Common Sense and the Minnesota Recount

Take a minute to peruse this article from the Minnesota Public Radio website, detailing some of the challenged ballots up for recount in the Minnesota Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken.  It is interesting to see the actual photographs of a sample of challenged ballots as well as the reasons for the challenge.  At first I thought it might be fun to play along.  It was not.  This is not because there is any great difficulty in figuring out voter intent (or deciding when voter intent cannot be determined).  There is not. My problem is with the discrepancy between how simple this should be and how complex it will be.

The actual recount is going to be long, expensive, and arduous.  We know this because such characteristics are the hallmark of all things political in America.  Our culture has reached the point where the slightest shadow of doubt serves as plausible deniability.  We are so worried about technicality, and its litigious implications, that we fail to acknowledge that common sense can ever be the answer.  A quick glance at some of the ballots in question is enough to deem their challenge frivolous.  Common sense in this process is fast, cheap, and simple.  

I understand that there is much at stake in the outcome of this election, and that the ballots on MPR are only a selected sample, but the process should really not be that difficult.  Some of the ballots have clear intent, others do not.  I submit that two judges, whose interest lies with the electoral process and not the outcome, should go through challenged ballots.  If there is legitimate disagreement in intent, or if intent is agreeably impossible to determine, the vote is thrown out.  If the judges concur, the vote is counted thusly.

The fact that the outcome is vital does not lead automatically to the conclusion that the recount has to be immensely complicated.  Perhaps I am wrong, but I don’t think there is legitimate dispute to any of the ballots posted here. Some of them should be thrown out because of our limits to judging intent, but most are clear to any reasonable, unbiased eye.  Simple right?  Now watch how difficult politics can make things…

Spit from the Horse’s Mouth – Paulson Editorializes Himself

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson wrote an article for todays New York Times Op/Ed page.  Topic: Henry Paulson.  In efforts for full disclosure, the article, entitled Fighting the Financial Crisis, One Challenge at a Time, was actually an account of where we stand a few short months after the announcement of the crisis.  As Secretary Paulson was the one who declared the crisis, asked for the money, and has discretion over its usage, he was, for all intents and purposes, editorializing himself.  

So where do we stand?  It isn’t the easiest question to answer, as we can garner from Paulson’s attempt.  The truth is, hiding behind assumptions and hopeful declarations, that we really don’t know.  ”There is no playbook for responding to turmoil we have never faced,” Paulson writes.  There is no real meeting of the minds, no consensus.  Even the facts are in doubt, as information delays and lagging effects demand.  The decision not to use the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to offer any troubled asset relief underscores the problem.  Less than one month after we were told that troubled asset relief was the one and only thing that could save our economy, we are being told that there are better ideas.

It seems a lot like trial and error.  And this may be the only technique because the one common ground for all economists is that we have never seen anything like this.  Even the Great Depression did not share the scale of this financial crisis.  The good news is that we are able to analyze data more quickly and efficiently than ever before (mostly due to the facility of the exchange of information).  Thus, we can react to our trials and errors faster than ever before.  But the positive news ends there, because the costs of our trials and errors is more expensive than ever.  And money isn’t quite as cheap as it once was.

I do not envy Mr. Paulson or his staff (especially Neel Kashkari).  They face an uphill battle, equipped with theories and techniques that helped cause the problem, and answering to an angry population with the only rhetoric they know, a transparent mask of the fact that they simply don’t know.  That money is the solution to monetary problems would be a dubious claim if our officials had any other effective tools at their disposal.  It seems, however, that we will continue to throw good money after bad, and hope something works.  Sooner or later, however, we are going to have to fix the problem.  Mr. Paulson, in his optimism, will not be around to guide that phase, but he will certainly be around to editorialize it.  We’ll see if he maintains his cheery confidence once his name isn’t attached so conspicuously to the crisis.

A Quick Financial Crisis Update

 

When Secretary Paulson announced the need for a massive 700 billion dollar bailout of the financial sector, it seemed like an immense amount of money.  He said that the stability of the US financial institutions were at stake.  The taxpayers trust, the treasure of our country, was offered as the stopgap.  Congress passed legislation, pundits debated, and US citizens, on the advice of the “experts” (the same, for lack of alternatives with requisite experience, who facilitated the onslaught of the crisis), crossed their fingers and watched as the transfer of wealth began.

