Backpost: Obama's "Luck"

From September 1, 2008; I sent this email to Mark Kleiman of Samefacts.com.. Background: many people have asked why Obama seems to have luck that all his opponents, from the Senate on down to the primary and now general, seem to self-destruct. It sounds like luck! As Kleiman wrote:

Apropos the many developing Palin scandals, an observer of the Chicago political scene reminds me of Obama's "noted eerie knack for finding self-destructing opponents."

There was Alice Palmer, the incumbent State Senator who didn't submit enough valid signatures. There was Blair Hull, the apparent frontrunner in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, accused of wife-beating. There was Jack Ryan, the Republican Senate nominee, whose kinkily erotic side spilled out into the newspapers through his divorce proceedings. And then there was the comic carpetbagger Alan Keyes.

I try to keep theology separate from politics, but it's hard to escape the thought: If Obama didn't make a pact with Satan he must be on a special mission from God.

So my response:

re: Obama's Luck

Dear Prof. Kleiman,

While I agree with you that supernatural forces should never be discounted in any scientific inquiry, I think the reason Obama's opponents self-destruct is a combination of (a) the old adage that "fortune benefits the well-prepared", and (b) his ability to maintain his cool, which drives his opponents batty, to the point they self destruct.

Hillary self-destructed (Bill started first, though), then even Edwards (and he had already dropped out!), and now McCain.

all the best,
JC

And, true to his gentlemanly nature, Kleiman quotes me in an update: "Update: Or perhaps, a reader suggests, this may merely be a case where 'Fortune favors the prepared mind.'"

Now this analysis of mine has become conventional reason. But I was an early advocate of the theory that Obama's opponents self destruct because they can't handle his skill. Basically, because Obama is unflappable, his increasingly desperate opponents up the volume of their attacks, trying to rattle him, and all they succeed in doing is self-destruction.

Miscellaneous from My Files, part 2

More miscellaneous links & commentary from my inbox:

1. 09-03-2008: From Sullivan, it turns out that Palin *is* what the GOP tried to smear Obama as... right down to the preacher!
   
   
2. The Onion's page about Bob Barr is right on the money in almost every way (warning: nivul peh).
   
   
3. 09-05-2008: Washpost review of Woodward's scathing new book about Bush. Woodward's a consummate journalist - his books supported Bush when he was popular and attacked Bush when he was not. Thanks, Woodstein! It just proves that the real hero of Watergate was William
   Deep Throat" Felt - the FBI informer who gave the journalists all the info. He risked his career, they made theirs. Ah well, there's a reason why print media is dying.
   
   
4. 09-07-2008: Maureen Dowd is so weird. She thinks so little of Obama... that he'll somehow be eviscerated by Sarah Palin; and she thinks so much of Hillary, while hating her. Sad.
   
   
5. 09-07-2008: Frank Rich is a great contrast to Dowd (and others). When he was a regular columnist, he wasn't so hot, but since his weekly Sunday spotlight he's been en fuego! Key line (about Palin): "How long before we learn she never shot a moose?"
   
   
6. 09-01-2008: Martin Peretz defends Biden. Peretz is as Zionist as they come (and as Zionist as necessary). If he defends Obama and Biden - which he has - then it's good enough for me. Peretz' critics claims he finds anti-Semities in shadows... so choke on this feebs. Key line: "Look, what is happening here is that a senator with a sterling record, an unexceptionable sterling record on Israel is now in the eyes of the snipers, a kind of political terrorism in which evidence has no place, history no relevance and real politics no standing. Joe Biden is one of the most astute and committed supporters of Israel in American politics."
   
   
7. 09-16-2008: This is fun video
   
   
8. 09-09-2008: Kinda funny: Black Comic Introduces McCain (warning, many naughty words).
   
   
9. 09-17-2008: Ruth Marcus of Washpost turns against the McCain campaign. Something I predicted: that journalists will start to be professionally insulted by the bald-faced lies and distortions. I've been there: I get more angry at a lie that insults my intelligence than an attempt to deceive based on desperation or greed. And here's another journalist fleeing.
   
   
10. 09-21-2008: The only good thing I can say about Maureen Dowd is that she lets better writers do her work for her; here's Aaron Sorkin imagining Obama meeting President Bartlett.

My Favorite Onion Politics Story

The Onion does an awesome job covering current events, and the 2008 election is no exception. My favorite headline and caption (story is often secondary with the Onion) is this:

Obama's Hillbilly Half-Brother Threatening To Derail Campaign

Why Sarah Palin, why Dan Quayle?

A basic question I've asked, as you may as well: why is it that the Republicans have twice foisted on the nation two VP candidates who are physically attractive idiots? Sarah Palin is cut from the same mold as Dan Quayle, except that - just as Bush II made Bush I look good, so now I have to defend Quayle from this comparison even before I get to make it. Quayle was clearly an unworthy dim-wit, like Palin, but he was also in the Senate for 8 years before his nomination, and before that 2 terms in the House. And before that, 6 years in various state offices. Yes, yes, this is how far we've fallen, that Quayle is a heavyweight compared to the ignorant tabloid train-wreck of Sarah Palin.

But, for those who are too young to remember, the nation was stricken with great fear when Bush nominated Quayle in '88. There appeared to be no reason for it. Dukakis was a disastrous candidate - who nonetheless did what you're supposed to do, and nominated a true heavyweight as his #2 - Lloyd Bentsen (a Texas Democrat, in the House from 1948-1955 and Senate from 1971). There just seemed to be no reason to give us a terrible VP candidate, who we knew at the time would be part of the winning ticket.

The theory at the time, which I basically held until Palin's arrival, was that Bush has such low-self-esteem that he needed someone even wimpier, and more losery, that himself. It made sense at the time because Bush was a pretty bad candidate (and president).

But now we have a repeat. It's the same pattern, no? Except that McCain doesn't strike me as having low self-esteem. Quite the opposite really. So what gives?

Well, here's my theory/prediction and a number of other people (who I can't find right now to link to) seem to support this. The pattern is the same, but not the pattern I first thought it was. To complete the picture, though, we need to add another strange VP choice: Richard Nixon in 1952.

Republican Party Low Self Esteem

While I know all about the internal weaknesses of the Democratic party (made less so after 8 horrific years under Bush II), the GOP has long suffered from it's own chasm between the moderates and the wacko-fringe. All three GOP candidates in our study share the common denominator of being from the moderate wing of the GOP. McCain we know about (he almost switched in 2002), and Bush was a classic Northeastern Republican. Eisenhower was not really much of a partisan of any stripe, and his views on many things seem to fit comfortably in the Democratic party of today.

All three men needed to shore up support on their right flank, and as such, their VPs were selected because they were all fire-breathing conservatives. Nixon was chosen by committee - which shows you that 'smoke filled room' decisions were as fraught with 'identity politics' as the primaries today. But Quayle, like Palin, while unknown to most of America, was a darling of the wacko right.

But here's the Styx kicker: the other common denominator among Nixon-Quayle-Palin is that they were all obvious lightweights. Bush I was a smart guy, Eisenhower as well - they had no respect for their VPs; but these men (and the '52 committee by extension) had no respect for the lunatic fringe - they just needed the loonies to come out and vote. So by choosing a *purposeful* lightweight, these moderate Republicans would get the conservative votes while simultaneously having an ineffectual conservative VP.

That's my theory. But Ike was a robust 62 at election and Bush I 64. McCain is a cancer-surviving 72. The risk taken by the previous two moderates pales in comparison to the selfish risk of McCain.

First pic from here, second from here. Backpost finished 2009-12-07.

Biden v. Palin

When I last commented about Biden it was my claiming that his choice would be a mistake: "I think Biden would be a mistake. While he's a fierce partisan fighter, he's also a gaffe-prone goofball. Nonetheless, it won't be a disaster." And I had no follow up, so here it is: my analysis back in August was on the basis of politics and not governance. Biden is a mistake for politics - he makes gaffes, his state isn't helpful - and all the other choices were for electoral reasons only: Sebelius (woman, Midwest), Bayh (moderate, boring WASP, Midwest), Kaine (governor, swing-state).

