US Presidential Election 2008 (Early Days): Candidates, Positions, Policies and Consequences

8/14/2019 US Presidential Election 2008 (Early Days): Candidates, Positions, Policies and Consequences

1/33

Election 2008: Early Days, the Magic Sorting Primaries and Key Issues

Policies, Politics, Positions and Partisans

By Dave Livingston. Dave is a management consultant with almost 30 years of experience with analyzing complex business problems and developing solutions and new businesses. He blogs on public affairs at his blog Parts to Wholes: the Socionomic Systems Nexus ( http://llinlithgow.com/PtW/ ) where he attempts to apply that toolkit to current affairs and public policy. He also brings a background in economics, politics, current affairs and international relations to the table.

Introduction

The US Presidential Elections of 2008 were some of the most important in decades, at least as important as the1968 and 1980 elections. Arguably as important as the 1932 election that brought FDR and the New Deal intoplace; especially when you consider the reach and seriousness of the major policy challenges that existed and westill face. Just think about it two major wars, the most serious economic crisis since the New Deal and major

domestic policy challenges that were left to the tender mercies of the culture wars and largely ignored while theydeteriorated and new challenges mounted. Those include Energy, the Environment, Education and Healthcare

just to name the big blockbusters. To top it off were well into the biggest structural re-alignments of the worldsystem in 200 years and you have quite a schedule of problems to deal. Any ONE of which would haveconstituted THE major problem of several previous administrations, all of which arrived in their current sorry stateas the result of not to benign neglect by both politicians and the electorate over three decades.

We are now at the point where none of them can be neglected and they must all be addressed. As they say itscertainly fun to live in interesting times! Isnt it?

We trace out the arc of the Election 2008 story here from early 2008 to the middle of the year but do it in a veryunusual way. Theres some of the usual discussion of the candidates, their strengths, weaknesses, proposals andpositions. But all of that discussion is set in a context of framing the big policy issues and using a set of strategic

ideals to evaluate the candidates. We also talk about the mechanics of the political process and campaigning aswell as the social psychology of selling themselves to the voters. And we evaluate those same voters becausethis election was and will be as much about them and what theyre wanting and needing as it is about anythingelse.

Over the course of the Election one of the driving themes that emerged was the need for CHANGE it could nolonger be business as usual. For things to change however not only needed good leadership and sound policy itrequired, and requires, an electorate willing to accept the painful costs of change. It was not at all during theelection that the voters were willing to face the prices required to pay the Pipers whod made their party. Nor wasit clear that the candidates were able or willing to, so to speak, tell truth to the power. Fortunately as thecampaigning evolved we moved away from simple-minded slogans and extremist positions, legacy of the culturewars to some extent, and to more substantive and realistic positions.

But where were at today was and is shaped by where we were, what we went thru and the choices we made. Ina very real sense the story of the 2008 election is still with us, not just in the results, but in the issues considered,the way they were considered and how people reacted. Our considered judgment is that weve still got a long,long, long way to go before the electorate is willing to face the truth. Here we try to tell the early part of that storyand its beginnings.

The early days are interesting in their own right of course and the stories as the magic sorting primaries helpedus choose our candidates, issues and positions makes a valuable refresher on what we all said then and decidedfor now. This multi-part evolution uses a whole bunch of machinery for analyzing politics, campaigning and issueanalysis that are still directly and powerfully relevant. Its also a part of previous publications weve shared .


2/33

Page 2 of 33

Table of Contents

Let's Play President: Evaluating the Candidates 3

Choice, Options & Evaluations 5

Politics & Policy: Take the Next Step 6

Times Are A'Changin: Will the 60's (Now) Be Good For Us? 7

And Then there Were...Two: Vision? Leadership? Politics! 9

Super Tuesday: Barrack & Billary "Tied", John-Boy in Front? 9

Poetic Campaigns and Prosaic Policy: Realities of Change 12

Billary Goes Back to Washington (I): a Cartoon Collection 13

Billary Goes Back to Washington (II): It's All About Character 15

John-Boy Wrestles the Swamp Monster: McCain & the Right 16

Deeper Current and Structural Change? 17

Fights, Disses and Issues: Onward to Camelot? 18

Turning Tides and Choices 19

Get What We Want or Need? 20

Gettin Down to the Nxx-cuttin: Issues, Choice, Consequences and BS Quotients 21

Security, Economy, Energy Oh My! 22

She's Back.... 23

Gimme that Ol Time Religion? 24

Now We've Got a Horse Race: Debating the Debates & 60lb Pack Tests 29

Campaign, Candidates & Consequences: the Emerging Race for the Middle 30

Policy Challenges: From Coasting Along to Coping? 32

Whew, That's Over: Let the Games Begin...Again! 33


3/33

Page 3 of 33

January 8, 2008

Let's Play President: Evaluating the Candidates

Well the Iowa tsunami behind us, the second wave coming today/tonight and the campaign shaking out into a realtest it looks like things are going to be wide open. Thank goodness. I'm afraid a Billary vs. Rudeness contestdidn't appeal to me very much while an Obama vs. McCain has a lot of merit. Before explaining why let me put thequestion to you.

How do you think the candidates should be evaluated?

Here's some thoughts and reflections in response. But first, the video at rightwill take you to one of the best Charlie Rose programs with David Brooks, PaulBegala and Adam Nagourney each giving their perspectives. Brooks lays outthe big picture while Paul talks more about strategy and campaign managementand Nagourney provides a reporters ground-level view of tactics. There's alsoan interesting finale on Obama's grassroots appeal. Well worth watching.

Now we're going to find out what Hillary and the rest are really made of.

Before saying anything more about Billary let me re-ask what do wewant from a candidate?

The pundit's answer is that we want the slew of "right" policies so we get all these menus. That's all welland good, necessary even. But the reality nobody has the time to sort thru all these or the interest. Theaccusation is often made that citizens spend more time researching a new car than a candidate or theirissues. Not only true, but understandable and actually sensible. I control my car choices and it's a majorimmediate impact on my life. I'm one of millions of voters who can't really influence the outcome.

So what do voters look for? Several look for someone to express their fears or hopes or tell them theworld will be a better place. Most, at the end of the day, IMHO, are looking to find a candidate who best

expresses and captures what they themselves feel about how things are going and better provides a pathforward. A vision if you will. This makes sense in a lot of ways - it's a rule-of-thumb filter that isaffordable and workable, though without a little research it's often not as well grounded as it could orshould be. For example Fred Thompson is a deeply experienced and insightful man who carefullyconsiders his positions and conclusions, which are very nuanced in a wise way. Yet I wouldn't havereached that conclusion w/o watching him on Rose.

So the primary screening tool for most, and myself and most of us if we're honest about it, is someonewho creates vision of where we want to go and something about how to get there.

The second major screen is that we want someone we think can tough it out. Someone authentic, who's

positions are grounded in who and what they are and represent a serious commitment to their ownvalues. And who has the character to stand their ground.

So at the end of the day there are three major categories of candidate evaluation IMHO:

1. Vision and Leadership

2. Character and Authenticity


4/33

Page 4 of 33

3. Policies and real-world grasp

You/we can work thru each of the candidates of these fronts at some point. In fact we will one way oranother. In collaboration with our fellow citizens. Oddly enough for all the complaints about Bush we

aren't allowed perfect choices, just "the times we live in" as Gandalf put it. Given that I think my fellowcitizens made the best choices possible in the last two elections because Gore and Kerry failed on thefirst two criteria.

For this election consider: If Presidential Candidates Were Stocks. It's both amusing, instructive andrevealing. In it's own odd way as much as the more formal talking head punditry.

Just to make my own small contribution to your contemplations consider the worksheets below the lineas a template.

Leadership

Leadership has several different components andpeople differ but the ability to have a vision,grounded in reality and communicate it andmotivate people behind it are critical. Anothermajor component is integrity, values andcharacter. We've tried to capture all that in thetable at right. Another major aspect of leadershipis the ability to put the right people in place, setgoals and hold them accountable. This isexecution ability and is often sorely lacking. Youcan see, at least for discussion purposes, our takes on Bush vs Kerry circa the '04 election.

The way the table works is that each gets a score on a0.0-4.0 school grading scale and that grade is weightedto a score which can then be added up. Notice that onLeadership I wasn't in love with either choice,particularly faulting Bush for his execution skills. But youcan ignore all that and simply take the table as a startingpoint for evaluating the current crop. BtW - it just sohappens we dug into what makes good leaders a littleearlier: Following the Spirit: Leaders, Leadership and the"Wise" Course

Policies

Policies are a complex, mish-mashed spider's web ofpoints and special interests and so on. So I tried tocompress it down a bit into a structure that captured themajor issues. We also need to make two othermajor....major distinctions.