$700,000,000,000 is a large amount of money, but it is less than one fifth of an even larger number, $3,800,000,000,000.  (Okay, AverageTodd, but what is the importance of that observation?)  According to CNBC the tab for the current financial crisis is now $3.8 trillion (and growing).  We haven’t spent, printed, or borrowed all of that money yet, but more and more is drafting out the door as we speak.  

Big numbers and large scales have become increasingly meaningless to the average person.  We hear these numbers thrown around all the time.  It is difficult, however, to wrap our brains around millions, billions, and trillions.  We work with averages, ratios, and smaller numbers much better.  

Just for fun, let’s play some numbers games…

How much is 3.8 trillion?

The capacity of Fenway Park is listed at 36,108 people.  You would have to fill the stadium 105 million times to reach total attendance of 3.8 trillion people.

The weight of any denomination of US paper currency is 1 gram. The weight of $3.8 trillion, in one dollar bills, is 8,377,572,797 pounds.  

The current US population, as estimated by the Census Bureau, is approximately 305 million persons.  If we all paid an equal share of the cost, we would each write a check for $12,459.02. 

Federal Minimum Wage is currently $6.55 per hour.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 144,958,000 employed persons over the age of 16 in the United States.  If all employed persons worked at this wage (full time), it would take 2 years to cover the bailout tab.  

Growing each day at an alarming rate, the approximate cost to US taxpayers for the Iraq War (11/17/08) is over $600 billion.  If operations ended today, we could fund six more of these conflicts, with money left over, for the same price as our financial rescue.

Copy paper has a thickness of about .1 millimeters.  3.8 trillion sheets would stack from the surface of the earth to the surface of the moon.

Bailout Pie in our Face

The Washington Post is reporting that, although we have committed over $290 billion of the original $700 billion bailout, we have not begun serious implementation of a system of oversight.  

Barney Frank is claiming that, because the nature of the giant rescue package has changed, the need for oversight is not as pressing as it once appeared.  This line of reasoning is shocking.  The fact that the bailout has changed its direction since its passage means that the massive corrections have occurred without congressional approval.  We have shifted focus from the original intent, purchasing troubled assets, to purchasing equity and injecting capital directly into companies.  (We may not purchase a single “troubled asset” at this point according to Secretary Paulson)  This could be a vast improvement from the bill that passed, as seems to be general consensus, but it should be troubling that oversight is losing as a result.  

The people making the decisions are not infallible, in fact they are some of the same who helped cause, or at least allowed, the crisis in the first case.  And I seem to recall being told by the Bush Administration and Congress that the original bailout plan was urgent and necessary to avoid collapse.  Now it has taken on a different look, a life of its own.  I submit that this is exactly why we need oversight, more than ever.  $700 billion of taxpayer money will be dispersed to thousands of places to save an economy so complex that no one fully understands.  We need to be certain that we are spending this enormous amount of our treasure wisely.  Simply telling us, with every change to the original plan, “This is urgent and absolutely necessary,” is not enough.  This is our money, our investment, and we were guaranteed oversight, regulation, and accountability.  

Also disturbing is that lobbyists, apparently predicting a boon from this massive transfer of money, have begun lining up for their slice of the pie before they even have a client.  Whether that is just how the system works or not, it is appalling.  

From the New York Times, Thursday, November 13 2008

Some lobbyists, Mr. Mason told The Times, had called him even though they did not have any clients looking to get into the program or worried about its restrictions. They were merely seeking intelligence on which industries would be deemed eligible for assistance. He suspects they were representing hedge funds that wanted to trade on that information.

The Times article addresses the rush from lobbyists for business and industry to find ways to get a piece of the bailout pie. 

We just came off an election in which all sides called for oversight, transparency, and curbing of lobbyist influence.  Why should the government use even one taxpayer dollar without a public disclosure and explanation?  If the failure of oversight was a part of the cause of the problem, then the success of oversight has to be part of the solution.  I want to be able to read about every transaction immediately as it occurs.  We have the technology to make that happen.  It would not be difficult or expensive.  We were told that such things would be a priority.  The next dollar spent should be to provide the public assurance that we will not be swindled.  We are sick of talk, especially the kind that substitutes resolute insistence for actual substance.