But once Obama chose Biden I was quite happy with the choice and because it was the electorally poor choice. It showed me that Obama was (a) confident enough in the election, and in himself, that he was concentrating on being an executive and not the Permanent Campaign (the hallmark of the Clinton and W.Bush years), (b) that Obama chose someone who was fierce, independent and a contrary thinker, emphasizing the 'cabinet of rivals' model of Lincoln, (c) and ultimately, because Biden is the best sitting Democratic senator for both defense issues (chair of Foreign Relations) and Domestic/Legal (chair of Judiciary) it showed that Obama cares more for good governance than good politics.

If Obama had gone for the electoral/politics route - chosen the three above or Hillary Ugh - then I would have accepted the situation as reflective of a weak coalition or a difficult election road. Instead, by choosing Biden, Obama showed confidence, competence, and seriousness. It made me feel better for my support of Obama, presence as a Democrat, and hope for the country.

Then we get Sarah Palin. Who is the exact opposite. Chosen for purely partisan and electoral reasons. My feeling about Biden - which I had talked to people about but alas didn't blog about, so you'll have to believe me - shows the reason why I reacted so negatively towards Palin, even before I knew just how horrible she was.

But if I needed to use a shorthand to describe the difference, it would be Politics or Governance. And the GOP has shown that over the GWB years, they have placed governance and policy as the lowest of priorities, while for teh Democrats it has long been the highest priority - often to our detriment.

This argument about governance/politics is seen in this Sept 14 essay by Alex Massie, about why McCain chose Palin. Massie basically states what did you expect McCain to do? He needed electoral help! He was *forced* to choose an unqualified nutjob!

Massie is wrong about the order, though. McCain's current scorched-earth campaign - and the subsequent trouble he's in - comes as a direct result of the choice of Palin. If McCain chose a moderate (Lieberman, Ridge) or a friendly talented person (Graham, Crist), then McCain would be able to run in 2008 like he did in 2000. However, even through downright cowardice or doddering incompetence, McCain surrendered to the Rove Crew and decided to run like GWB in 2000 & 2004 - through fraud, fear, and polarization.

Can you imagine what a McCain-Lieberman vs. Obama-Biden election would look like? That would have been enviable. The last time we had two decent tickets was 1996 (and before that 1964). But McCain was threatened by the freakazoids of the gnarled GOP base that there'd be a floor-fight if Lieberman - McCain's first choice (whose vibes I somehow intuitively picked up) - were chosen. McCain, when threatened by the GOP base, blinked (in the argot of the GOP chickenhawks). He pooped his pants, he ran away from principles and good judgment and into the waiting arms of the Karl Rove Machine.

Why should McCain fear the floor fight? Because it'd make him look weak? Remind us of 1968 (similar times ya know)? I think it's because ultimately McCain is a weenie who cares more for winning than for honor. He's a disgrace.

But I digress. By choosing Palin, McCain decided on a campaign of fear and intimidation - because she has nothing else to offer but red-meat to the partisans. And any candidate that has to run to the extremes in the general election, is doomed.

Which leads us to the paradigms of VPs. I've discussed this at length, but I think I can make the binary chakira of VPs of Politics (VPP) and VPs of Governance (VPG). And both of these categories are part of the vagaries of how the VP is chosen. As opposed to the old days (pre-12th Amendment) and especially in post-1968 times, the VP is directly chosen by the Presidential nominee. While beforehand he was nominated at the convention just like the President, and as such could reflect a balanced perspective of the party, the modern VP choice is the sole decision of the Presidential nominee. And while the Pres Candidate needed to weather an often expensive, debilitating, pummelling primary campaign, the VP candidate is allowed to just waltz right in. The Pres. candidate needs millions of people to choose him/her, the VP needs only 1.

As such, the VP provides an opportunity not only for the electorate to evaluate the judgement and sagacity of the Pres. nominee, it also gives the nominee (and to some extent the whole party) a chance to nominate someone who could never get past the gauntlet of the primary campaign.

And this is where the Politics/Governance split comes in. Sometimes the VP couldn't get through the primaries because they are talented at governance but have no electoral appeal (cf. George HW Bush in 1980, Lloyd Bentsen in 1988, Al Gore in 1992, Jack Kemp in 1996, Joe Lieberman & Dick Cheney in 2000). Or the VP is a token ethnic/ideology that's to 'out there' to be acceptable by the primary voters, but is considered necessary for the general election (cf. Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, Dan Quayle in 1988, and Sarah Palin in 2008).

This is one reason why the electorate was so angry about Palin... here's a woman who could not survive a month of a primary campaign allowed to just shtup her way into the (second) most powerful job in the world. Dan Quayle in lipstick, as it were. I remember how angry I was, and the country was, after Quayle was chosen. This is worse. Yet this is why I'm happy about Biden and was happy about Lieberman - two men who would be good at governance but who are just too nutty or boring to survive the primaries. So it works both ways.

One thing Massie says that I very much agree with, and felt intuitively, which I will quote in entirety:

there's an argument you can make that the Vice-Presidential candidate needs to be more, not less qualified to be President than the chap at the top of the ticket. Why? Because a VP can only become President in an emergency and so needs to be able to start governing immediately. A President - eg, Clinton - can learn on the job even if this costs capital and credibility; a Veep does not enjoy that luxury. Of course, if Palin were to become President in, say, 2011, that would be one thing, but the potential for her to in the Oval Office next year is quite another. Biden could do the job next year, Palin probably couldn't. That's an unfortunate truth that her boosters just look silly trying to deny

Yes. The reason why most smart people think that the VP should be highly qualified - ironically, even more qualified that the President - is because of this intuitive understanding of the historical role of the VP: to step in when disaster strikes. Moreover, as I explained above, because of the unique opportunity to be able to easily place a person in line for the presidency who has high qualifications but could not otherwise make it through the primary, also depicts the feeling of lost opportunity when it comes to Palin... when Obama had to sneak someone into the White House, it was someone who conceivably could walk in on his own merit. When McCain chose, it was to sneak it some crypto-crazy Christianist hillbilly.

Miscellaneous from My Files, part 1

I'm dedicating today to writing & blogging so here's some stuff from my unsorted inbox, basically brief links/commentaries:

1. Sept 9 2008; from Huffy herself, inventing a great image, Sarah Palin as a Trojan Moose.
   
   
2. Sept 10 2008; Why Obama will actually beat the poll numbers, because of his incredible ground game. And see here.
   
   
3. From the Atlantic, the GOP dirty trick machine of 2004.
   
   
4. Sept 11 2008, from the NYTimes, about vote suppression/dirty tricks in 2008 Mississippi.
   
   
5. Sept 10 2008, from McClatchy [the best single news organization in the world, IMHO], about how the U.S. is in similar danger from al Qaida in 2008 as we were in 2001.
   
   
6. Sept 11 2008, the Washpost describing an underhanded smearing tactic by McCain.
   
   
7. From Salon, how CBS capitulated in 2004 and did not show a documentary about the Bush Administration lies about the Iraq War.
   
   
8. Sept 13 2008, from Digby, more about voter suppression.
   
   
9. Good New Yorker humor about Palin.
   
   
10. Excellent piece by Ezra Klein about the problem with political reporting. Shorter EK: "I think one aspect of the modern press that doesn't get enough attention -- either among folks in the media or folks critiquing it -- is the transition from the fundamental scarcity being information to information being in abundance and the fundamental scarcity being mediation." It's especially sweet because his target is the fatuous Marc Ambinder - who over this election season has been twisting himself into pretzels to be 'even-handed' first with Hillary and now with McCain. His only value comes from his stature allowing him to receive equal opportunity leaks from all camps. Otherwise, he's a dolt.

Daily Show Awsomeness

"Yes, He, Can" comes full circle.