Policies are stated intent and at this stage are subject tovast revision once in the office and the realities arefaced. Policies are also not politics or mechanism, two of the most painful of those realities. Each major policy hasa cluster of interests that will need to be managed. They also need, all too often forgotten, to have the right kind of


5/33


6/33

Page 6 of 33

The other problem is that we can't have perfect policies either. In that candidate evaluation we introduced aweighted ranking scheme that "architected" the major issues we face into three categories and some sub-categories. The diagram at right tries to capture this graphically by showing the three major categories: ForeignAffairs, Economic Policy and Social/Domestic Policy. We were in the fortunate position in the 90s of enjoying thebenefits of five decades of foreign policy success with victory in the Cold War combined with a robust andinnovative economy. In other word we could have focused on what is sometime the most difficult effort, majorimprovements in Social Policy. Instead we squandered that decade's window of opportunity and spent itsquabbling over "values" issues. Well our neglect of foreign policy, vital economic development issues and re-thinking things like Healthcare, Education, and Energy are all now coming home to roost. Which is all a long wayof arguing that, like candidates, we don't get to have perfect 10s. In fact on our rankings we're lucky to have madesome significant catchup improvements and our hopes for the next phase are to get to 4s instead of being forcedto retreat to 1s and 2s again.

As you work thru the following readings you might sort them mentally into these categories and ask yourself howyou think we're doing. In some ways this is one of the better elections in that not to many outrageous mythologiesare being promulgated. On the other hand, particularly in economic policy, there's a strong tendency to arm-waving, telling people what the candidates think they want to hear and that "water runs up hill" and you can "stopthe tide".Nature is nature - the goal is not to deny but to learn to cope with it, hopefully with style and grace. Or sooner orlater you start needing another Lincoln.

January 25, 2008

WRFest(Politics & Policy): Take the Next Stephttp://llinlithgow.com/PtW/2008/01/wrfest_20jan08politics_policy.html

Well here's the final post for last week's readings. The prior two covered enough ground we decided to delaythese. Below you'll find interesting readings on the current US election, including an interesting piece on "HowVoters Think" that tries, somewhat sucessfully, to address the surprises so far in this campaign. There are alsotwo pieces analyzing the underlying economics of racial behavior and the costs/benefits of the Iraq War. Both ofwhich we highly recommend. Another piece on the "Durably Democratic" nature of American society and another

on a recent discovery by Chinese scientists on the main biological pathways of drug addiction.

You may be wondering what they all have in common. Well, to some extent they are indeed our usual potpourri ofinteresting readings across a spectrum of interests. But one thing they do have in common, particuarly thereadings on racial spending patterns and the costs of Iraq, is taking a look using a disciplined approach tounderstanding the deeper structures and casul patterns of things. Tom Sowell makes an interesting point when hecalls for taking the next step. ( Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy , Applied Economics:Thinking Beyond Stage One )

As he point out all too often you hear people and policy makers complaining about the unintended consequencesof things. The so-called "Black Swan" effect. But what actually happens is that the unfortunate outcome is usuallyperfectly natural and likely, and not as afterwards thinking but beforehand. But almost always policy is madefocused on intent without asking what are the changes in incentives created. In other words what is the likely

behavior going to be as a result of the policy. And furthermore have you asked and "then what happens ?". It'sthis taking the next step based on basic investigations of the deep structure that all too often result in unfortunateoutcomes. In other words on a willful denial of the nature of things combined with a deliberate blindness. Bluntly,people and policy is made by deliberately and determinedly screwing up.

So instead of relying on hope we prefer to actually examine things in a systematic AND systemic way to try andunderstand what's going on. Of course a major part of such an approach is the understanding that most decisionswill be, as the Buddhists put it, "UNSKILLFULL" :).


7/33

Page 7 of 33

The readings on spending patterns and Iraq are perfect exemplars of digging in and understanding things as theyare.BtW - the prior post on the problems in the economy and the policy moves are a good example in two ways. First,the consequences of such blindness that creates a mess. And second, what happens when you've got to clean itup.( Pump Priming, Rates Cuts and Crameritis: More on Economic Outlook ).

Finally there are more posts in the Science & Culture section - one on the searches for new forms of artificial lifethat could be as big a breakthru as Pharmaceuticals, Plastics and Electronics were post-WW2. Another onEurope's strangely peaceful interlude since then, which is fascinating inasmuch as it talks about the Continent thatbrought us all our World Wars and now is the most peaceful (albeit artificially). And the final two excerpts - one onleaning to appreciate wine based on your own preferences instead of the common shibboleths. Point made ? :)And another about a Man who became a deserved Icon - Beethoven's last symphony and his life.

January 31, 2008

Times Are A'Changin: Will the 60's (Now) Be Good For Us?

http://llinlithgow.com/PtW/2008/01/times_are_achangin_will_the_60.html

One of the more interesting memes that's making the rounds in the last week or so is the notion that the reasonBarrack Obama is getting so much traction is that he represents a return to the idealism of the 60's. In particularwith the endorsement of the Kennedy Clan, especially Caroline's NYT OpEd piece, making the comparisonexplicit it's hardly a point that could be missed. Caroline gives all due credit to her children for seeing in Barrack anew and inspiring voice. Inspiration yes ! And if you listen to his acceptance speech comparing him to JFK foreloquence is fair though they spoke about very different challenges. JFK was speaking at the heart of the ColdWar and when he talked about "any price, any burden" he was talking as a decorated war hero (look up NavyCross sometime on Wiki) and the leader responsible for fighting that war (which it was - see John Gaddis Lewis'recent short history). Barrack is talking about healing the self-inflicted wounds of partisanship and finding a newpath forward based on our common interests.

We've got several riffs and reactions to that but let's start with

the accompanying YouTube video of Bob Dylan's "The TimesThey are A'Changin" (btw the other title reference is toGeorge Carlin). Take a listen because it sets the table for a lotof my reactions and reflections and may do so for you as well.Before we go there though there are several other thingsworth pointing to as well.http://youtube.com/watch?v=PKf0iTDZB_8

Obama's accepetance of the Kennedy's support is one. Andwhile you're there take a gander at Teddy and Caroline'sspeeches (NOTE: this is THE first time she's ever publiclysupported anyone). Another interesting discussion is therecent Charlie Rose show on the State of the Union and the speech. The last half is the one relevant for now. But

if you'd really like a basis of comparison try JFK's inaugural: Part 1 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=xE0iPY7XGBo )and Part 2. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=3s6U8GActdQ )

And as you listen to those try and compare the times in your mind if you can, that is consider those times versesthese. With all due respect, well try this:

In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than mine, will rest the final success or failure of ourcause. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to


8/33

Page 8 of 33

give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call toservice surround the globe.

Now the trumpet summons us again not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as acall to battle, though embattled we are but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle,

year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation" a struggle against the commonenemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West,that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defendingfreedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility I welcome it.I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any othergeneration. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light ourcountry and all who serve it and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you ask what you can dofor your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we cando for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the samehigh standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our onlysure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love,asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be ourown.

So, what did you think of Bob's singing - voice is pretty shot isn't it ? Despite the idealistic call to arms, calling forthe old generation to make way for a new order, it seems a little odd at best to have a song now 40 years old andsung by a man who has himself suffered some great wearing aways. Yet it captured the spirit of those times, thehopes and the ambitions. And now?

And what have we gotten from that earlier call to arms and where are we at now because of it ? Take a momentand try to answer that honestly. Some goods and bads but despite his rhetoric JFK wasn't around long enough tomake a major difference though in the historians judgment it was taking him a long time to get up to speed. Whoknows. Certainly his successor brought us the greatest raft of social-civil legislation we've ever seen as well as awar that haunts many still. As the result of which we had the dark malaise of the 70s, a recovery (under aRepublican who took us back to inspiration - perhaps Obama's comparison isn't so outlandish) in the 80's that laidthe foundations for the long-party of the 90's. And challenges ever since to try and deal with all the things leftundone, neglected or ignored.

A possible bottom line is that after all the high hopes and intoxication of the 60's people never really sucked it upand did the hard work necessary to make their dreams realities. Some things take years and decades to to workout, when they are sustained by patient and disciplined effort. Speaking as someone with a shelf full of CatStevens songs, which my ex-girlfriend once referred to dismissively, as those peace and love songs, I'm all for theideals. But what is faith without good works.