American Politics and Argumentative Fallacy

Sometimes I wonder if our entire political system is based on argumentative fallacy.  This is a very sad prospect to someone who prizes logic.  Is it a hasty generalization (irony intended)?  Perhaps, however, this election cycle, I too often found myself referencing the ideas of Ad Hominem, Ad Populum, straw man, and moral equivalence arguments.  These are not fact-checkable, but they are easily as damaging as the proliferation of patently false information.  

In fact, argumentative fallacy can be significantly more damaging to a society than misinformation.  It makes the facts irrelevant and the truth impossible to determine.  In the absence of logic, our decision making abilities vanish.  I have many problems with the media and the production and distribution of information in America.  Upon further reflection, however, I believe that societal rejection of logical argument is a broader problem than Fox News or MSNBC. 

Think about the 2008 Presidential election and read this collection of common logical argumentative fallacies.  How many of them do you recognize from the election cycle?  I can think of concrete evidence of each and every example discussed therein.  The sources of these fallacies include mainstream media, pundits, the campaigns and their candidates, and the average Joe on the street.  It is pandemic throughout our system, and it is tacitly, perhaps unknowingly, accepted by society.

FactCheck, and other sites like it, can be very helpful when sifting through the information of a campaign.  Factual accuracy, however, is only half the game.  You get one vote in an election.  Theoretically, people use facts in an election to help draw a single logical conclusion.  If they do not process these facts logically, the conclusion will be flawed.  

It is bad enough that practicality, in our two-party system, necessitates an “either/or” conclusion.  We should at least mitigate that problem by logically arriving at our decisions.  

 

Feel free to share ideas or examples of logical fallacy from the election in the comments section below.

On Veterans Day

When I think of Joe the Soldier…

I remember when my parents took me to see the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C.  I was very young and the Memorial was one stop of many as we took in as much as we could on our brief visit.  We toured the FBI building, the White House, the Capitol Building, and the major monuments, museums, and memorials.  It wasn’t Disney World, but I had a good time.  I remember being upset that we couldn’t climb the Washington Monument because of construction and the such, but then we hit the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and I scored some uncut $2 bills.  I liked D.C., it was clean (I clearly spent most of my time in touristy spaces), it was grand in scale, and it felt important.  With all that I experienced on the trip, however, seven year old AverageTodd’s most vivid memory, the video I can still see when I close my eyes, is of the Vietnam Memorial.  

It was not just the impressive span of the black wall, the uncountable number of names on its facade, or the fact that I was at the spot from the Time-Life commercial (Who won the war, daddy?), that I recall.  What I remember most dynamically were the people at the Memorial.  Approaching the wall felt like entering a bubble.  The wind died down and the silence was deafening.  Some people were stoically searching, others in quiet contemplation.  People (strangers?) were embracing and I watched my mothers eyes glass over and then leak.  The emotion was inescapable.  I did not understand fully what I was witnessing but I certainly grasped the gravity.  I asked the questions of a young boy.  Did you know these people?  How many people died?  Why were we fighting?  I’m sure I got answers, but it was the visceral reaction to the visual spectacle that I remember to this day.  That is what I think about on Veterans day.  Crying friends, widows, sacrifice, lives lost. I think about that wall, the real power of that symbol, and I think about the people, the Veterans.  

My generation has a variable view of Veterans Day.  I asked my friend Eric Hartman what he thought of, the images that came to mind, when he thought about Veterans Day.  His mental picture is always of the servicemen and women of World War II.  But he is also quick to add that he doesn’t honor Veterans differently based upon the conflict in which they served, their branch of service, or the existence or extent of their injuries.  I think this is important to note because sometimes I fear that we do differentiate between such things.  But Veterans Day is about service and sacrifice of individuals, indifferent to the politics of conflict.  Vets didn’t choose their conflict, they followed orders.  Those serving now are risking the same life that their grandfathers risked.  The stakes are no different.  

Everyone is going to conjure something different on Veterans Day, separate images, icons, thoughts.  The commonality should be that we honor the people who have kept us safe, secure, and free.  We should honor them equally and earnestly.  And Veterans Day should remind us that these people did/do not sacrifice one day each year, they deserve a constant honorarium.  Every day someone cries at that big black wall in D.C.  Every day.

Thanks to all who have worn the uniform.  

What do you think of on Veterans Day?