Some Predictions, Part 3: Misc

Other Predictions:

1. The Senate: I have no idea if the Democrats will get 60 seats, but as I've said before, it really shouldn't matter. According to the Wiki, the idea that it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster (or call for cloture, or whatever) is a recent invention. The filibuster itself is kinda disgusting and a constitutional loophole at best. I would strongly argue, and do so no matter who controls congress, that both houses should have a simple majority vote for passing bills. It's disgraceful that we need 60. So anyway, I think that if the Democrats have 55 seats, the cloture rules can be changed to meet that, or eliminated by simple majority, if necessary.
   
   
2. Bush administration officials: Bush will give a blanket pardon to everyone in the White House (except the 'traitors' like McClellan, Powell, etc). My question is whether this can work. I would love to see a constitutional amendment preventing the President from pardoning anyone whose crime was committed while working for the Executive branch. As it is, since most of these yahoos haven't been formally charged yet, so I don't know. His father pardoned a number of straight out scumbags - far worse than anyone by Clinton - but that's the way the press goes; Bill Clinton could do no right, and HWBush got off Scot-free. So I don't know if the pardons will stick. If not, then we can see some wild and woolly persecutions of the former George W Bush white house. And given that he can't pardon himself, well maybe Bush will find some nice prisoner as a new husband.
   
   
3. McCain's fate: How ironic that a man considered to be principled by so many people has run the most despicable campaign in recent memory. Note, Nixon was worse, but only in the dirty tricks department (and who knows what McCain has been trying: it seems clear that Ashley "Backwards B" Todd was a dirty trick run awry and that Joe/Sam the (non) Plumber was probably another McCain plant, but there may be more we haven't discovered yet). What makes McCain worse than Nixon is that all the other slimy accusations made by a one party to other was always done via surrogates; Willie Horton, Swift Boats for Crap, were 527s and untraceable to the campaign. McCain & Palin in 2008 have actually been the mouthpieces for the racist/scummy tactics. That's a big difference. At least GHWB and GWB kept their own dainty fingers out of the mud. Anyway, it may be difficult for McCain to return to the Senate. He may pull a Dole and retire but if not, as I said here, if he tries to run for reelection in 2010 it's likely he'll lose. Same with Palin (see below).
   
   
4. Sarah Palin's fate? I saw the suggestion that if Stevens wins reelection in Alaska, and will be convicted, and not pardoned by Bush, Palin will try for his Senate seat. Maybe. But considering how much she's hated by the GOP establishment in Alaska, and how much dirt has been uncovered in this election, I don't see her having much longer of a legacy. But that leads to the big question:
   
   
5. What will happen to the Republicans? There have been so many moderate Republicans either defecting to the Democrats, endorsing Obama, or cruising for a bruising defeat in '08 that it's unclear who will be left standing. The W/Cheney/Rove legacy is to reduce the Republican party to it's vilest, stupidest nub. Who will vote for McCain-Palin on Tuesday? Three sets of states: (1) The Anti-Government West (Idaho, Wyoming, Oklahoma), (2) The Racist Appalachians (WV, KY, TN, AR), and (3) The Christian States (SD, NE, the South). Even more troubling for the GOP is that the current leadership, and their legion of blogger zombies, have decided to make Sarah Palin the ideological purity test. Most of the conservatives who've come out for Obama (e.g. The Economist, Colin Powell, Fukuyama) cite the choice of Palin as a main reason for their crossing party lines. Yet, support for her appears to be mandatory to the 'leaders' of the GOP (e.g. Kristol, Barnes, National Review, Weekly Standard). Yet Palin is clearly a living-caricature for what is wrong with the Bush/Rove GOP: she's a violent Christian ignoramus. If the GOP insists on keeping her as their symbol - she is pretty much George W Bush without his education or family - then the GOP runs the risk of dying or disappearing.

Yet, is truly possible for the GOP to disappear? We have a few historical models to look at. The longest legacy for party rule in the modern US is McKinley to Hoover, 1896-1932. Yeah, Woodrow Wilson was in the middle, but his election was a fluke (TR sabotaged Taft who would have won handily, and WW almost lost to Hughes - winning by a mere 3800 to get California); yet this dominance was shattered by the Depression. The Democrats then controlled the White House from 1932-1968, with the Wilsonian interregnum of Eisenhower. I know this sounds like I'm being selective with my examples, but Ike was barely a Republican, and he was victorious because he won World War II. The Democrats were defeated in 1968 (and it was close) because of the Vietnam War and as a result were wandering the wilderness from 1968-1992 (and by now you'll excuse the understandable hiccup of Carter). What am I trying to show? That there's a broad pattern of party dominance based on party-led disasters. The Republicans needed to live down the stink of the Depression until 1968; the Democrats had the legacy of the foreign-adventurism of Vietnam but also the mamby-pamby liberal stigma of the anti-Vietnam crowd as well. The question I have is whether the GOP loss in 2008 will be like the Depression or like Vietnam; recognizing, of course, that Bush brought America both!

But there is a third model, that of the death of a party. The Federalists were a historical creation of the Revolution and seemed to be unsustainable past the founding fathers. The whole Democratic-Republican mess is best left unsifted. The only major party who died in any recent times are the Whigs, and they just morphed into the modern Republicans. So, honestly, it's not really plausible to argue that the party will disappear. It's likely that barring massive malfeasance the Republicans will be in the wilderness like the post-Depression/Vietnam backlashes (16-20 years).

Both backlashes occurred because the repudiated parties were dominated by the jokers who got them into the mess in the first place. The Democrats in 1972 were defeated largely because of their association with the pusillanimous anti-war movement and the Democratic establishment kept nominating idiotic liberals (Mondale, Dukakis) that helped the stereotype. If the GOP decides that they're the party of Palin not Powell then they will be - like the liberal-ridden Democrats of the 70-80s - the crazy Christian bumpkin party. The Palin party.

But here's where it gets weird. The Democrats in their wilderness years of the 70s-80s still controlled Congress by a thick margin. And when they lost Congress, there was a moderate Southern Democrat (a.k.a. non-northeastern weenie liberal) as president. In that sense the Democrats were able to keep some power and also a variable nuanced party identity. There were Northeast liberals, as well as Midwest blue-collar 'joes' and Southern populists.

Now imagine if the Democrats only had the anti-war weenie liberals during their wilderness period. It's possible that the Democrats could have been synonymous with what we'd call the Green party today - the radical left. As such, the Democrats could have ceased to exist.

What may happen in 2008 is that if the Republicans decide to go the Way of Palin, then they may end up being the crazy Christian party. The only people left in the House/Senate for them will find the national leadership too crazy and may either defect to the Democrats or - and this is a big if - a plausible third party leader may take them in to form the 'fiscal conservative libertarian' party (maybe call themselves the Federalists, going full circle). In this case, I could see the Republicans ending up like the mirror-image Green party, stuffed with Southern Evangelicals and moonies.

As a Democrat, I will say that Sarah Palin was the best thing to happen to the GOP - she's a living symbol for all that's wrong with the crazy Christian right and for the Republican party. Just the other day I was able to explain - using her as the proof - for what America would look like if her ilk took control: banned books in the library, oil money used to buy sports arenas at the expense of schools and roads, a vigorous antipathy towards science and education, and women being charged for rape kits.

Balloon Juice about GOP

John Cole of Balloon Juice echoes my feelings about the GOP and their Palin-slathering purity tests; read the whole thing:
"Missing The Point" One thing John focuses on is something that I've found stirring both a social-scientist and a Democrat: the eerie way that the conservative bloggers attach themselves to the actions and fortunes of the Republican party. None of these bloggers, as far as I know, are paid by the GOP. The conservative pundits neither. Yet they act, free of charge, as direct surrogates with 0% diversion from the party line and party goals. It's sick and it's the core of what Hillary Clinton called the 'vast right wing conspiracy.' The use of conspiracy is wrong - because conspiracies are by definion secret and this is as wide out and open.