9/33

Page 9 of 33

I may decide that being the world's greatest concert violinist is my goal. Better yet the talent and capabilities mighteven be there. What about the time and resources ? But most importantly no one no matter how gifted or blessedbecomes a great violinist, or football player or whatever without years of effort. Not even a good plumber is byaccident.

Before we go taking the analogy of the 60's too far we need to ask ourselves what did we learn from them, havewe learned enough and how do we make our aspirations realities. Now those are the real questions on the table.Can we take this inspiration and, THIS TIME, turn it into reality?

Or forty years from now will another bunch of overweight, middle-aged nostalgists be sitting around the stagelistening to the songs of their fiery youth, singing along and no change ?

February 3, 2008

And Then there Were...Two: Vision? Leadership? Politics!http://llinlithgow.com/PtW/2008/02/and_then_there_weretwo_vision.html

About Spring of last year all the various candidates were running around comparing themselves to Harry Truman,who for those who don't recall, left office in disgrace after having not only stood up for his principles but beingproven right in the long run on most of his calls. This Winter the new standards of comparison is Ronald Reagan,who as much as I disagree with some of his policies and all of economics, nonetheless not only stood for principleand won the Cold War. But did as much as any President short of a major national crisis restore our Faith inourselves and willingness to dig in and work.

If you look back at Reagan his principles, and as it turns out his policies - which much more subtler and wellthought thru than he was given credit for at the time, were based on years on of reading, thinking and givingspeeches and testing his ideas in the public forum. If you look back at the great Presidents of past trials(Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt/Wilson, FDR, Harry/DDE) they, by and large weren't looking back to a goldenage and promising to be the second coming. Their principles and actions were the result of years of sustainedaction in a gradually evolving direction. And they adapted to the times, adopted the new when they had to, butsteered a course according to a pretty constant start. Now that's Vision and Leadership. Not whatever we're

getting now.BtW - don't just take my word for it. Check out the Wiki post Historical rankings of United States Presidents andsee where these various folks, including Reagan stand historically. Particularly some of the more recent surveysas we've learned more about Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan. So consider the following as a template forevaluating the readings below. And the candidates we get down to the final stretches.

February 6, 2008

Super Tuesday: Barrack & Billary "Tied", John-Boy in Front?http://llinlithgow.com/PtW/2008/02/super_tues_barrack_billary_tie.html

Our posting title pretty well captures the headline reporting in the MSM and, to some extent it's fair. But when youdig thru the numbers a bit it doesn't strike us as accurate on either side. In fact we'd argue despite all the hooplaand expectations nothing much was settled nor a lot new learned.Much as it pains me (for lots of reasons, some of which may be obvious if you've read along in this blog fromtime-to-time) the NYT deserves credit for a nice graphical summary of the elections and a good summary pageoverall. Sad when a worshipper of evidence-based decision-making ends up fighting his own feelings wouldn'tyou say? :). But to give credit where it's due please take a moment and examine their stat page, particularly therespective results page/maps. ( NYT Results ). But before diving in there you might take a moment to examine thelittle graphic we threw off in an idle moment or two. And ask yourself what it's depicting. (PAUSE.....).


10/33

Page 10 of 33

Now the theory of politics in the US, or for democracies in general, is that the voters are distributed around a bell-curve with the bulk in the middle and tailing off to the ends. By and large that's true - particularly when you allow

for the curve shifting left or right over the years as the major issues and concerns shift, society changes and soforth. What was the Center when Lincoln was running in 1850 wasn't the center when he ran in 1859. And itcertainly moved when FDR won his first election. And none of those is really where we're at today, though 1932 isa lot closer. But that little map explains a lot of these primaries. In fact taken all together it explains a lot of the last20 years or so.

Have you ever wondered why gas stations tend to cluster together? Or restaurants, home furnishing stores or anyother similar stores tend to be co-located? Well according to the gas-station theory of political economy anybodywho doesn't locate near the center of mass of their target market can be out-maneuvered. It works like this.Suppose somebody puts a gas station up around the #2/3 spot on the spectrum. Fine as long as they're the onlygame in town. But when they do some whippersnapper comes along and locates at 3.25. That second station iscloser to all the customers from that point all that way out to #10 and will tend to get more of those customers. Ofcourse markets and electorates are structured on more than one dimension but the principles remain the same.As a result when you go into NYC you'll find restaurants all clustered together because nobody wants to leave themiddle abandoned and get to cut off. It's the same in politics - on the whole, and all else being equal, politicianstend to get driven toward the middle of the electorate.

But thruout and since the '90s we've been the "beneficiaries" of extremist, partisan politics. In fact it's gotten sobad that Obama has built his campaign around finding common (middle) ground. What happened to our gas-station theory?

Well there's one other little thing that goes on. It's expensive to be a voter - if not in money then in time and effort,even in emotional energy. In fact people are generally notorious for spending more time on researching a new carthan they spend on who to vote for. And for spending far more time on investigating a new house. Which whenyou stop to think about it makes perfect sense. When you buy a car that'll be your car and it directly influenceshow happy and satisfied you are. When you vote you're one of millions of voters on the margin who contributes toinfluencing the election but can't control it. In other words it's just plain old common sense that people spend a lotmore time buying a car than picking a candidate (BTW - this is important. All that hectoring and lecturing from thepunditocracy and do-gooders will never overcome the basic sense of simple economics. The only elections where99% of the voters participate are places like Iraq under Hussein :) ).

But that's not the whole story. Some people care a whole lot more about politics or particular issues. In fact thatexplains all the time, money and effort that goes into lobbying. For the groups, companies or organizations who'resubject to legal or regulatory impacts the outcome of legislation determines, in as fundamental sense as possible,how well they're going to do. Some drug companies have lobbyists, so do environmentalists, the AARP, theTeacher's Union and so on. For these folks politics really....really matter.


11/33

Page 11 of 33

When you stop to think about it and work it thru these simple little charts are powerful explanations for a lot thatgoes on around us. Bill Clinton ran and won as a centrist candidate in '92. But his first major political initiative wasHillary's abysmal Healthcare reform effort which can charitably be called "socialism", or at least Big Governmentrun amok. That po'd so many people that Newt the Grinch was able to put together a rightish conspiracy to "letthe bastards freeze in the dark" and put a Reb. majority into Congress. It turned out we didn't like that either sowe got a do-nothing Presidency instead of what the Brits got when, as John Major puts it, Tony Blair stole hisclothes while he was swimming the river; that is he move the Labor party to the middle with market-friendlypolicies and made it stick. Despite the fact that they proceeded to lynch him in effigy every year or so (whichexplains, partly, why they were so po'd at him. Nothing like having your ideals compromised by having to workwith the rest of the electorate).

Karl Rove temporarily changed the game because there are a lot of extremist partisans in both parties so heintroduced the notion of running off the base and only going as far toward the middle as required to get 50 +.01%of the vote. Now that's brilliant electoral tactics and terrible for building a sustainable foundation for ademocracy. But we try and show this in the graphic by showing how the parties are distributed at the extremes ofthe general curve.

BECAUSE THEIR ISSUES MATTER MORE TO THEM THAN THE AVERAGE VOTER .

And they were willing to get out and participate more. That in a nutshell is American politics from '90 to now. Andexplains why all the right-wing nutjobs can't stand John Boy while the voters are more happy with his moderatepositions.

Another little BTW - put these two "theories" together (I have sources and references) and you can not onlyexplain a lot, you can do better than 98.5% of the talking heads and political scientists pundering away out there(& no that's not a typo). You too can amaze your friends at parties! But just for the record this ain't all me - just putsome pieces together and I have sources and references to proof it. They just happen to be stuff the pundits don'tbother to read.

So now if you'll go back to the NYT results maps and take a look at the Rep. and Dem. outcomes we've got aninteresting little tool for thinking things thru a bit better.

Rep. Outcomes - McCain Wins?

Hmmm...not really. If you thru on a state by state basis Huckabee showed pretty strong results in several majorSouthern states while Ron Paul did pretty well on the Northern fringes. You can take fringe anyway you want andit was intended btw. And nowhere, at least on my quick inspection did he overwhelmingly whip our boy DerMittganger. In fact if Der Mitt would re-discover his inner idealist, i.e. stand for something instead of just gettingelected he could put up a hell of a good fight here. This is enormously ironic because in his business book onsaving the Olympics he talks about a) having to have a compelling vision of the future and b) communicating,selling and motivating your team behind you. Instead he's the Man for All Reasons - as long as he thinks it'll gethim some votes. Mitt's sold his own principles down the river to win. But he's still in the game no matter whattoday's headlines or the McCain camp would have you take away.

