Bard's Blog

Affairs of state and affairs of the church

The Bard of Wilmette — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:54:20 EST

The story from Rhode Island about the bishop and the congressman is very interesting. The Roman Catholic bishop in Providence has publicly requested that Rep. Patrick Kennedy not take communion, because Mr. Kennedy's pro-choice position on abortion rights is contrary to church doctrine. Mr. Kennedy, of course, is a son of the late Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, and a member of possibly the most famous Catholic family in America. Bishop Thomas Tobin has not only made this request to Mr. Kennedy, but he has ordered that all Catholic priests in Rhode Island refuse to offer communion to the supposedly wayward congressman.

I have no personal stake in this story. I am not Catholic, and while I am generally pro-choice regarding the permissibility of abortions, I do not have a problem with the government's authority to impose some restrictions after the early stages of a pregnancy. Besides that, I do not have daughters, so the issue is not likely to affect me personally. I say this not to take up the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate, but only to note that the outcome of the controversy about the bishop and the congressman does not directly concern me, except as an outside bystander.

It seems to me that in America, clerics of any denomination should be cautious about how they wander into political issues. The messages to their flock should focus on how they can do their best when it comes to their personal conduct. Be the best spouse/child/parent/friend/neighbor/etc. that you can be. Recognize that nobody is perfect, but emphasize that people should do the best that they can. The point is that the sermons and other messages should guide the members of the congregation on their personal behavior, not their political beliefs. If Congressman Kennedy was actually performing abortions, or paying somebody else directly for that purpose, I could understand the bishop's response. Instead, the bishop is taking this action because Congressman Kennedy supports others to have the right to make that decision (whether or not to voluntarily terminate a pregnancy) for themselves.

If the reader will excuse the cheap shot, it is my strong impression that in the numerous reported incidents of Catholic priests sexually molesting young boys, the usual reaction of the bishops was to cover up the crime, and quietly transfer the religiously devout child rapist to another unsuspecting community, hoping that the priest had learned his lesson. The lesson? The lesson appears to be that raping a child is a minor embarrassment, which they can hopefully cover up. Conversely, advocating a purely political position that conflicts with church doctrine is a major offense.

Congressman Kennedy is not about to ask for my advice, but in case he does, my suggestion is that he tell that bishop to get a hobby, but only one that is limited to consenting adults.

Sarah Palin and other conservative heroes

The Bard of Wilmette — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:02:45 EST

The general impression I get from watching news programs these days is that Barack Obama’s popularity is slipping away, and that conversely, Sarah Palin is more popular than the Beatles and Elvis Presley combined at their respective primes. For those of us who admire Mr. Obama and hold little regard for Ms. Palin, it would seem that we are headed for some politically bleak times. This picture may not be completely false, but it is probably much less true than it might seem at the moment.

President Obama’s halo is a bit tarnished, which is inevitable for almost any new president, especially one who entered office accompanied by such high expectations. He has made a few missteps (which will be the subject of a later essay by yours truly) during his first year in office, but nothing he cannot recover from. As long as unemployment remains high – and realistically there is no quick fix for that – President Obama will get the blame. It appears that the economy is already in recovery, and when unemployment goes back down to more tolerable levels, it will likely get Obama’s public approval ratings back to the solidly favorable range. It may not happen soon enough for his party to avoid getting clobbered in the mid term elections next year, but it will happen.

As for Sarah Palin, she is going to make millions of dollars selling her book, but I cannot see her as a credible candidate for President in 2012, or any other year. There is an old cliché about how we underestimate her at our peril. I believe I used that line myself, in reference to Palin, during the campaign last year. Some of Palin’s conservative admirers like to compare her to Ronald Reagan, who also showed great skill with a right wing populist appeal, and was also underestimated by his political opponents. One of my favorite conservative pundits, Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune, has a great column comparing Sarah Palin with conservative patron saints Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Here is a link to that column:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped1119chapmannov19,0,4222240.column

To me, Sarah Palin more closely resembles Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, and in my opinion, Ms. Palin combines the worst qualities of each of them. Mr. Nixon had what I believe psychiatrists would call a paranoid personality. He was obsessed with the idea that anybody who criticized or disagreed with him was a personal enemy, and therefore, because he was the president, a traitor to the U.S. The fact that Nixon was also very bright, well read, and hard working was not enough to compensate for the serious deficiencies in his character. Mr. Bush was (is) almost the opposite of Mr. Nixon. He is more at ease with himself as a person, but was one of the most intellectually lazy presidents we have ever had. He acted out of a gut feeling of what he thought was right, and (being the “decider” as he famously put it) pursued his policies without much serious analysis. When he did receive advice that did not fit into his preconceived notions, he ignored it, often with tragic consequences. Sarah Palin has managed to combine Nixon’s persecution complex with Bush’s incredible ignorance and lack of curiosity .