Some Predictions, Part 2: Cabinet

I originally discussed this question here, here and here. The picture has changed a little, seeing who has helped the most or not at all. A summary of the previous discussions:

1. Tom Daschle can get any post he wants, he's been that important.
   
2. State: Gov. Richardson (D-NM),
   
3. Def.: Fmr Sen. (D-GA) Sam Nunn.
   
4. AG: Sen. Feingold (D-WI), Sen. Kerry (D-MA)
   
5. Treas.: Fmr Sec Robert Reich, Mayor Bloomberg, Fmr NJ Sen Bradley, Fmr Commerce Sec Daley.
   
6. Others John Edwards: HUD, Interior or Labor.

Since then, there have been changes in the world. First of all, John Edwards is out, permanently. Also, Hillary Clinton - whom I still haven't forgiven for her disgraceful primary behavior - won't want a cabinet post. She will want to stay in the Senate - where the money is. Moreover, it's unclear if Obama needs to pay her any lip service at all, especially if he has some women in prominent places in the cabinet. Moreover, I think that Richardson hasn't proven himself so useful, so why put him in State except for tokenism? That could open up.

The biggest change from these May predictions is the new necessity of real talent/gravitas in the Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce. Why - because these two posts will be the most important of the cabinet in terms of the #1 perceived problem - the economy (I say perceived because I believe that there are two more important: Attorney General, to reverse the grave civil liberties abuses, then Defense/Homeland Security to get us out of Iraq and to protect us at home; the Iraq War is directly related to the cratering economy and the Homeland Security department needs to be eliminated and put back to the original offices)

My feeling is that Obama may choose Paul Krugman for either post. Krugman just won a Nobel prize, was a well-known and prescient critic of Bush and the Housing Bubble, and was also a Hillary supporter and a bastard toward Obama. BHO seems to follow the Lincolnian "cabinet of rivals" doctrine, something that I respect highly about both men. By choosing Krugman, BHO will show his independence, veneration of competence, and strength of character.

Another possible option for either is Barney Frank. He's been in the House since 1981 and is the current chair of Financial Services. I think that Obama may feel compelled to put an openly gay person in the cabinet and Treasury (asop Commerce) may be enough of a carrot to get a powerful congressman to leave his chairmanship.

A person I overlooked in May was Dick Gephart. He was House majority leader for a while, and his staff has been a huge help to Obama. Possibly Labor. Another strong possibility is Cory Booker for HUD, or some other low level post (Booker is a Rhodes Scholar, current mayor of Newark and was thought to be more likely than Obama to be first black president... but he's only a mayor, of a cruddy town, and after a term in HUD or Education he can run for Senate/Governor).

Some people who have distinguished themselves in the general election who need to be repaid:

1. Gov. Sebelius, who I thought as a good VP pick, should get a cabinet post.
2. Gov. Napolitano should run against McCain for Senate in 2010. TPM reported yesterday that current polls show McCain losing to her by 53%-45%! Stunning when you think of it. But McCain may retire on November 5 and I don't know if she can resign as governor after appointing herself as Senator...
   
3. Colin Powell crucial endorsement a few days ago has now put him in the cabinet running. Ideologically I don't want a Republican to be in either Defense or NSA - I want to break the myth that only republicans know defense. The myth has been shattered by GWB anyway, so why resurrect it? Powell still may be useful as UN Ambassador, or possibly Ambassador to Iraq (heh heh), or maybe Sec. of Veterans Affairs, if its not beneath him.
   
4. Rep. Robert Wexler has done yoeman's work as an Obama surrogate in Florida. Wexler's also an Orthodox Jew and I'd like to see him put in a low-level cabinet position (Transport, Energy) or even Ambassador to Israel. Then, like Booker, after a stint in the Executive he can shoot for Gov/Senate
   
5. There are a number of former officials (following my purple rule) that could be useful as well: Gary Hart, Lincoln Chafee, Paul Volcker, Larry Summers, etc.
   
6. A last 'cabinet of rivals' thought: Joe Lieberman for Homeland Security. Lieberman has acted shamefully in this election; he has bitten Obama's hand despite BHO's help to Lieberman back in '06. I am especially angered by Joe's hypocrisy: back in 1998 Joe publicly criticized Bill Clinton for the shameful act of adultery etc. Yet 10 years later, Joe is a HUGE supporter of what the TPM has claimed is one of the lowest, evil elections in a century. Where is Joe's outrage now? The fact that he's not calling McCain out for the terrorist smears shows that Joe was opportunistically criticizing Clinton (it did get him VP!) and has lost his moral compass now. So why do I want him to get Homeland Security. Even beyond the rivals idea, it because it will get Lieberman out of the Senate and then Obama can dissolve the whole department. Har.

Some Predictions, Part 1: Electoral Count

Just a few days to go and the prognosticatingly inclined are making predictions of election day and beyond. I am no different. For example, the heilige folks at 538, their roving photographer (Brett Marty) for one, is getting into the act. Here are two of his ten predictions that I find plausible:

EV: Obama 396 -- Kerry states plus IA, NM, CO, VA, NV, FL, OH, MO, NC, IN, MT, ND, GA. The state Obama will win by the smallest margin will be Georgia, the closest state he'll lose will be West Virginia.

We'll know the election is over when the nets call Virginia for Obama at 8:40pm EST.

I don't know if his EV (Electoral Vote) numbers are what my predictions will be, but it's close. I especially like his point that if Virginia goes to Obama then it's all over.

Back in June, I made some meaningless predictions of the possible EV map. To summarize, I claimed two scenarios, one was low-ball, the other high-ball. At this point the lowball (Obama 320, McCain 218) seems too low and we're closer to the high ball (Obama 387, McCain 151), as you can see from this map:
What I would change from that is that it seems unlikely for Obama to carry Georgia (15), or the single EV in Nebraska, or South Dakota; I'd keep Missouri, North Carolina, and North Dakota, and add Indiana. Giving us this map (Obama 378, McCain 160):


The highest possible number (and these are some other tools beside 538 to use: Electoral-Vote.com and the RCP do-it-yourself map) is to take any state that McCain is leading by under 5 points and push that to Obama. That adds Montana and brings back Georgia. Note, as of today, Arizona is only McCain's by 6-7 pts. Whoa. But that high-water mark is Obama 396, McCain 142:

A note on vote suppression and fraud. There have been numerous attempts by the GOP to suppress the vote but unlike in 2000-2006, they've been thwarted numerous times (see here from TPM for an example). One of the greatest tools against suppression, as noted by a NYT editorial, is early voting. This is a wonderful addition to our democracy that finally makes it possible for a more fair vote. Naturally, the Republicans are against it. Why? Because it rewards traditionally Democratic constituencies (people who work for a living on Tuesdays) and doesn't help Goopers (rich people). Barf.

As I've said numerous times, the reason why 2004 didn't make sense as an election - and a main reason I got my prediction wrong - was because of the massive fraud perpetrated by the GOP. Ain't gonna work this year (and as 2006 showed, the nation was eager to punish the GOP, and did so despite the suppression). 2008 will be more honest than anything we've had, nationally, since 1998.

Song Hall of Fame: Suite: Judy Blue Eyes

New Feature: A new, and likely irregular, feature is to explore specific songs that I put into my favorite 'hall of fame.' I'll try to find decent lyrics and the back-story, and explain my relationship to the song and why I think it's so good.

Suite: Judy Blue Eyes by Crosby, Stills, Nash and sometimes Young

Lyrics: Suite: Judy Blue Eyes;

It's getting to the point
Where I'm no fun any more
I am sorry
Sometimes it hurts
So badly I must cry out loud
I am lonely

I am yours
You are mine
You are what you are
You make it hard

Remember what we've said, and done
And felt about each other
Babe, have mercy
Don't let the past remind us
Of what we are not now
I am not dreaming

I am yours
You are mine
You are what you are
You make it hard

Tearing yourself
Away from me now, you are free
And I am crying
This does not mean
I don't love you, I do, that's forever
Yes, and for always

I am yours
You are mine
You are what you are
You make it hard

Something inside
Is telling me that I've got your secret
Are you still listening?
Fear is the lock
And laughter the key to your heart
And I love you

I am yours
You are mine
You are what you are
You make it hard
And you make it hard
And you make it hard
And you make it hard

Friday evening
Sunday in the afternoon
What have you got to lose?
Tuesday morning
Please be gone, I'm tired of you
What have you got to lose?