And think about who Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee represent on our political maps. Voters more conservative,narrow issues oriented and populist than McCain's more centrist bent. You'd have to figure that more than 50%would go for Mitt. In either case both men could come into the national convention with enough support to causeJohn Boy to have to accommodate their positions, whatever you or I might think of them. Which also explains hispandering to the right wing. Yet such pandering would tend to erode his support from the middle in a generalelection as well. An interesting tactical dilemma wouldn't you say Mr. Rove?Dem. Outcomes - a Split? Well Maybe.

When you perform a similar surgery on Billary vs. Barrack the results are even more interesting indeed. Evenfascinating - and the maps are very helpful. First off they each took the states you'd really expect: AK & NY for herand IL for him. Boy could that have been embarrassing. Clinton's greatest strengths were in the traditional Dem.


12/33

Page 12 of 33

big states (CA, NY, MA) and the margins were ~52+% to 42%. Strong but not overwhelming. Barrack tended towin key Southern states with larger black populations - which is really important. And the northern mid-tier states(ID, CO, KS, et.al.) where voters tend to be more pragmatic and centrist rather than wedded to long-standing,traditional Democratic positions (the nuts and berries votes on the Left coast and the white whine and bray crowdin the East. Sorry, couldn't resist).

In fact a little personal anecdote to illustrate my point. My mom spent WW2 helping to organizeheavy bomber squadrons for the Army Air Corps; that is in picking the officers to staff certain keypositions. A very interesting thing she told me that's stuck in my mind for years - they alwayspicked a Midwesterner for the Intelligence Officer because they were less parochial than theCoasters. And more open to investigating and letting the facts on the ground influence theirdecisions rather than distort them with pre-conceived notions. Think about it FWIW. The cultureshaven't changed that much, oddly enough, in 60-70 years for the argument to still have someweight.

But those will, again, be the folks in the middle in the general election.

Now we've been arm-waving in broad generalities but there are two other things going on here that could alsoinfluence things big time.

1. The younger voters are really....really....really tired of all this one-issue burnt offerings on thealters of ideological purity. The think the older folks have kinda screwed things up - and theyhave a pretty good case don't they? - and are looking for the New Jerusalem (that's Camelot tothe older generation)

2. Black voters have been swinging over to supporting Barrack big time for the first time ever.While I haven't seen any participation stats they normally vote for the candidate who bestrepresents their views AND who they think has a real chance. Aside from its' immediate impactsthis is indeed history in the making here folks.

All in all this is gonna be a real interesting election indeed. And it ain't much like the headlines either !

February 07, 2008

Poetic Campaigns and Prosaic Policy: Realities of Change

http://llinlithgow.com/PtW/2008/02/poetic_campaigns_and_prosaic_p.html

Earlier we put up several posts on somesmall aspects of the economy and theelections as well as walked thru thecomparison of this election, particularlyObama's campaign to a revival of the '60s.

One of our key points was that wesquandered all those opportunities forchange and improvement when the idealistsdiscovered how hard it was. The questionthat was left hanging was...and then so what? Well that's one we still intend to hammer on, and keep hammeringon. But trust our friends at Doonesbury to speak to the inspiration, the Poetry of Politics.


13/33

Page 13 of 33

But further on you'll find Gov. Mario Cuomo who speaks truth to power, the voter (and we hope the reading publicinsofar as we reach i

One thing that particularly struck us was his

reference to Adam Smith - particularly his firstwork, "Theory of Moral Sentiments" and hisexposition of Lincoln's policies.

After you finishing chuckling over Doonesbury tryMario on for size. And then check out an examplefrom Greg Mankiw's blog on debt and thepolemics of political maneuvering and deception.We'll let you draw your own interpretations but ifyou'd like Change, this time around, let's focus onwhat we need to really do to make it happen. Not

just talk about it and get all warm and fuzzy. [BtW- try a friend's post on his blog for the sameargument put a little more directly: Romney BowsOut! ]http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid452319854/bctid1398239092

Here's an excerpt from Greg's blog on theposturing and distortion that goes on with regardto policy in general and economic policy in particular. Highly recommend you read the whole thing as it's an eyeopener. You don't have to think that this is the most overwhelming issue per se. Rather what I'd ask you to do isto wonder who's telling you what tells for their own self-interest. Not a surprise but very disappointing - and not inthe general public interest. Though Greg doesn't draw that conclusion we will !

Debt and the Real Threat

An econonerd friend in the White House emails me his analysis of the budget picture:At a press conference Monday, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad's (D-ND) said:

This is easiest to analyze if we look at the simplest statement made by Chairman Conrad:"That is almost a doubling of the national debt on [the President's] watch." The chart

above purports to make that same point, as gross federal debt increases from $5.8 Trillionin 2001, to $10.4 T in 2009. (By the way, that's a 79% increase, which is a bit far from"almost doubling". But I'll set that aside.)

I'm going to disprove the statement: "That is almost a doubling of the national debt on his watch."I don't dispute the factual accuracy of the numbers, but instead the presentation and theconclusion.This presentation misleads in three ways.


14/33

Page 14 of 33

For the entire e-mail exchange and the substance of the analysis by Greg's friend and colleague please gotohttp://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/02/debt-and-real-threat.html .

February 8, 2008

Billary Goes Back to Washington (I): a Cartoon Collection

http://llinlithgow.com/PtW/2008/02/billary_goes_back_to_washingto.html

Well things are beginning to sort down rapidly in these primaries. Notleast of the Super Tues results is that Billary may have beenweakened. As we pointed out in a prior post ( And Then thereWere...Two: Vision ? Leadership ? Politics ! ) on digging underneaththe numbers their results were strong in the traditional Dimowackicstrongholds but when you look beneath the surface Obama wascloser than the surface would indicate.

We'll pick up that theme more in a later post but to give all this a littleperspective we thought we'd look back on how the politicalcartoonists have seen her campaign with a sampling of our collectionto date. If nothing else, besides being pretty pointed, they're veryfunny. And have that painfully cutting edge of a true ring to them aswell.

The composite at right, if you've been following along, is a samplingfrom the early days to last summer or so.Hillary's been the presumptive Democratic candidate for the lastseveral years but it's been a long, rocky road that's not gone aspredicted. Largely due to Obama and her own mistakes. But wecertainly went thru a period when it was Hillary and the Six Dwarves,at least at first.

I believe they call that "entitlement"; or the anointing of the Queen.An attitude that, again IMHO, just wafted off the campaign. And infact a lot of her dark side strikes us an outraged sense ofentitlement. After all the Dwarves were perfectly free to challengeher. That was politics and a game she played better, had moremoney, a better machine, etc. etc. After all it was her turn, right? :)

And then all of sudden it got down and dirty - not in a real dirt sensebut she was being legitimately challenged. First by Edwards who,whatever else one may think, forced some key issues onto thenational agenda and got all the candidates to have to recognizethem, particularly Healthcare. And then there was Barrack who was

doing the Vision thing - which she seems constitutionally incapableoff. Talk about failing to develop a competitive response!

My memory is that she didn't much care for that. How 'bout yours? Of course she likes it even less now but that'sthe way the game is played; or should be.

But life is change. And this campaign has certainly undergone its' own rapid evolutions up to and including lastweek's Super Tues results. Which as we mentioned weren't quite what she was anticipating. Now we'll find outwhat she's really made of; and Barrack too of course.


15/33

Page 15 of 33

The tougher it got the more Bill came out of the closet, andmade it clear he'd be a major player. In fact more than once itwas clear that his ego and general neediness won't allow him toput general issues up front. Instead he'll put himself there first.Speaking of experience Hillary's been campaigning on her vastlegacy. Granted she's been a Senator, and by all accounts agood and effective one who served her constituents and thecountry well while also learning to play the Senate game andearning respect for it. All of that line of argument amuses usgreatly since the last candidate to win office as a young andinexperienced governor with no substantive foreign policy ornational security credentials was Bill. Not just ironic but sadconsidering how he neglected foreign policy issues to all ourdetriment. A luxury nobody has now and a major squanderedopportunity.

It's also clear that Bill isn't just needy but has a different set ofzipper problems as well. Back to that outraged entitlement thing?

