizens in 2001 (it is a long and not particularly easy process, but one that we are very glad we took) and the first day we had a chance to vote was 9/11/2001 - not a day we will forget any time soon.
I did attend the caucuses in 2004, but because I am registered as a republican, there was no choosing of candidates at that caucus. Of course, this time around is different! And, I want to both record and share my thoughts as I go through this process.
What will I record in this blog? Well, it will be primarily my thoughts on the various republican candidates as I make my selection of who to support on January 3. I will comment, I am sure, from time to time on the democratic selection process, but since I do not have a dog in that hunt, I will leave that side of the race to others!
I will include my thoughts on what I think the major issues are for the election (and why!) and will try to examine the candidates in terms of those major issues. I should state now that my choices are between only five of the republican candidates at this time: Guiliani, Huckabee, McCain, Romney, and Thompson. I know there are other candidates (Brownback, Cox, Hunter, and Paul) , and I know that other folks support those candidates very strongly but I cannot imagine myself supporting them.
So, that is the site - welcome. I hope that you enjoy making this journey with me. Comments etc. and links are most welcome. Oh, and if you are eligible to vote, please make sure that you have registered, then get informed and vote. Lots of people in the world do not have the privilege of voting - those of us who do should use it!