Can I tell it like it is
(Catch me I'm falling)
Listen to me baby
It's my heart that's suffering
(Catch me I'm dying)
It's dyin' and that's what I have to lose

I've got an answer
I'm going to fly away
What have I got to lose?
Will you come see me
Thursdays and Saturdays
What have you got to lose?

Chestnut brown canary
Ruby throated sparrow
Sing a song, don't be long
Thrill me to the marrow

Voices of the angels
Ring around the moonlight
Asking me, said she's so free
How can you catch the sparrow?

Lacy lilting lyric
Losing love lamenting
Change my life, make it right
Be my lady

Que alegria me traiga Cuba (or: Que linda me la traiga Cuba
La reina de la Mar Caribe
Que cielo sol que lo tengan alli (or: Cielo sol no tiene sangreahi)
Y que triste que no puedo vaya
Oh va, oh va, va.

Loose translation of the Spanish lyrics:
What joy Cuba brings to me,
The Queen of the Caribbean Sea.
What sunny skies they have there,
And how sad it is that I cannot go.
Oh go, oh go, go.

Song Facts (from here):

• Stephen Stills wrote this about his then-girlfriend, Folk singer Judy Collins. In their 1991 boxed set, Stills said: "It started out as a long narrative poem about my relationship with Judy Collins. It poured out of me over many months and filled several notebooks. I had a hell of a time getting the music to fit. I was left with all these pieces of song and I said, 'Let's sing them together and call it a suite,' because they were all about the same thing and they led up to the same point."
  
  
• This runs 7:22. The single is three minutes shorter then the album version. Many FM radio stations played the album cut.
  
  
• The last verse is in Spanish and is about Cuba. It was sung in Spanish because Stephen Stills didn't want it easily understood since it had little to do with the theme of the song. Stills put that part in simply because the song had gone on forever and he didn't want it to just lay there at the end. (thanks, Brian -Grand Forks, ND)
  
  
• Here's the translation: How nice it will (or would) be to take you to Cuba The queen of the Caribbean Sea I only want to visit you there And how sad that I can't, damn! (thanks, Zac - San Antonio, TX)
  
  
• The title is a play on words. "Suite" is a reference to a part of a classical composition, but it can also be interpreted as "Sweet."
  
  
• This wasn't their first single, or even their biggest, but certainly one of Crosby, Stills and Nash's most well-known songs. It established the harmony style that would be the group's trademark for years to come.
  
  
• This opened Crosby, Stills and Nash's set at Woodstock in 1969. The event ran long, so they didn't go on stage until 3am the third night (The Who set a precedent by going on at 3am the night before). They played 16 songs in their set, the first 9 acoustic and the last 7 electric. Those who left to get to work Monday morning not only missed Crosby, Stills and Nash, but didn't see Jimi Hendrix close out the festival.
  
  
• Crosby, Stills and Nash played this at Live Aid in 1985. Organized by Bob Geldof, Live Aid was a benefit for famine relief in Africa. Crosby, Stills and Nash also played "Teach Your Children" and "Southern Cross."
  
  
• Nash Stephen Stills spoke to Rolling Stone magazine about this song: "It was the beginnings of three different songs that suddenly fell together as one. Actually on the demo the middle part is not exactly how they would play. Half of it is it just falls off in its own — but we actually split it in half, and they got started singing and boom, there it went. Once it all was there then we just kept adding parts. When I wrote it I used cardboard shirt-blocking, you know those things from the cleaner's — 'cause they were harder to lose than pieces of paper and they didn't crumple up. I could line them up on music stands and they'd stand up."
  
  
• Nash revealed to Rolling Stone that of the CS&N trio, Stills was the only to play on this song. All three contributed vocals.

Other Notes

• Lyrics and Chords:
• Rolling Stone page.

Pic is of cover of the album. Backpost finished on 2009-11-25; it's weird, the whole post was basically done I don't understand why I didn't just publish then.

6 Days

I haven't been able to blog in a while because of the killer kombo of grad school and the Festivals of the Lord. It was weird being a civilian in shul for the first time in many moons (but it did have one HUUUGE benefit: I was able to largely blow off Simchas Torah... a lifelong dream. More on that later). Anyhoo, much activity going on in the outside universe, including the imminent defeat of the Bushtocracy. Sweet.

Anyway, since I have a lot of computer time ahead (papers, research, etc), I will have more chances to blog in the next few days. And just in time.

Song of the Day

My media-player is on shuffle and I'm frantically trying to prepare for Yom Kippur - I was asked to give the sermon at one of the services tomorrow - and the first song on the random list?

"Staying Alive" by the Achei Gibb (Beryl, Moshe, and Reuven - a.k.a. Barry, Maurice, Robin)

Stayin' Alive... amen

Happy and Blessed New Year, Have an Easy Fast, and may we all see each other next year at this time (alive and in Yerushalayim)

Republican's True Face

From JTA, read this and know which person *and party* actually supports Israel:

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Republicans in the U.S. Senate have sunk anti-Iran sanctions for the second time in less than a month, drawing allegations that they are putting politics ahead of the need to confront Tehran’s nuclear program.

Senate Democrats made one final bid last week to pass legislation that would tighten sanctions aimed at getting Iran to stand down from its suspected nuclear weapons program. Among other things, the stalled measure would facilitate efforts to divest from the Islamic Republic.

Republicans blocked it the evening of Oct. 2, leading Democrats once again to suggest that the GOP was playing politics by obstructing legislation championed by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Ramirez and the Pulitzer

Michael Ramirez, political cartoonist for some Texas backwater rag, won the Pulitzer Prize last year. He's the scumbag who lost his job from the LA Times for his bigoted "Hate" cartoon about the Arab-Israeli conflict. This is odd, because most right wing morons are pro-Israel. Not Ramirez. Maybe he's one of those mythical all-around idiots that I keep worrying about.

Anyway, his cartoon from the other day (see below) shows the twisted weirdness of the Right Wing commentariat. For those without images, the picture depicts Obama as the successor for Herbert Hoover because, somehow, Obama/Democratic policies are similar to Hoovers.

Look, this is just strange. The only person alive who can be plausibly be compared to Hoover would be George W. Bush with John McCain a close second (deregulate and stand aside while everything goes kablooie).


This is classic crazy from the Right Wing: depict the enemy (which could be Democrats, liberals, Jews - evidently) as guilty of the crimes only associated with Republicans.

Does Ramirez know how stupid this is? I don't know.

What it does bring up, to me, is the issue of why should newspapers employ cartoonists/columnists who represent not only a very small part of the population (pro-Bushites, hovering at around 30%) and specifically a part of the population that is uninformed. A newspaper should combat ignorance, not perpetuate it! And I'm not being pollyannish - if a newspaper does not try to inform the public, then it's a sad abuse of the "freedom of the press."

Here's another example:


Sarah Palin is somehow just as qualified as Teddy Roosevelt. Yeah. Sure. Let's leave aside that he was a sitting VP when he took over the presidency (he was only in office a few months), and that his 'two years' as a governor was of *New Freakin' York* and not some moose-ridden backwater, he was Asst Scty of the Navy before that (interrupted by military service as head of the 'Rough Riders', head of the NYC Police before that, head of the Federal Civil Service for 6 years before that, etc. Teddy was also a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard (which means he didn't just attend to get a pedigree, he actually stayed to learn something).

So the author of the second cartoon, Steve Breen, who surprise surprise won a Pulitzer in 1998, is either purposefully stupid or ideologically trying to obfuscate and in that sense *harm* the reader.