And it's also not entirely clear that Hillary has learned much ifanything about new approaches to policy making since hereHealthcare disaster. While her plan is fairly sensible on balancethere are certain elements that are pretty old-skul BigGovernment. And not much more workable than when she blewit last time.

Not encouraging for an electorate, including me, who'd like botha new vision of the future and practical, workable alternatives forgetting there. But you make up your own mind. Here's we'reraising questions.

And amusing ourselves - but then we laugh at our own jokes.But ya gotta admit they're pretty funny. Wonder if Hillary would

laugh? Think about - Reagan could tell a joke on himself. EvenBush can and does - check out the National Press club roast ofhim sometime.

February 08, 2008

Billary Goes Back to Washington (II): It's All About Characterhttp://llinlithgow.com/PtW/2008/02/billary_goes_back_to_washingto_1.html

Well we just finished amusing ourselves with a set of political cartoons at Billary's expense. Let's hope she'slaughing with us. In a more serious earlier post we argued that there are three things that voters look for in a

President - never getting what they want of course but settling for the best tradeoffs they can get. The three were:1) Vision & Leadership, 2) Character (Integrity & Values) and 3) Workable Policies/Positions. Let's focus now onthe Character question and appeal to that noted doyen of American politics Pres. Andrew Shephard - who asmuch as anyone captures or represents what we want in a President. (In fact somebody once described themovie "American President" as depicting who we wished we'd gotten instead of what we did get - thereby provingmy point):

President Shephard: For the last couple of months, Senator Rumson has suggested that beingpresident of this country was, to a certain extent, about character, and although I have not beenwilling to engage in his attacks on me, I've been here three years and three days, and I can tell


16/33

Page 16 of 33

you without hesitation: Being President of this country is entirely about character. We haveserious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever yourparticular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He isinterested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blamefor it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections.

Building on Pres. Shephard's comments below are excerpts from three very recent stories detailing Hillary'scharacter over the span of her career. One from the failed Healthcare initiative that points out there were in factworkable alternatives, from her own party, which she went to extravagant lengths to crush mercilessly. Anotherfrom today by Peggy Noonan which asks, as it looks as if Hillary's position continues to deteriorate (if it does)whether or not she has the strength of character to concede gracefully. And the final one, which is new news tome and we suspect many, about her tenure on the Watergate committee where her behavior can only bedescribed as partisan, unethical and win for her side at any cost. If it turns out to be true it's both sad andextremely damaging.

The real question is has she, like any of us, risen to the challenges of her life by learning anything? And moreimportantly growing her moral character. Or is that earlier Hillary, again if accurately portrayed, the person wemight have in the White House facing some of the most turbulent times we've seen in decades.You be the judge - but judge you must whether you will or nil. If nothing else by default.

February 10, 2008

John-Boy Wrestles the Swamp Monster: McCain &the Righthttp://llinlithgow.com/PtW/2008/02/johnboy_wrestles_the_swamp_mon.html

It's probably about time we were an equal opportunity disser and pokeda little fun and a little harm at the Rips, the far-fight conservatives andJohn McCain. Fortunately we don't have to look to far for the fun as thenation's political cartoonists again stepped into the breach.Now, political cartoons don't work if there's not an element of truth forthem to riff on - whoever's truth that might be. Notice that while the set ofHillary cartoons were all about her these McCain cartoon are none abouthim. Rather they're about somebody else's reactions!

I wonder if the folks who're the subject of the cartoons would recognizethemselves? Not only to appreciate the humor and laugh but to realizewhere they stand in the spectrum of politics and in the regard of theelectorate.

A couple of serious points after you've stopped chuckling about John-Boy vs the Cons. First, Hillary and Barrack may still be wrestling for theDem. nomination but the MSM is discovering that the Rep. are evenworse split under the covers of McCain's lead than they are. By a largemargin.

Second, run these posts in your head back by the spectrum of politics post ( Super Tues.: Barrack & Billary "Tied",John-Boy in Front ? ). We'll pick up the idea later but it seems to still be holding togther pretty well indeed.


17/33


18/33

Page 18 of 33

February 13, 2008

Fights, Disses and Issues: Onward to Camelot?

http://llinlithgow.com/PtW/2008/02/fights_disses_and_issues_onwar.html

Well it looks like we're sorting down to the candidates and the issues. And the fight is getting pretty serious. Onthe Democratic side Obama has some major wins in recent primaries but the real test will be in Texas and Ohio.Similarly McCain is winning primaries as well and, if you believe the headlines, pulling away. As usual when youlook under the covers there's more to the numbers and Huckabee is staying in the fight.

What we're seeing in both contests is rather what one would expect from our model of voter distribution - that isthe electorate is looking for a centrist, pragmatic candidate while the Faithful on either side are holding out fortheir respective agendii. NOW in our humble opinion that's the real issue in this campaign. Will we continue to seea politics based on the relative extremes or will we have a campaign that addresses the real issues we face.Which are more challenging than anything we've seen since 1980.

On the Democratic side, and this how theDems turn themselves into the Dimowacks(or Dims for short) the fighting is getting ugly.Paul Krugman has a nice column this weekwhich is excerpted below. Paul has a bit of abias (ask us sometime about the storiesregarding Paul's early disappointments withnot getting a post in the first Clintonadministration). The other side of theargument is that is serious business and weneed serious people. So let's find out whoyou are, what you stand for and what youmean to do. A question that is still veryunclear in our minds with regard to the Billaryand Barrack.

On the other hand we're starting to get to thepoint where positioning and posturing need tomove on to serious debates about thoseserious issues. David Brook's recent columnanalyzing how the key issues might play outis as good a piece of work as we've seen.Both are excerpted below but we stronglyurge you to read his whole column. But withour usual tongue-firmly-in-cheek approachwe'll leave the last word to Kiptin Kirk andMonty Python. But any second thoughts? After all Camelot is a pretty silly place.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QSaM5gQ9vo


19/33

Page 19 of 33

February 16, 2008

WRFest(Politics): Turning Tides and Choices

http://llinlithgow.com/PtW/2008/02/wrfest_16feb08politics_turning.html Looking back over the immediate prior posts there's a bunch of political stuff and a bunch of policy stuff,particularly economics. All in all not surprising given the time of year. Instead of waiting for the weekend there wasso much, and some of it key, that we broke it up as things went along and to call it out. In some ways the tide isnow racing in Obama's direction instead of Hillary strolling to her coronation. In the process we're now finding outwho she is and what she really wants to stand for. Contrawise we're finding out more about Obama's policypositions.

On the whole, and again we're not talking about normal folks here or even the best in your local neighborhood,these are all exceptional folks even though we talk about them like we were critiquing the local school board. Butthen again, that's the game. So, on the whole, the Hillary I'm seeing is pretty much the one I expected - brittle,hard, disciplined, hard-working, no vision and business as usual. More importantly our suspicions that she wantsto be President not because she has things to get done but because she just wants the job is scary. I don't mindambition as it takes some to get this job - but the shape of it is important.

On the other hand we're finding out more about Obama's policy positions, somewhat biased by what he think heneeds to win. Amazing how the economy is moving center stage too, isn't it ? In his case we think it's clear he'sgoing for the job more for what he can do with it than just for personal glory; if not he sure talks a good game. Thelast visionary communicator though was a lot less naive about the big bad world we live in. Barrack approachesthis as if it were all a community organizer's problem where patience, good communication skills, seeing the otheras people and turning the other cheek will eventually get you want can be gotten. The last President who had toreally go thru the big bad world learning experience to this extent brought us Afghanistan, the Iranian revolution(literally) and the foundations for much of the mess in the ME today. Bottomline it looks like Barrack could stand alot more seasoning.

So how much seasoning is enough - with Mitt doing the 2nd 'great thing' of his campaign and endorsing McCainJohn-boy is beginning to look like the Man. Though he's getting a bigger and bigger pushback on the far right.He's certainly not naive about international affairs nor inexperienced. His grasp of economics is still pretty unclear,even by the standards of political campaigns though.

This is beginning to shape up as a classic dilemma - or should we say trilemma? Republicans strong on foreignaffairs and national security, middlin fair on economics and, this is progress, o.k. on domestic policy. McCaincertainly has recognized the need for serious efforts in, for example, education. Contrawise the Dems are lookingmore thoughtful on Social Policy - particularly Healthcare, middlin fair but the other side of the coin on economicsand dangerously weak on foreign affairs and national security. We repeat dangerously weak.