Winners and Losers From This Election Cycle

Fresh Faces, Old Faithfuls, First Looks, and Last Hurrahs Part I

 

When Senator Obama reached the 270 electoral vote threshold last Tuesday, he was announced as the President Elect of the United States of America.  Senator McCain conceded soon after, and the most tangible winner and loser were defined.  They were not, however, the only winners and losers of this election cycle.  New faces burst on the political scene, some to great acceptance and others just for their fifteen minutes.  The following is the first installment…

 

Winner: Robert Gibbs: Gibbs’ high point, prior to being appointed White House Press Secretary in the days after the election, was when he took on Sean Hannity after the Second Presidential Debate.  Like Obama, Gibbs has a calm demeanor, vast intelligence, a certain eloquence and fact-based pragmatism.  He has shown the ability to play on any field, under any rules.  He will be an excellent public facade for the Obama White House.

Winner: Sarah Palin: She is certainly a winner from the standpoint that, coming from relative obscurity, she has become a household name.  Her brand is the hottest thing in the Republican Party right now.  A recent Rasmussen poll suggests that 91% of Republicans have a favorable view of the Alaska Governor and 64% suggest she is their current top of the ticket choice for 2012.  

Loser: Fox News, Roger Ailes:  The unprecedented access that Fox News had under a Bush Administration has come to an end.  During the election, while Governor Palin was refusing to talk to the media, Fox News kept scoring interviews with the Republican ticket.  Fox News was responsible for the salience of issues like Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, and (believe it or not) the focus on media criticism.  Without a candidate to back or secret talking point memos from the White House, they will find themselves running short on reporting and long on sensationalism.  Okay, so that’s nothing new.

Loser: Rick Davis, Steve Schmidt & Co.: Don’t cry to hard for these guys, or any of McCain’s chief strategists.  They will all be fine, find work, and greatly increase their wealth.  For the moment, however, they are responsible for running perhaps the worst campaign in Presidential history.  It didn’t help that their counterparts ran the best campaign in history, or that they faced such a strong Bush rejection headwind.  But this campaign was continually off base in its projections, decisions and estimates.  The campaign flailed from one issue to the next, denying what polls and common sense told us were the  most important issue to voters.  They seemed to throw everything they could at the Obama Camp, hoping something would eventually stick.  It didn’t.  In the end, you pandered to the base, got their votes, and lost the election convincingly.  

Loser: Ralph Nader: It appears that his buzz is gone.  This photograph is telling.  I don’t think this is a general rejection of Mr. Nader, or of alternatives to the Republicans and Democrats.  What happened here is just that the messengers time seems to have passed.  This was a last political gasp.  This is the guy that made seat belts standard in cars.  I hope he continues his consumer advocacy.  He has done phenomenal work in that arena.

Loser: Two Party System: What options did the fiscally conservative, socially progressive folks have?  It seems to me that this group represents a large portion of the electorate.  The breaking of ranks by influential Republicans like Colin Powell, David Brooks, and Andrew Sullivan begs the question, where will they fit in in the future.  There is a mutual rejection between intellectual conservatives and an increasingly anti-intellectual Republican Party.  This is a very complicated issue but this may be the beginning of the end for a two party system in a country with a plurality of beliefs.

Winner: Maverick Republicans: Not McCain, I refer to the real mavericks, under the true definition.  The Republicans who refused to be branded as such, and jumped ship to vote for Barack Obama, increased their credibility immensely.  They didn’t change their minds, they didn’t stab their party in the back, they made a choice based on the facts presented to them.  They made a decision independent of the party line.  This type of action is far too rare in politics, where running with the herd as seen as the norm and often rewarded.  I’d love to see more of this, coming from all directions.   

Winner: Newt Gingrich:  This is a very smart individual.  He seemed to sense weakness and kept his hands off this election for the most part.  He keeps writing books, appearing on television, and speaking to anyone who will listen.  But he did not attach his name to the McCain-Palin ticket as much as he was simply against Obama.  Mr. Gingrich is one of the most politically shrewd players in America.  I believe his days of running for office are over but i think he will play a major role as the man behind the curtain in 2016 and get a sweet appointment out of the deal.

Loser: Tucker Bounds: The newest “Tucker” came on the scene, got his time, and he is done.  I try to avoid ad hominem attacks but this guy is a total clown.  It is disingenuous to claim that everything your candidate does is perfect in motive and execution, while the opponent has never done anything well.  He was in the bubble this election.  He even tried to make Colin Powell’s endorsement of Obama into a negative for his opponent.  Things are not so black and white, Tucker.  You have no credibility.