I know that Bush is still in power, Lieberman has hijacked the Senate, and so Fox News and Associated Gooper Idiots still are considered legitimate 'news' agencies. But, seriously, we shouldn't have to take this anymore. Breen, Ramirez, etc are jokes and an insult to the 'news' business.

Paul Newman, 83, Dies

Paul Newman, 83, Magnetic Hollywood Titan, Dies.

Crap.

Well, he died very close to Rosh Hashanah, that's got to count for something. He will always be seen as an honorary full-blooded Jew, in my book, for being a mensch.

Go with God, Ari Ben Canaan.

Conservative & Liberal Today

Kleiman at The Reality Based Community brings up a point I've been making for some time:

A former publisher of the National Review has endorsed Barack Obama as the “conservative” candidate in this year’s Presidential race. That may sound like a paradox, but it makes perfect sense if you go back to what the word “conservative” originally meant.

“Conservatism” has many meanings. To my somewhat jaundiced eye, the primary practical content of American conservatism as embodied in the Republican Party is a preference for the interests of rich people and employers over non-rich people and workers, combined with hostility to the demands of “outsiders” for equal treatment. All the rest — the preference for “small government” that is nonetheless active in dictating sexual morality, hostility toward environmental protection, hostility toward science, nativism — follows from that basic stance. (The current tendency on the right to support the executive power over the legislative power is merely temporary and partisan.)

Of course there are tensions on both interest-group and ideological lines. Employers tend to be anti-nativist. Many “small government” types are anti-imperialist. Libertarians don’t like the sexual-purity agenda.

But the thing American conservatism most lacks is “conservatism” in the proper sense in which “conservative” is the opposite of “progressive”: a sense of the costs of rapid change and a distrust of pervasive schemes of reform, in the tradition of Burke, Hayek, and Oakeshott. Steve Teles has pointed out, for example, how utterly un-conservative it is to propose drastic changes in Social Security, and of course the same might be said about the project of making Iraq safe for democracy.

As relentlessly partisan as I am on most left/right issues, I find myself right in the middle on the progressive-conservative axis. The Second Reconstruction was a frankly revolutionary effort, and had quite as many unintended side-effects as Burke himself could have expected, but it was no less necessary or glorious for all of that. The same was true of the New Deal, and is true now of the movement toward regulating the environmental impacts of private economic activity. But I still find myself nodding in agreement when someone says “The basic cause of problems is solutions.” Both the freeway and the public housing project seemed like good ideas at the time.

Thinkers with an Oakeshottian cast of mind have been drawn toward Republicanism by the relentlessly progressive mood of the Democrats. And some of them, revolted by the past eight years, are now looking for another option. One of the attractions of Barack Obama’s candidacy was his capacity to speak to those people. I don’t know how many of them are actually out there, but it’s good to know that there are some.

Sounds familiar, no?

Backpost finished 2009-12-07.

Henry Wallace

As I've been immersing myself in electoral politics, especially in the 20th Century, it's important to look at the decisions made by the major parties and how they won in critical years.

For each party, there's usually one president who embodies the modern party. For Republicans it's Ronald Reagan, and for Democrats it's either JFK or FDR. The two are similar in that they are both charismatic liberals, Machiavellian intellectuals, and defense hawks. Because JFK carries a lot of modern day baggage (his wacky adultery, Vietnam, Bay of Pigs), I prefer looking at FDR as the model Democrat. Not only was he the most successful president (4 wins!) but he created the modern United States as the combination of free-market and state-support, a belief in helping every citizen and also watching out for the world. OK, he should have done more to help my relatives escape the Holocaust, but I doubt Wendell Willkie would have been any better (given that the Republicans in 1940 were pretty happy staying out of the War).

Anyway, the crucial election for understanding FDR's success is 1940 - when he broke with the unwritten rule set up by George Washington that a president should only run for two terms. FDR dropped his VP of the previous two terms, John Garner, who pretty much defined the stereotype of a useless VP. Garner said the immortal phrase about the Vice Presidency "not worth a bucket of warm piss." Tell that to Grand Moff Cheney.

FDR chose Henry A. Wallace as his running mate in 1940 - dumping Garner, a Texas conservative Democrat and former speaker of the house. Wallace had been the secretary of agriculture from 1933-1940. Before that, he was, I think, a farmer. Also a Buhddist. Or something. He was definitely a wacko.

Note, when the 1944 Election came about, the Democratic party bosses insisted that the pro-Communist freaky-deaky Wallace be dropped as VP in favor of someone who could actually, ya know, lead the country in the case that FDR would drop dead (which had been expected at any time by those in the know).

I bring up these footnotes to history in order to understand the present day, especially the choices facing Americans in a wartime election (like 1940 & 1944) in a disastrous economy (like 1932) and with a sick old guy who could die sooner than later (FDR vs. McCain). Specifically, how does FDR's decision to reject Garner, accept Wallace, then reject him for Truman compare to the selection of Palin, Biden and even Quayle. Anon.

Swing and Statis States

A quick note about my move from Connecticut to Massachusetts. While the two states have much in common (cruddy weather, hard to spell names, arugula), CT had the benefit of being a bit of a swing state.

The name "Swing" state became popular, IIRC, in the 90s to contrast with the red-blue split that pundits invented to make them sound intelligent. Red means Republican and blue means Democrat because, by some freaky coincidence, a number of the news networks decided to use these colors in their electoral maps. I remember when the colors were arbitrary based on independent decisions of the news editors, but when the hacks get a good hook they run with it, and now we're stuck.

Karl Rove and the millions who listen to him decided to press the "truth" that there was a red America (manly, religious, patriotic, land-locked), and a blue America (pansy, atheist, communist, coastal and/or cold). Yet there are some states that move between, 'swing' as it were, between being red or blue. These are the Swing States.

For those who depend on the red/blue dichotomy, the existence of swing states is difficult to rationalize. What makes it more difficult for these Manicheans, is that, if you look at a projected election map you'd see there are about 15-20 states that are credibly swinging. And, it bears to remind the uninformed voter, that there are only 50 states. Which means that if there are 17 swing states, that's one third of America. Which means that you can't really talk about red/blue without emphasizing that there's many places that don't identify as either.

I won't deny that there are some states that will never go "red" as well as those that won't go "blue." And there's a definite advantage to live in a "swing" state because the candidates will spend much more time, and make more crazy bribing promises, to pander to you.

And because of this dichotomy, that "swings" get all the attention while guaranteed reds and blues hardly get any, it suggests that red/blue is not that significant for analyzing an election while the swingy-ness is.

Hence my preferred dichotomy of Swing States (the 20 or so that could vote either way) and Static/Stasis States (ones that are reliably red or blue).

All of this leads to the contrast between Massachusetts and Connecticut. CT, being a swingish state (especially given McCain's popularity there), would mean that my single vote would matter in a national election. But now I live in Massachusetts. Which is as reliably a blue state as can be expected (1984 was a fluke).

My vote in November is basically useless. I should have kept my residency in CT.

Am I Worried About November?

Well, in a large abstract way, I am worried about the election in the same way I'm worried about death or Nazis. Two national elections have been awarded to a profoundly unqualified man (Bush) and a party that decided to commit themselves to strange and evil policies.

2000 was terrible but until 9/11 most of us thought that the damage would be temporary, given that we were living through peace and prosperity. 2004 was heart-rending because it was clear how bad Bush was and things were getting worse and worse. The past 4 years have been horrifying and I know my kids will ask me about them with the same hushed awe I asked my parents about 1963-1968 (assassinations, Vietnam, Nixon). And if things were teetering on the bad in 2004, the re-election of Bush in 2008 would be a full-gonzo catastrophe.

It bears repeating: all of us who warned about the horrors of a second Bush term, and were ridiculed by Goopers who claimed we were being paranoid hysterics, were proven to be correct. And I was not correct by accident - i.e. many people are correct only by chance. For example, the smartasses who said that John Edwards was *of course* cheating on his wife... basing their assertions on the sole facts that (a) Edwards was good-looking, and (b) they disagreed with Edwards' policies/profession/accent.