On the character, integrity and leadership thing it's nearly impossible to comment on McCain. This is the sameguy who turned down repatriation from a North Vietnamese prison camp in the name of honor and he's lived hispublic career that way. Sorry to say Hillary's track record seems equally clear except the bottomline for herappears to be any expedient choice to win no matter who gets hurt or what principles get twisted and broken.Barrack is hard to judge - great vision, his notion that all sides have a public responsibility to bring their positionsinto the public square and defend them and adhere to the results we think is a bedrock American principle whichhe expresses as well as anyone. At the same time he hasn't been thru the fires - I'd be happier to break him andsee what we get back. My friends used to call this the 60 lb pack test. Take your girlfriend camping - if the real herwas somebody you could still get along with after a heavy pack and a steep trail well...

So there you have it - policy dilemmas and character dilemmas. Choice will depend on weights and evaluations.Not sure mine are in yet but let met trial balloon them:


20/33

Page 20 of 33

Policy Weights: Foreign Affairs (50-60%), Economics (30%), Social Policy (20%).

Leadership: Vision (20%), Communication (20%), Character(30%), Integrity (20%). (Charactermeans Values and not family life styles either but what the Romans meant by it).

Balance: Leadership (60%), Policy (40%). In other words I'd rather have somebody who'd standfor the right things, be smart enough to figure them out, adapt to circumstances and who's word isgood than somebody with a bunch of brilliant wonkograms that probably aren't worth the paperthey're printed on.

And your choices?

February 23, 2008

WRFest(Politics & Policies): Get What We Want or Need?Isn't that an interesting question, and it resonates with the central one from the prior post. Hopefully, at least insome readers the title calls to mind the Rolling Stones song and all the subconscious wrapping that goes with it.Below you'll find a bunch more excerpts this time on domestic politics and policy, somewhat dominated by theelections of course with the sudden reversal on the Democratic side. Fascinating how all of a sudden things havenarrowed done in a couple of ways. First to candidates. And second to some key issues - particularly theeconomy. While the primaries are still sorting out who we get to vote for it's time to start thinking about whatcriteria we're going to use to decide. Let's set that table with the following excerpt:

You Get the Government You Deserve I have one more item of bad news related to the mortgagemeltdown: It'll likely provide lots of ammunition for advocates of more government regulation, in the mortgageindustry and everywhere else. I'm afraid we're getting what we deserve. Three things have become clear as themortgage/real estate debacle has unfolded:

1) Left to their own devices, millions of people (and some pretty sophisticated lenders and investmentbanks) will do some profoundly stupid things;

2) The effects of those stupid things spill over to affect everyone else;

3) Lots of Americans expect their government to do something about it. (Let's not pretend that it's justDemocrats; the White House was pretty darn quick to roll out its bailout plan.) One of the fundamentaldebates within economics concerns the degree to which individuals make fully rational decisions. Dopeople always act in their own best interest? Or can government help prevent them from doing things thatthey'll later regret? This debate over "rational man" isn't just academic -- it lies at the heart of whatgovernment ought to do. Should government treat its citizens as informed adults or semi-rationaladolescents?

I've shared that article with several friends and most of them just read the excerpt without reading the wholearticle. But in fact it's more balanced and nuanced if you read the whole thing than the first paragraph would

appear. In particular it lays out the choices pretty clearly. We strongly suggest reading the whole thing because itprovides a great filter for thinking about the rest of these stories. It also links back to the question at the center ofthe last post - what kind of government do you want ? What kind of government do we need ? Can the two bereconciled.

Last week's WRFest summarized our views on a framework for evaluating the candidates along the axis ofForeign Policy, Economic Policy and Domestic Policy and it might be worthwhile to review it: WRFest16Feb08(Politics): Turning Tides and Choices .


21/33

Page 21 of 33

Finally, along the lines of wants and needs, let's let the Stones wrap up the table setting with the alternative tothinking it through (of course maintaining our tongue-in-cheek traditions as well :): SYMPATHY FOR THEDEVIL (slightly interpreted by Axel and Guns N Roses and supporting cast of assorted disturbed crazies)

February 27, 2008

Gettin Down to the Nxx-cuttin: Issues, Choice, Consequences and BS Quotientshttp://www.theonion.com/content/video/poll_bullshit_is_most_important

Well as we used to say out west, generally around branding time,we're getting down to the nxx-cutting. In the last few weeks we'vesorted the candidates down and out, Obama in particular hasmade a spectacular race of it and now appears to be pullingahead of Clinton a bit. Tonight's debate...well what do you think?In that format which favors hard-bitten sound bites it's hard to diga little deeper into the issues.

At this point personalities and character are still and will be vitaland important but we thought it was time to move on to the otherside of the house. So to set the stage for our serious inquiries letus turn to the Onion News Network and their in-depth analysis ofthe most important and critical issues facing us to day.

VIDEO WATCHING PAUSE

Now let us assume that you took advantage of that little break and actually watched the video. Kinda funny?Kinda insulting? Both? Neither? We confess we laughed because if you can't poke fun at yourself you've lost allperspective. You say ourselves - well yeah. That video may have been about the elections and candidates andthere sure is a lot of BS that always flies around in politics but then again it's our BS - it wouldn't be flying if wedidn't want to hear it would it!

Plus it is hard to dig into the issues and try and decide where you stand. For one thing it takes a lot of time andeffort and for another it's darn damm well expensive to build up some expertise and/or find somebody you trust. Inthe meantime we're just surrounded by a wild cacophony of soundbites designed to catch your attention but notnecessarily inform you. For example there's this thing running around about McCain saying we should stay in Iraqfor a 100 years. Well he did, being flip, but then went on to explain we shouldn't just cut and run. That wouldwaste all the sacrifices we've made, destabilize Iraq and likely lead to major instability and possibly collapse in theME with resultant major catastrophes for the world economy. Focusing on 1 sec. of flip answer instead of at leastputting it in the context of another min or so is pure BS IMHO. You get what you deserve at the end of the day.

On the other hand both of the Dimowhackic, as distinguished in our nomenclature from Democratic, candidateswere outdoing each other to claim the faster and more precipitous withdrawal plan. Well if I believed they'd justcut and run and I believed that the consequences would be as outlined it'd be hard to support them. But is thatreally their positions - are they that fundamentally irresponsible and ideological ? There you don't have to takeanything out of context because they've gone on and on. Yet behind the scenes their staffs area apparentlymaking serious efforts to find a phased, sensible withdrawal plan based on doing what's best for the Iraqis, theworld and the US. Meanwhile they're pandering to their baseness, ooooops, I mean base. You get what youdeserve.

So in the spirit of being a little more serious and deserving something a little better let's start exploring policyissues.


22/33


23/33

Page 23 of 33

Remember the Greatest Generation didn't have to be that great if a few farer-sighted policies had been followedearlier. Personally being fearful, lazy and cowardly I'm all in favor of tackling things before they metastasize fromcrisis into catastrophe. But that's just me. After the break you'll find some interesting readings on Security, theEconomy (& political maneuverings therein), including looming retirement and Medicare problems, energy andmore bad tradeoff choice-making and education. There is one particularly interesting story on Obama's truth-telling to his black brethren about the need to start bootstrapping themselves - a small indication that somebodysomewhere is willing to start facing reality.

There are actually several interesting ones, including an excerpt from Tow Sowell on the history of the Rust Belt'seconomic problems and how self-inflicted they were and are by sustained inabilities to face reality combined withpoliticians willingness to substitute wrong-headed slogans for correct analysis. But the two most interesting, whichtie together all these others, are one on the lost opportunity in the late '90s after Clinton already had a failing/failedpresidency when he and Newt almost did the right thing. You know the part about work on your problems beforethey become crisis. As we said earlier by all means let's judge Hillary by their experiences.