Winner: The People of the United States of America:  We elected a non-white President of the United States.  This is a major accomplishment.  Our country, as diverse as any in the world, was built on the backs of slaves.  We have an appalling record when it comes to equality and race relations and, though we preach opportunity, this is a proud proof that our ideals can eventually match our actions.  

Winner: International Relations:  The way the world views America is important for national security, world economy, and human rights.  Our policy for the past eight years has been arrogant, divisive, and deceptive.  The world will benefit from an open-minded president, willing to listen and debate.  Obama has the opportunity to start over and repair strained international relations.  If we can mend our status in the world, we may be able to facilitate conversations between factions and warring parties worldwide.  The world is better off with an honest, open, intelligent, pragmatic United States.

There are many more to come.  Feel free to comment and offer your winners and losers.

Waiting in Line to Vote

Some of the things I heard while standing in line at my polling place in West Philadelphia this morning…  

 

“We’re making history today, boy!”

“Oh my Lord, you’re all grown up, I haven’t seen you in, what, 15 years!”

“Don’t let them turn you away.  You have the right to cast a provisional ballot.”

“He’s said he ain’t.  He can’t.  Said he has a warrant and there’s gonna be cops there.”

“I’m still recovering from my Phillies hangover.  Where’s the party tonight?”

“It stopped working altogether at #XXXX.  It was having problems from #XXXY to #XXXZ.”

“Call him.  Get his ass up.  Tell him I said so.  He’s going to vote.”

“Ain’t no stopping us now.  We’re on the move.”

 

I, personally, had fun standing in line.  I waited for about 60 minutes to cast my ballot.  That was 60 minutes of people watching and light chat.  It struck me as a particularly neighborly experience.  Several old friends were catching up.  People were generally excited.  I didn’t hear one complaint about the length of the line.  I think people in my neighborhood felt proud today, felt good about themselves.  That’s a wonderful thing to be a part of.  It was a phenomenally positive energy.

‘Twas the Night Before…

We stand at the precipice of history.  The citizens of the United States of America are poised to elect the first non-white President of our country.  This is an amazing accomplishment considering both the historical and current state of racism in the US, and its conspicuousness at the highest levels of our political and societal hierarchy.  Racism is still a major issue in this country, whether we like it or not, and it needs to be discussed.  This is one of those rare times when we can pat ourselves on the collective back for an accomplishment on a racial issue.  Let’s think about this.  Let’s revel in it for a moment.  We are a scant 150 years removed from a time when black people were considered property in this country.  Less than fifty years ago, the color of your skin might legally determine where you could eat, drink water, or sit on a bus.  Tomorrow we will elect a black President.  That is significant.  It is not everything, but it is symbolic.  We have a long road to travel to get to a place where racism is not salient.  At some point tomorrow evening, after the networks call the election, President Elect Barack Obama will stand on a stage in Chicago’s Grant Park and thank his supporters.  At that moment, we will have taken another step down this road.  I am certain he will speak with humility and sincerity.  Perhaps we should all be humbled for a moment.

The Obama Infomercial

The half-hour segment aired by the Obama-Biden Campaign during prime time On Wednesday, October 29, 2008 was a rating success, but its impact on the vote will be extremely difficult to measure.  With the days counting down, the spot was a calculated risk for the campaign.  Initial indication seems to be that the risk will pay off.  

For a campaign flush with funds the 30 minute advertisement was a budgetary no-brainer.  H. Ross Perot was the last candidate to air such an ad, though his spot was long on charts and numbers and short on holding the attention of undecided voters.  In contrast, Barack Obama offered the public a warm and fuzzy look at the man and a few of the families he has met on his two year campaign journey across the country.  It was polished and it was seamless in its transitions between Barack’s personal tale, real stories of American citizens, and Obama’s plans to support those citizens.  It came across as genuine and relatable – a stark contrast to the way that the McCain-Palin camp has been characterizing the candidate.

The risk in airing the commercial was three-fold.  First, Obama had a big lead going into last nights broadcast and many pundits have been talking about the election being his to lose.  If this is the case, why risk a potential gaffe or moment that the opposition might seize on?  The second risk here is overexposure.  This campaign has been particularly mentally taxing on the electorate.  It has been long and nasty and general sentiment seems wish it would just end already.  Buying a half-hour of airtime on network television ran the risk of associating Obama, and Obama alone, with this exhausting campaign.  Third, the purchase calls into question the costs.  Many Americans rightly feel that the billion dollars that has been spent by the combined campaigns is too much.  This ad, particularly at a time when Obama has a strong lead, is perhaps the most conspicuous expense of the campaign, and this fact will draw critique.