Not liking somebody, and thus attributing to the disliked person all sorts of crimes, does not make your criticisms prophetic. You just got lucky.

However, if you said that Edwards was a wife-cheater because of certain provable factors (e.g. you knew of some shady behaviors, you read in his book that 'cheating on your cancer-stricken wife ain't the worst thing a person can do', or if you personally slept with him), then - fine - you can be considered a perceptive prognosticator.

For the record, I didn't believe the rumors that Edwards was cheating on his wife because I didn't think that someone as successful as him (self-made multi-millionaire, young Democratic senator in a red-state) would do something so destructive and stupid. I mean, it was Spitzer-esque! And even then, I had some glimmering that Spitzer was a sexual-schkutz because he intermarried. Ya see, that's a provable indicator. Sex crime here leads to sex crime there. But Edwards? Why would someone running for president - someone who constantly references his wife's terminal cancer - have an affair on the campaign trail.

Anyway, I went on this tangent to talk about the stakes of the election: just as the loss in 2004 was bad, and I knew it would be bad beforehand, I can say with confidence that McCain winning in November would mean total freakin' disaster for the U.S. of A. McCain is unfit to lead and will most likely die soon in office (based on simple actuarial prediction) leaving the country in the hands of a serial-fabricator hillbilly Evangelical.

And, as some dude pointed out, Bush managed to destroy our country from the starting point of Clinton's peace and prosperity. McCain - an uck-fup of Bushian magnitude - would be elected in the midst of two draining wars and an economy teetering on the brink.

Stop, You're Scaring Me!

I hear you cry. Yes, if McCain wins in November, we are totally screwed. But I don't expect it to happen. In fact, and you can quote me, the only way for the GOP to win in November is through fraud. I say this based on three proofs: (1) the frauds of 2000 & 2004, (2) the 2006 midterms, and (3) American history.

1. The only way the GOP won in 2000 and 2004 was through fraud.

Yeah, the Goopers amongst you will deny that 2000 was fraud, even though, based on facts, it's clear that Gore *would* have won in Florida if the votes that the voters cast were actually tabulated. If you prefer winning at all costs, and see a 'win' as proving retroactively everything done as right and correct, then the fact that the Supreme Court allowed Bush to win Florida, and thus the whole election, to be enough to say that Bush actually won.

But in the world of facts, it's important to remember than no matter what the weird rules stated, Gore won in 2000. A sports analogy, if I may. If quarterback Jack Drake throws a 95 yard touchdown pass while being tackled by a blitz of linebackers, yet the play is invalidated because the second-string slotback was barely offsides, do you credit the QB with a touchdown.

In the official game scoring, Jack Drake does not get credit for a touchdown. In the world of real life and of commerce, Jack Drake will be known as an amazing athlete who can perform under pressure and whose expertise was proven in real events. The rules of sports, while important to those who follow sports, are arbitrary and do not determine actual events.

Gore *should* have won in 2000; and for this argument it means that the country was willing to have a third Clinton term, and to elect Gore-Lieberman, even though arbitrary (and ultimately skewed rules) undermined the true events.

2004 was not as close as 2000 and for months after the election I was devastated not only because Bush was still in office, but with enough of a margin to suggest that people approved of his idiocies.

However, as the numerous scandals that were uncovered from 2006 on have shown, the Bush administration was involved in systematic voter fraud in every election since they took over the Justice department. I don't have time or space to get into great details - yet, they are easily found all over the internet - but event after event has shown that Bush administration politicized every aspect of the executive branch, skewing policy and actions to help Republicans get elected. The very core of the attorney scandal was that Bush/Gonzales were forcing the U.S. Attorneys to (a) suppress the vote of probable democratic voters (e.g. minorities), and (b) indict Democratic politicians or their staff-members close to the election date. The 8 attorneys who were fired all refused to engage in malfeasance.

Read the data, get scared, and conclude - as you should - that 2004 was won via fraud.

Now, this does not deny that the Democratic candidates of 2000 and 2004 were poor candidates. They were pusillanimous, uncharismatic, and not great leaders. But also recognize that conditions were such in 2000 and 2004 that would have made the country vote for an accept a mediocre Democrat.

Barack Obama is not a mediocre politician. He has many detriments, tis' true - he's young, black, and smart. But he also is a galvanizing speaker and a sober thinker who has raised the most money in history and did so with small donations. Which means he excites millions of people. These facts militate against the not-unfounded anxieties that Americans won't vote for a black man with a funny name. I'd have said that - and in fact did - back in 2007. Today, it's an unfounded fear.

2. The 2006 Midterms showed that the country wants change.

Even with the Justice Dept. vote-fraud, even with the Senate lineup stacked against the Democrats, we still managed to win Congress in 2006. Things were so terrible, in just 2 years, that the country threw their bums out. And, it needs to be said, it's hard to throw out congressional incumbents, and a switch-over in the Senate is not a great way to gauge public mood since only 32-33 people are up for election and not always in states that express the public mood. Even with all that, the Democrats won in 2006.

In 2008, the country is in even WORSE shape. The economy is teetering on the brink of collapse, the Iraq war is still hated (and our soldiers are still dying), etc. Add onto that the fact that congressional oversight of the Executive has led to mass firings in the Justice Dept. and elsewhere, making it very hard to repeat the fraud of 2002, 2004 and 2006.

Without the fraud, it's very hard for the GOP to win... even in a good year. And this year is one of the worst.

3. The past 100 years have shown that it's very hard for the incumbent party to win a third term in the presidency.

Since 1900, there have been a few third terms:

1. 1896-1912: McKinley was re-elected, but his assassination makes things difficult to gauge, so we start with Teddy Roosevelt. He had two terms, and he was succeeded by Taft who only had 1. Note, Taft would have been re-elected if Roosevelt hadn't run against him in '12, so following my Gore-2000 rules above, I think the GOP should get real-world credit for winning in 1912.
   
2. 1920-1932: Harding's death led to Coolidge's ascension and his two terms was followed by Hoover's 1.
   
3. 1932-1952: FDR had four terms - the only true 'third term' proof we have - and he was succeeded by Truman who won 1 term on his own right. He would have lost in '52 if he had run.
   
4. 1952-1960: Eisenhower almost won a third term; Nixon barely lost in 1960 (and, following Gore-2000 rules, it could be that this is a third term).
   
5. 1960-1968: LBJ, despite being elected via a grief-fueled nostalgia landslide in 1964, was quite unpopular in 1968. His successor didn't get a third term (even though I could hear an argument that he would have won if Wallace wasn't a third-party spoiler, but it was a complicated year).
   
6. 1968-1976: Nixon led to Ford who lost to Jimmy Freakin' Carter.
   
7. 1980-1992: Reagan was able to secure a third term for his bland VP.
   
8. 1992-2000: Clinton won a third term, but just just barely.

What does the chart prove? That a party can win a third party only when things are going very well, and the incumbent is popular. Coolidge, FDR and Reagan are the successes that prove this rule. Even when the incumbent is pretty popular, and the country is in good shape, the party still has a hard time staying in power: Nixon in '60 and Gore in '00 show this. Even if you want to say that Nixon and Gore actually were cheated out of their deserved victory, it's also demonstrable that the elections were very very close.

The bottom line is that a party gets a third term when (1) people like the outgoing president and (2) the country is in good shape.

In 2008, Americans hate George W Bush and 80% think the country is on the wrong track. The Iraq War is killing our soldiers, breaking our military and draining our coffers. The economy is going through shocks unseen since Herbert Hoover. Just on history alone, it's nearly inconceivable that the voters will reward the incumbent party with a third term.

This is why, ultimately, I'm not so worried about 2008. Barring fraud, which will be hard to do this year, the GOP will lose.