But here's the excerpt for the one story that frames them all, one story to rule them and in the blindness ruin them:

Can Broken Washington Be Fixed? The war. Healthcare. Airline delays. Americans are fedup with inaction--and demanding change. It's the constant refrain from the presidentialcandidates, political scientists, and, most important of all, everyday Americans: Washington isbroken. Rancorous partisanship has nearly paralyzed the government. The nation's leaders havelost touch with the people. Above all, it's time for a change. Historians and pollsters say thezeitgeist is clear. Americans are more frustrated with their government today than they have beenin a long time, even more so than during the Watergate scandal. And those negative feelingshave become the subtext of the 2008 presidential race. "Distrust of politicians and politics are partof American culture," says Princeton historian Julian Zelizer. "But the distrust is getting worse."With good reason. The government can't seem to solve any of its major problems, from reformingSocial Security to illegal immigration. The Democrats and Republicans are increasingly relying ontheir base voters and aren't reaching out to anyone else, making compromise nearly impossible.Corruption scandals have increased public cynicism. The 24-hour news cycle emphasizes conflictand wrongdoing more than ever. The Iraq war has deepened the nation's anxiety. President Bushand Congress endure record-low approval ratings. In fact, 7 out of 10 Americans now say thecountry is headed in the wrong direction. The need for change is such a dominant theme that allthe main presidential contenders are calling for an end to business as usual.http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2007/10/19/can-washington-be-fixed.html

Just remember though that just as in Tolkien's great work the choice to do the stupid thing wasn'timposed but eagerly volunteered for. Politicians tell us what we want to hear, not what we need and so,at the end of the day, we get what we ask for and deserve. Maestro a l ittle appropriate music please.

March 12, 2008

WRFest(US Politics): She's Back....

http://llinlithgow.com/PtW/2008/03/wrfest_9mar08us_politics_shes.html

Well Hillary clawed back from the apparent abyss of 11 Obama victories in a row last week with victories in Ohioand Texas. Unfortunately she's not ahead in popular votes or the delegate count. So despite staying alive in thiselection, barely, she's not managed to establish a resounding recovery. If anything the Democrats areestablishing themselves, yet again, as opening the door wide for a Republican return to power. Yet, though thereare substantive differences among the three candidates they all converge more on the center in this campaignthan at any time in several. In fact when you did thru the positions a bit Barrack and Hillary's positions are nearlyidentical. The primary differences being in tone & vision and in mechanism. Hillary's still got that old-time religionof the '60s New Liberalism, big government is THE answer. And the taxes and bureaucracies that go with it.


24/33

Page 24 of 33

Obama seems to share her policy goals but is much more open to alternative mechanisms, recognizes the goodthat market-oriented policies do and is much less doctrinaire. A bit of progress IMHO.

This interesting election will continue to play out for some time. I'm just waiting for Obama to offer her the VP slot.One has to take the unsubtle hints both she and Bill dropped as both a maneuver and a major sign of weakness.One thing that's given credit for her recovery, other than an SNL appearance, is her appeal to populism and anti-trade rhetoric. Another is her "3 A.M. Phone Call". Given that the Clintons (taking her at her word that she was amajor influence on policy during her husband's administration) were largely responsible for the deterioration of USforeign policy and national security in the '90s that strikes me as amusing at best. And more accuratelydisingenuous and deceptive.

The book to read is Halberstam's War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton, and the Generals . In it you'll find aforeign policy and national security policy suffering from willful neglect on the grounds that we didn't have to worryabout all that anymore. The other major Clinto proactive policy initiative was the Healthcare shambles, with aprogram who's scope, bureaucratic encumbrances, and size resemble her current proposals by all means let herclaim that experience. Let's hold the referendum on Bill's presidency that never got held. And the resultingpostponement until now of the serious re-construction of things like Social Security, Healthcare, Medicare, etc.etc. By all means let's judge her on her experience ! :)

March 24, 2008

WRFest(Politics): Gimme that Ol Time Religion?http://llinlithgow.com/PtW/2008/03/wrfest_23mar08politics_gimme_t.html

Well the slugfest continues and gets pretty ugly but Barrack andBillary continue to be neck and neck. And it looks like it'll go on thruthe Convention. Which, contrary to the recieved wisdom, isn'tnecessarily all a bad thing. First off it's not really giving McCain thatbig a leg up particularly since he's not running. In fact instead oflying low and doing prep work now would be a great time for himget a multi-month jump on the real campaign by coming out withserious policy proposals on education, healthcare and theeconomy. C'est la guerre. Second off we could be finding out bothwhat the two Dimowhackic candidates stand for and what theirpolicies might be. UNFORTUNATELY what we're getting is anincreasingly ugly bar fight by two unskilled fighters who also thinkgetting down in the mud is the way to go. Actually it's not thatbad...yet.

Needless to say the cartoon at right - from a sample of 15-20 of thethings, pretty well summarizes the overall impression AND the levelthis is being discussed at. Except on Fox News of course where thedescent into pre-Jurassic Darwinian swamps is setting new lows. Now how many people actually listened toObama's speech? I consider it one of the great political speeches of our generation except for the minor detail

that nobody appears to be paying attention. First off he refused to back away from his years long association withthe Rev. bigmouth. Which if nothing else shows strong character. Second off he completely disavowed the Rev'sstatements while acknowledging their long-standing friendship. Taken all together that spells real character in mybook.

But third, most importantly and completely ignored, the bulk and heart of the speech was as balanced, honest,look-em-in-the-eye look at Racism in this country as I've read. Now to be fair here you need to understand I'm avery biased and bigoted person and highly discriminatory to boot. I don't care what your race, religion or politicsnor if you're 3' tall with green spots and purple fronds. What I do care about is are you competent, honest, keep


25/33

Page 25 of 33

your word and deliver a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. So please bear in mind that I'm a victim of my terriblechildhood upbringing out in Cowboy Country. Though not one myself.

Racism has been the not so secret DLS of this country since its' founding with the original Constitutionalcompromise being all that allowed the nation to be formed. It grew increasingly ugly in the early 1800s until theSoutherners who were loosing the battle snuck thru a bunch of legal and regulatory reforms that made slaverylegal in all states under any conditions. Don't let anybody kid you - the South caused the Civil War because theywere loosing the economic one. After loosing the real war though they snuck back in the backdoor with the JimCrow laws after Lincoln's assassination. Which was the law of the land and cultural practice until the Civil Rightslegislation of the '60s. Who's passage was both an ornament of the Democratic party and it's undoing in the Southas well as an underpinning of the Reagan coalition. But we've still made enormous strides.

What Obama did was recognize, describe and acknowledge the legitimate fears, grievances and injustices thatblacks faced and still face as well as those that whites suffered as we tried to social engineer our way out of themess we'd created. Even better he spent as much time in his speech calling our Black compatriots to begin totake responsibility for themselves as he did explaining the historical reasons behind their anger. He spent equaltime looking at the feelings and pressures on the white population and the growing socio-economic pressures onthem that make the bulk of the middle class unsure of its' security and the future of their children.

The saying used to be "if we put a man on the moon why can't we cure poverty and racism?". The answer isbecause the first was a simple engineering problem. And simple answers haven't worked for more complex socialissues. If you discriminate against someone because they aren't qualified for a job is that discrimination? But ifyou use a position of authority and power to keep that person from getting a job they can qualify for is it not? Whatabout if you use influence to keep that person from getting the qualifications and his children as well?What Obama did was set the table for the first serious discussion we could have on race, poverty and newapproaches we've had in over forty years. Unfortunately that's being lost with all the ugliness and lack of attention.In no commentary, editorial or other forum have I seen anyone acknowledge the balance, fairness and justice ofthat speech. Nor suggest that we build on it.

Yet keeping people down is not only unjust but it's inefficient and ineffective. It costs in terms of crime,deterioration of our cities, drugs and violence and unnecessary healthcare. It also costs us in terms of lostopportunities. When we create decent jobs for people who don't have them we increase the wealth of us all. InChina, India and Africa they call that development. So what's served by not taking Obama's speech as a starting

point and trying to figure out how to really address these problems.

You'll find the usual spate of excerpts below, one of which from Eastern Hemisphere takes you to someinteresting comments by a black man AND a complete video. You'll also find some pointers to some of Lincoln'smost important speeches which turn out to be historically informative and more relevant today than they shouldbe.

April 15, 2008

Campaigns, Candidates & Characteristics: Slings and Arrows, Oh My !http://llinlithgow.com/PtW/2008/04/campaigns_candidates_character.html

This has been an interesting and unusual campaign which has NOT, repeat, not gone on too long IMHO. Thething about a long-drawn-out, bruising, tiring and painful campaign is that it's still nothing like a year, or probablyeven a month, in the office. We're in the process of letting everybody cowboy up and boy, are things we're findingout interesting. So we'll take a quick pass at framing it and after the break you'll find a whole bunch of readings foryour skimming pleasure.

While I haven't come to any conclusions as yet I do have certain leanings, which change from time-to-time but nooftener than weekly, so far. Let me share some of my "findings" with you and base them on the chart at right. Toset the table, no matter what else you think is going on, we need to remember a couple of critical things. First off


26/33

Page 26 of 33

these are all bright, talented, hard-working people who do seem to have the best interests of the country at heart.We'd all like Lincoln to be running but we not only don't have that choice but he sure lost a lot before the one thatreally counted.