Given the risks, however, Obama needed to run his infomercial for one reason, and the potential reward was worth all perceived risk.  Obama needed to solidify the votes of Independents and Republican converts that he has wooed over the last two months.  He needed to address these groups because, just as the map is not the territory, the polls are not the election.  The Bradley Effect is a very real phenomenon and, though Senator Obama recently quipped that he didn’t think “white people had gotten the memo” about Bradley, that fact that they don’t know the term does not mean they won’t prove its import.

The best effect this advertisement could have had is to reenforce, to voters that are already leaning in his direction, that it is okay to vote for Obama.  He is a regular person.  He worked hard to get to where he is and he believes in an America that rewards people who do the same.  Some of the attacks that the GOP has leveled against Senator Obama of late have been very incendiary.  He has been called a socialist, a terrorist, etc. in an effort to scare voters into voting against him.  Many of the attacks have been racially fueled and this is precisely the type of attack that could foster another Bradley Effect.  If the infomercial works, it is because it puts white voters at ease in voting for a black President.  It is a shame that racism is still such a salient issue in America, but there is no denying it.  Hopefully this commercial, showing a family man who wants to work for all Americans, will serve its purpose.  Hopefully its effect will dwarf the competitive notion that we should fear Obama.  Hopefully the vote will show that racism, fear, and hate cannot trump hope, acceptance, and progress.  I guess we shall see.

Airs of McCain’s “Cares” About Ayers

 

 

If someone cares about something, they tend to speak about it.  If someone does not care about something, they tend not to speak about it.  Seems pretty simple, but it is a concept with which Senator McCain seems substantively unfamiliar.  The GOP candidate has a favorite way of broaching the subject of the connection between Senator Obama and William Ayers.  He does so while seeming to maintain a built-in level of plausible deniability against the inevitable retaliation of the facts.  He alleges that he does not care about Ayers.  He makes this claim so it looks like he is reluctantly discussing the man featured prominently in several of his Campaign advertisements.  But how plausible is his deniability when he logically contradicts himself every time he associates the two figures?  

 

Observe as Mr. McCain repeatedly asserts that he does not care about Mr. Ayers, then immediately lays down qualifications about him.

 

“As I say, I don’t care about Mr. Ayers who on Sept. 11, 2001 said he wished he’d have bombed more. I don’t care about that.”

-Interview with Charles Gibson, ABC News, October 9, 2008

 

“And I don’t care about two washed-up old terrorists that are unrepentant about trying to destroy America.” 

-Interview with Charles Gibson, ABC News, October 9, 2008

 

“The fact is that William Ayers was a terrorist and bomber and unrepentant. I don’t care about that.”

-Interview with Jay Warren, October 12, 2008

 

“Well, because William Ayers was an unrepentant terrorist. I mean he’s a person who, on 9/11, said that he wanted to set off more bombs. I mean this is a very big question I think that people have to ask.”

-Interview with Dana Bash, CNN, October 13, 2008

 

“Because Mr. Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist. And that’s — that’s a unique individual in American history — a person who still wants to destroy America. He and his wife — they both want to still destroy America. That’s an unusual breed of cat.”

-Interview with Dana Bash, CNN, October 13, 2008

 

“Very, frankly, Dana, I don’t give a damn about an old unrepentant terrorist.” 

-Interview with Dana Bash, CNN, October 13, 2008

 

“I don’t care much about an old terrorist and his wife who are still unrepentant. By the way, she was as much or more active than Mr. Ayers was.”

-Interview with Sean Hannity, Fox News, October 13, 2008.

 

“Yes, real quick. Mr. Ayers, I don’t care about an old washed-up terrorist.”

-Final Presidential Debate, October 15, 2008

 

 

If he didn’t care, as he claims, about Mr. Ayers, then why does he offer a footnote about him every time he brings him up?  Why would he bring him up at all?  The fact is that John McCain relentlessly speaks of Mr. Ayers and, each time he does, he affirms him as a terrorist and gives his audience a supplementary, detestable fact about him.  Logic would dictate that this is done in order to juxtapose Mr. Obama with all that is reprehensible about Mr. Ayers.  It is important to Mr. McCain to relate the Senator from Illinois both to William Ayers and to the actions of William Ayers.  There is only one conclusion to be drawn here: John McCain does care (about a washed up old terrorist who targeted his country, and is unrepentant along with his wife, and wished he had done more on 9/11).  He does care and perhaps he should because the more he reminds them about the negative aspects of Mr. Ayers, the more powerfully the association with Barack Obama will resonate, negatively, with voters.  