P.S. If my enormously long-winded description above doesn't comfort you, doesn't quiet the 2004-embedded fears that the GOP is so scummy and/or the American people so stupid, that they will defy the rules of logic and history and elect Growly McSame and Jesus S. Palin, I will just say that there are three presidential debates coming up. If the polls are still depressing after the debates, then it will be time to panic.

Way Ahead of Them

Even when it wasn't trendy, I was asserting that George W. Bush was quite clearly stupid. People would gainsay; claiming that - according to unsourced anecdotal evidence - Bush was quite intelligent in a one-on-one conversation. Proofs were also brought as to his education (Yale undergrad, Harvard MBA) and his success in life (president, hello?).

I would counter-argue that (1) education does not correlate to intelligence - especially for wealthy brahmins before 1970 (when most Universities were compelled to matriculate women and minorities). The fact that W's younger siblings were not accepted in Yale (Jeb = UT, Neil = Tulane, Marvin = UVA, Dorothy, BC) is good proof of the pre/post 1970 theory.

(2) Bush, sorry to say, has not been successful on his own. Note, most of the millionaires I know, self-made and otherwise, are not particularly smart. The ones who are intelligent are the exception, to be honest. Bush's successes came from his being well-born. See proof #1 about his education. Anything he did on his own (his businesses are exhibit A-Z) failed. When he became a vapid stooge for the GOP elite - as governor of Texas and Looter-in-Chief of the federal government - then he 'succeeded.' It's in fact much more probable to use Bush as proof that intelligence is *not* predictive of success more than the other way around.

(3) Unsourced anecdotal evidence are not very compelling when punched in the face by facts.

The facts are that intelligence is demonstrated by doing and saying smart things. And for the most part, smart people don't need third-party confirmation for their intelligence. If a person is smart, other people aren't compelled to say "oh, but he's really smart, believe me." Nobody has to confirm Clinton's intelligence, or Cheney's, or Rove's. Their intelligence is assumed because they sound smart. George W Bush, Dan Quayle, Jack Kemp, and Gerald Ford all sound really stupid; hence why their friends have to confirm and reconfirm the doubts of their intelligence.

Answer this about Bush: what smart things has he done? Has he written (on his own) intelligent books/articles/essays? When he speaks, does he say smart things or does he sound barely sentient? Note, I'm not even arguing about whether Bush is smart "enough" to be entrusted with great power (an idea - that the president should be talented and competent - that used to be held as an article of belief by most Americans), I'm saying that Bush's speech and behavior is indicative of someone barely smart enough to whiz with his pants down.

The real question about Bush isn't "how smart is he" but the larger question of "how dumb can you be before they start calling you that in public."

Which brings us to John McCain.

I've said on previous occasions that McCain strikes me as a dumb person. There are certain hallmarks of intelligence in his record (e.g. his willingness, before 2008, to speak unfiltered to reporters), so he's in a category above the profoundly stupid George W. But in our present day, whether it's because of age-induced brain-damage, or just inborn handicap, McCain doesn't seem to be that smart.

His inconsistencies in belief and action - what he's done his whole life - are proof for his stupidity. He did one thing right, that I know about: his refusal to be let out of the Hanoi Hilton early because of his family connections. But his undistinguished military career before his imprisonment, his erratic public behavior in Congress, and his despicable acts of private behavior (e.g. adultery), make me think that he just ain't bright.

So, anyway, other people are starting to notice. John Cole, of Balloon-Juice, for example: "Is McCain Just Dumb?" (based on this latest show of idiocy).

Why Aren't They Reporting the Lies?

I mentioned below that the press will try to cover up for the McCain/Palin horrors as much as they can. How do I know this? Well, uh, because they've been doing it. Were Obama, Hillary, Gore, or Billy J Clinton to have said or done the same things McPalin has done, they would already have been laid out on a spit and roasted by the press. So why the double standards? Here's why:

1. Fox News & WSJ plus about half or more of the columnists in the major newspapers are lock-stock part of the GOP. No, they're not paid by them (as far as I know), but they identify closely with the GOP and believe that its crucial to their financial well-being and possibly the existence of civilization that the GOP remain in power. So this group of "journalists" - plus, naturally, all the known scum on the radio - will be campaigning for the GOP, attacking Obama, and covering for the GOP stooges. I suspect that based on the roster above, more than half of the voices in the major mainstream media are part of the GOP. Add onto that what I wrote about here - that the mainstream media is not liberal because of the market for news.

2. Reporters are basically cowards driven by market forces and will support anyone who's popular and attack anyone who's out of favor. People seem to really like Sarah Palin - and who doesn't want a evangelical dominatrix with a Fargo accent? - and the press won't rock that boat. Until people stop liking her.

3. Above all, the press need a horse race. The tension and conflict of politics sells news. We got the Iraq War because the press were cowards and we got a Bush re-election because the press needed to keep the election close. Even though in 2004 the Abu Ghraib story had already broke, and we hadn't found WMDs in Iraq, even with all these horrible things, the press decided that we needed a close election. Thanks.

What this means for 2008 is that even though McCain is clueless, has a temperament problem, changes his views more often than he changes shirts, appears to be very very stupid, and all in all will be a very dangerous president... were the press to point that out, there'd be a landslide for Obama and nobody would watch TV.

And even though Sarah Palin is a crazy Christian who can't tell the truth, bullies her enemies - which include those whose religion she despises - and is manifestly unqualified to be Vice President... if the press pointed all this out, they'd lose advertising dollars because of lack of interest.

As I said before, I think there's a good chance Palin/McCain will end up like Romney, but the press will do it's durndest to make sure we don't hear it from them.

McCain, Palin, and Lying

As has been reported in pretty much every single blog, McCain and Palin have been consistently lying about pretty much everything. Very little exaggeration in that assertion, I'm sad to say.

Many left-wing blogs (see here for an example from the mysteriously named 'Digby' which everyone quotes but nobody has yet given an identity to) have wondered why the Mainstream Media (e.g. the Times) just doesn't have a big ol' headline that says "These Two People Just Don't Tell the Truth!"

I'm sympathetic to these concerns. Especially since the maps on 538 show that, if the polls accurately showed the votes, and if the vote were taken today, McCain would win. This is scary beyond belief.

But here's one word that I've thought of to calm myself down: Romney.

You remember him? He was a very succesful moderate Republican, a governor, a jillionaire, and a very good looking man out of "Politician/Magnate" central casting. He was the GOP front runner for a while. But somehow the word got out - without the mainstream media actually saying it in clear words - that he just didn't tell the truth. And that he switched positions to whatever looked best for him.

He was a political unknown to everyone out of the Northeast and it took a few weeks/months of close scrutiny for the stories to make their way around the news stations and blogs. But the stories did get around; and now he's one of the most disliked politicians out there.

Will that happen to Palin and McCain? I think it will. Mainly because they are doing worse things, in more places, in plain daylight. The press will play down a lot of the bad stories (I'll get to why soon), but I believe that just like Romney, McCain/Palin's fibbing will catch up with them.

The big caveat is: is there enough time before the election?

Palin Scares Me Out of My Wits

I've been crazy busy with grad school, but I need to drop a short bloggy note to emphasize how much the GOP and Sarah Palin scares me out of my wits. I will try to get more of this on pixels, but that just had to be said.

Video of the Day: John Cleese

h/t McArdle.

Faith in His Ability

Found on TNC (with my censoring):

Nice Snark About McCain

Steve Benen in his "Carpetbagger Report" has some good snark about McCain: "Jukebox John keeps changing his tune." Here's his first paragraph:

It’s obvious that the McCain campaign and the RNC have decided to go after Barack Obama as a flip-flopper. What’s equally obvious, though, that Republicans couldn’t have chosen a worse narrative.

I recommend the whole thing.

Pic from here. Backpost finished 2009-12-03.

Video of the Day: SNL on Palin and Hillary

Oh, this is SNL at what they do best. The 'press conference' of Palin and Hillary.


Backpost finished on 2009-12-03.