My bottomlines, such as they are, are this. Barry is the candidate I'd like to vote for because my assessments tellme we need a new, centrist, 3rd way forward to cope with all the huge structural changes coming. McCain is thecandidate I'm likely to vote for because being President requires being able to ride the tiger, have a broadunderstanding of foreign affairs and national security, economics and social policy. As for Hillary she's a finesenator but shares her husband's character flaws of being willing to win at almost any cost and putting her owninterests ahead of the balance of broader interests. Those quiksums are based on the chart, watching the polls foryears and the candidates as well.

It's a busy little chart and let's hope we have a chance to take it apart and dig into sometime but the suggestionhere is at least two fold, well actually three, if you'd like to understand politics and policy in this day and age. Firstoff the electorate has always been centrist though that moves over time. This time moreso than ever asdissatisfaction with the parties, politicians and policies is reaching justified terminal dissatisfaction. Mostlybecause the two parties have been retreating to their own bases and pursuing more ideological agendas. The endresult of that is a vast gap between where the parties are at, where most of us are at and the infamous 50% + .01strategy.

On the other hand there are certain things we need to survive and prosper in the world: a strong national defensebecause it's an ugly place and a well-executed foreign policy that respects all legitimate and sincere players andworks to suppress the ill-intended. That's been sound national policy since the days of the Sumerian Empire. Nextis a sound and balanced economic policy were we don't think stuff grows for free but also recognized gov't is anecessary framework for free markets. Lo and behold instead of voodoo economics vs tax & spend 'til wecollapse everybody's converged on that more than we have collectively in 40-50 years. Will miracles never cease


27/33

Page 27 of 33

? Finally we don't want to let our citizens freeze in the dark while they're dying of preventable diseases. Moreoverthe better education the population and the more people playing in the game as contributors, setting aside suchcrass and mundane issues as ethics or morality, the better off we all are. It's called a non-zero sum game orbetter...focus on growing the pie first and then slicing it. A smaller share of a much bigger pie is better than theother way around.

UPDATE: the Economist just published a poll of voters opinions about the candidates capacities to managecritical issues. Oddly enough the structure of issues and the evaluation bears some passing resemblances tomine; which is either very scary or very encouraging :) !

So my quiktake is the Barry's the guy who gets the 3rd way forward the best, at least in his speeches. And evenwhen he's talking about trade and protectionism he also talks about free markets, innovation and new jobs andcompeting hardly but fairly. You don't even have to listen particularly closely - just listen a bit. On the other handhis voting record is impecably pure liberal and so far he's at 500K feet. Hard to say what happens when and if hisfeet meet the ground. Worse, he seems to think that the things that worked for a community organizer will workwith the Iran kleptoclergy. Johnboy's got the national security thing down pretty well and has had some suprisinglyinnovative proposals on education and healthcare that cause his fellow Rep. to gnash their teeth. And hiseconomic views to date have actually been pretty decent. We'll give him a buy on the experience, integrity andcharacter/values checks at least for now.

Billary on the other hand is running on her experience. Well, o.k. what experience ? Her web site is the mostcomplete, well-organized and thought out on policy issues will a lot of decent stuff that needs some quibbling butain't bad. And oddly ain't that far off Barry or Johnboy. But her campaign has been one management andleadership failure and exemplar of bad organization after the other while Barry's run a superb one. As for otherleadership well she really wasn't in charge of anything during the '90s - oh, oh yea. Healthcare - which was thegreat glowing opportunity and first and only major initiative of her husband's entire time in office. Guess what -D.P. Moynihan (one of our greatest public servants) had a slightly different proposal that could have been passedbut she stomped him bad. Not stopped - stomped. Her way, her credit or the highway. As road kill. On the foreignpolicy front well since ABC took down Path to 911, which follows the commission report very closely that little testcase is gone. But try Slate's comic book version for an assessment [Slate's 9/11 Report ]. Or for a broaderoverview of Clintonian foreign and defense policy try War in a Time of Peace by David Halberstam. If Hillary'srunning on that experience base somebody ought to check it out.

Ironically and amusingly nobody's pointed out that the last presidential candidates who were eloquent, intellectual,with good educations and limited experience were folks like JFK and WJC. And we wonder if being mediocre atgovernor of Arkansas was sufficient qualification. So like we said Hillary might be a better Senator where hermastery of detail and policy wonkdom are real strengths.

But come full circle. I've already won this election. First off I've got clear preferences but none of these are badchoices - not perfect or Lincolnesque of course (hmm another loser without experience in senior positions).Second when you look at the chart for the first time in what, ~ 40 years we're coming back to the moderate andworkable middle. And third, compared to say the Europeans are, either in terms of their typical positions orchallenges facing them we're in great shape. Or compared to where we've been - like I said all the candidates arecloser to the right position on my little policy chart spectrum than not.But you make up your own mind. What should those policies be? Where are the candidates? Can the bridge yourgaps - have they the will, character, leadership to find that 3rd way forward?


28/33

Page 28 of 33

Candidate Comps on the IssuesA quick update I just found from the Economist with anexcellent poll on how voters perceive the candidates on themajor issues. Oddly it seems to match up reasonably well with

my take. Here's the text:HILLARY CLINTON and Barack Obama get anotherchance to explain their policies on the big issues in atelevised debate from Philadelphia on WednesdayApril 16th. Who is better placed to beat John McCainin the election? In a head-to-head contest on the bigissues, according to The Economist 's weekly poll,voters appear to be aligned most closely with MrMcCain on law and order, taxes and trade. Mrs Clintoncomes top on the budget and health care. Mr Obamacomes second on most issues, impressing only on fuelprices. ! "# $

"" " " " % & '())*+,-.

April 18, 2008

Now We've Got a Horse Race: Debating the Debates & 60lb Pack Testshttp://llinlithgow.com/PtW/2008/04/now_weve_got_a_horse_race_deba.html

Well, well, well....apparently the recent debate is more important for the questions asked than for the candidatesand/or real issues. Which means, as they say out West, we're gettin' down to the nut-cuttin' (ask a friend who'sranched for an explanation...this is a family blog). Actually there's a lot more going on and we're starting to reallysee the real people behind the personas. IOHO there's three things one ought to bear in mind whencontemplating all this agita: 1) the 60-lb pack test, 2) how people see things (quick answer they don't they seewhat they want) and 3) the Centricities of this campaign (not eccentricities mind you but they're plenty of thosetoo).

1) 60lb Pack Test - when the Special Forces is evaluating candidates for selection they send them into agrueling, sustained and exhausting testing process designed to break them down and find out if they can performunder pressures. Part of this of course is that nothing else but combat is that stressful. What they're really lookingfor, after they've run somebody in the ground, froze off their assess, starved them, made them work to exhaustionis somebody who's still decisive, clear-headed, able to make the most serious decisions under the worstconditions and continues to support their team ahead of themselves. Gee it almost sounds as if we should run thecandidates thru...oh I forgot...we are. It's called primaries. A friend of mine had an old-fashioned suggestion fordeciding to get married...put a 60lb pack on the other and spend a week or so hiking in the high mountains. If yougot along then you'd probably weather the normal run of storms. Well we're seeing the 60lb pack test applied tothe candidates and the results aren't pretty. Both Billary and Barry are getting testy and punchdrunk it wouldseem.

2) See What You Want - there's been a firestorm of controversy over the questions as being too hostile, notissued-centered enough, etc. etc. Nonsense - challenging Barry on his attitudes is exactly the point. We electpeople who we think can to their best to represent both our interests and the overall, balanced interests of thenation as a whole. And don't kid yourself - people vote their own balance between self and broad interest when itgets down to. The whole bitter thing, if you dig into, is a fair test. Plus he's skated thru so far without any seriouschallenges. Interesting to see how he reacts. And so far he doesn't seem to be doing particularly well. I wellremember supporting Bradley in his first campaign and then giving up as the fabled warrior retreated toShibboleths and Special Interests as he scrambled for traction. Sad. Push come to shove the great expositor


29/33

Page 29 of 33

seems to be doing the same thing. But you're either for 'im or agin 'im on this. Nicholas Kristoff has a greatcolumn on how different people look at the same

US Presidential Election 2008 (Early Days): Candidates, Positions, Policies and Consequences

Documents

Transcript of US Presidential Election 2008 (Early Days): Candidates, Positions, Policies and Consequences