 

If John McCain feels (in spite of evidence to the contrary) that harping on a tenuous connection between Ayers and Obama can help get him elected, then he is entitled to make it the centerpiece of his campaign.  But he must stop asserting that he doesn’t care about Ayers.  It is a preposterous claim and it insults our collective intelligence.  Further, it offers no deniability, as the claim is so transparent.  It is obviously a marketing technique designed to frame the issue in a manner favorable to the McCain Campaign. 

 

Contradictory to his claims, Senator McCain cares a great deal about Ayers, and Senator McCain has his fingers crossed that you do too.  

 

“Average” Todd Nitschelm, October 16, 2008

 

Trumped Up Outrage

The McCain Campaign is mad again.  This time the “Liberal Media” went too far because they decided to delve a little deeper into the story of Joe the Plumber than John McCain did.  How dare they!?  

Although I agree that Joe’s background and personal life is really none of my business, it was McCain who invited his public scrutiny by mentioning him almost a half-dozen times during the final Presidential Debate.  Of course someone is going to ask, “Who is this Joe guy?”  Did Rick Davis not see this coming?  Senator McCain made Joe (his real name is Sam according to the Reuters, and most of the “facts” we were originally told about Joe/Sam are now accepted as false) an issue, but wants no one else to be able to discuss him.  The problem is, this guys story was vetted worse than Sarah Palin and since Mr. McCain brought him up, twenty plus times, he has to deal with the consequences.    

The outrage coming from the McCain camp is just more in a long line of distractions.  They have now been outraged by, among other things, the media, sexism against Governor Palin, ACORN, William Ayers, charges of racism, criticism of their rally crowds, criticism of the campaign, criticism by conservatives, and now the audacity of anyone to dig deeper into the life of a man that McCain himself introduced to us.

It is all about distraction for the McCain Campaign. Magicians call it misdirection. All this outrage they have is preposterous. If you want to be mad, get angry about George W. Bush because he is your biggest problem. But that would be attacking entirely too close to home. Instead you stand there snapping and demanding, “Ignore me doing this, Ignore me doing this,” like Austin Powers. Misdirection can work sometimes, but it cannot be a singular, substantive strategy.

 

 

“Average” Todd Nitschelm, October 17, 2008

How Will History & McCain’s Grandchildren Remember this Campaign?

Jon Meacham brought up a very interesting point on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday, October 19, 2008.  Mr Meacham said

“…at the point Vice President Mondale realized there was absolutely no way of winning in 1984, he was advised to campaign the last couple of weeks as you want your grandchildren to see you.  And I wonder whether that’ll happen with Senator McCain.”

This is actually some pretty good advice for a politician.  Presidents think about their legacy, why shouldn’t almost Presidents?  Although campaigning how you want your grandchildren to see you is certainly not how to win an election in this day and age and, it should be noted, that McCain is not out of the race, It makes sense to have a strategy ready for post-campaign life.  One of these men, Barack Obama or John McCain, will lose.  One of them will make a concession speech.  One of them will be a Senator in late January 2009.  One of them will have some splainin’ to do, an argument for unification to, at least, pay lip service to.  

As of this date it looks like Barack Obama has enough of a lead that we can say it is “likely” he will be the next President Elect of the United States of America.  This means McCain will likely be runner up.  So how will his grandchildren, and history in general, remember this campaign?  

Right now, it doesn’t look good.  He has a chance to change the recitation, but he is running out of time.  Currently it will reflect the most mismanaged campaign in modern history.  This will be remembered as a time when race and class distinctions were enumerated and focussed upon.  It was the continuation of the politics of fear, a hallmark of the Bush legacy.  It was inept, flailing, divisive.  The campaign was bigger than McCain and it changed him.  He lost some dignity, and America lost the old John McCain, the one that people had respected for years before he threw this away in a matter of months.  

That’s if it all ended today.  But there are two weeks left and Senator McCain can still heed the advice meant for Walter Mondale.  I hope he will.  I hope he can.  I am holding out hope because every once in a while, for fleeting moments here and there, John McCain remembers who he once was.  The recent Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner gave the world a recently absent glimpse of a less politicized John McCain and it was described by some as “heartwarming.”  This is also the first time since Obama’s acceptance that McCain has paid him his due respect.

Another moment that fits in this category occurred during one of McCain’s rallies when he repudiated the statements of one of his followers..  His body language is the tell.  He seems to be wondering how he got himself into this mess.  He looks so human while reassuring us about Obama.

McCain’s repudiations, rare as they come, show that deep down inside, he has maintained some of the dignity with which he used to be flush.  Ironically, abandoning his dignity has been a campaign strategy he used to rage against, but has now joined with the RNC in adopting. 

History has a way of begging simplification.  Fifty years from now children will read about this campaign in their eleventh grade American History class but they will only get part of the story.  The story will be simple.  Senator McCain should take immediate steps to change his campaign so that his grandchildren can be proud.  He owes it to his legacy not to negate an admirable body of work and service to America by going out like this.  

Remember who you used to be, Senator?  It wasn’t so long ago…  You can still be memorialized as a Hero.  Or your legacy could look very different.

General Colin Powell Endorses Barack Obama

The formal announcement was made on Sunday, October 19, 2008.  It didn’t come as any real surprise, but Colin Powell officially announced that, on November 4, 2008, he will cast his ballot for the Democratic Senator from Illinois.  Though recent indications had been that he would support Barack Obama, this decision was surely not an easy one, and that makes it all the more significant.  General Powell, widely regarded as one of the most respected elder statesmen in the United States, recited to his fellow citizens the reasons why he chose to support Barack Obama.  He spoke frankly and unemotionally, as we have come to expect from the former Secratary of State.  He enumerated the reasons why he chose Obama and he related the reasons why he could not choose his longtime friend, and fellow Republican, John McCain.  There were several convincing arguments for both.

The weight of this endorsement, although debated fervently by the campaigns, is obvious.  No matter what Senator McCain’s camp says about the electoral importance of endorsements, both sides wanted Colin Powell’s support more than any other single figure in the world.  This endorsement matters.  

Colin Powell has a unique standing in the political arena.  He commands a level of respect from both sides of the aisle because he is viewed as a statesman and not a politician.  Although he was a part of the Bush Administration, he seems to get a pass from many Democrats because he is honest in recounting the run up to the war and his warnings and mistakes therein.  He is a war hero, a man who either campaign would love to have on their side.  He is a Republican, but unapologetic for his endorsement.  It is his belief that Barack Obama would make a better President than would his own party’s candidate.

Both sides stood to gain from a Powell endorsement but the McCain Campaign had much more to lose.  Powell just nullified one of McCain’s favorite arguments against Obama.  This was summed up nicely by Newt Gingrich.  On ABCs “This Week” October 19, 2008 he said, of the Powell endorsement, “What that just did, in one sound bite … is it eliminated the experience argument.  I mean, how are you going to say the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, former National Security Advisor, former Secretary of State was taken in?”  The answer is, that you can’t.  Or, at minimum, Independent voters won’t.

But a contrary view of Obama’s experience was not the only place where Powell impugned his fellow Republican campaign.  Powell, who maintained that either of the candidates would make great Presidents, was not sold on Governor Palin’s readiness and did not give his friend a pass for his V.P. choice.  ”Now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don’t believe she’s ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president,” Powell said. “And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made.”  This and other indictments of the McCain Campaign could not have been easy for Powell to recite.  He is a proud Republican and has no plans of abandoning this distinction.  Further adding to the difficulty of the decision was the 25 year friendship between Senator McCain and Mr. Powell and their well documented mutual respect.  McCain has said of Powell, he is among the ”most credible, most respected” people in the world.  Now, with his badge of credibility, he has affirmed his belief that Barack Obama is the right choice to be the next President.

Many people who, as of yesterday, were still unsure as to Obama’s readiness, particularly as applied to his role as Commander in Chief, have now been assured.  The Independents are the key to this election and they have now been told, by General Powell, in no uncertain terms, that Barack Obama is  ready.  For several voters on the fence, this could be the nudge that lands them in Obama’s camp.  As far as endorsements go, I cannot recall that there has ever been one of more import.  In the days to come we will find how much this import translates to impact.