Ms. Palin has a devoted following – enough to make her a rich author, and if she wants it, she could probably get a very lucrative job at Fox News. However, while perhaps 20% of the country absolutely loves Sarah Palin, I cannot see her ever making serious inroads on the other 80%.

Congress is full of idiots in both parties

The Bard of Wilmette — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:06:26 EST

Liberal pundit E. J. Dionne has an excellent column in today’s Washington Post. Regarding the ongoing health care reform efforts in Congress, there has been a lot of chatter about “perfect” becoming the enemy of the good. This has been a concern of mine for some months. Here is a link to Mr. Dionne’s column:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111122256.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

If any kind of health care reform does get passed into law, the one certainty is that the final product will not be ideal by anybody’s reckoning. I have said in previous blog posts that the biggest obstacles to health care reform are those who insist that the bill contain certain characteristics, such as a “robust public option.” These people – including former Democratic Party leader Howard Dean and interim U.S. Senator Roland Burris (the choice of disgraced former Illinois Governor Blagojevich to fill the unexpired senate term of Barack Obama) – have made clear that they would rather see all reform efforts fail than to have what they believe is half-hearted reform pass. In a way, I have more respect for somebody like Senator Jim DeMint, who at least makes no serious pretense to being anything other than a political enemy of President Obama. If Obama’s presidency fails to achieve its major goals, it will be more due to his supposed allies (such as Dean and Burris) than to his overt opponents (such as DeMint). Reform can pass without any Republican support, but in order for that to happen, the Democrats have to able to unite behind something. As a practical matter, this means accepting the reality that many Democrats representing relatively conservative states and districts cannot support all the provisions favored by their more left-leaning colleagues.

If there is going to be any kind of health care reform bill that clears Congress, it will almost certainly contain some degree of restriction on taxpayer-financed abortions, and it will quite likely not provide for a public option, except perhaps one based on future contingencies. It would still be a major achievement, both in terms of politics and public policy, to get health care reform that extends coverage to all Americans, is fiscally neutral, and controls overall health care costs. This can be done, but not if side shows about the availability of abortions and the public option control the debate.

Public opinion surveys have consistently shown that most Americans have a low regard for Congress, and the contempt is well deserved. Most Republicans in Congress are more focused on opposing Obama, no matter what his policies are. They largely act like Rush Limbaugh, even if they generally do so in more polite language. Like Mr. Limbaugh, they want Obama to fail, even if that would be detrimental to the national interest. Many Democrats are no better. They are so obsessed with their own pet causes (in most cases, their reelection) that they are oblivious to the negative consequences of their own narrow focus. As for President Obama, he has to work with Congress, for all of its imperfections. He has to treat them (both parties and both houses of Congress) with more respect than they deserve… even though that respect does not appear to be rewarded. In the long run, this gives him the best odds for a successful presidency. I think that Obama knows this, and he acts accordingly. He cannot say this, but I can: Congress does not deserve much respect from the American people. If health care reform completely fails, it will be the failure of the Democratic leadership, and they will have themselves to blame if their party is swept out of power in the 2010 elections.

I still have hopes for bipartisan health care reform

The Bard of Wilmette — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:21:11 EST

One of the points made by President Obama in his speech to the joint session of Congress to advocate health care reform was that he would be receptive to good and constructive ideas from any source, including Republicans who oppose nearly everything he does. It was a fine speech, and it succeeded in raising the prospects of enacting some kind of significant health care reform. If he really meant what he said about considering good ideas from the political opposition, he should make that more clear.

Without a doubt, health care reform is a very difficult challenge. As the saying goes, if it was easy, it would have been done long ago. Obama’s allies in Congress (the Democrats) have major differences among themselves, regarding the merits of different aspects of reform. The Republicans are almost 100% united in opposition, both for sincere ideological reasons and for pure political motives. Obama would like to have a bipartisan bill, but (with very few possible exceptions) congressional Republicans will refuse to back any bill, even if it contains several provisions to their liking. By temperament and political background, Obama has always tried to build a consensus, but neither party in Congress is in the mood. What is a president to do?

In apparent opposition to all conventional wisdom, I still believe that the best solution – both for policy and politics – would be a moderate health care reform bill that uses some of the better ideas from both parties. For the reforms to work, they will have to expand access and reduce overall health care costs, regardless of how payment of those costs is distributed. Reforms that focus on one of these issues while ignoring the other will ultimately fail.

With my usual disclaimer about not being an expert on this or any other subject, the best health care reform at this time would have the following characteristics:

1) No legal resident of the U.S. can have his/her coverage denied or revoked due to personal health issues. [The issue regarding illegal residents is trickier. My inclination is to believe that illegal residents should be included, but I would not insist on it as a condition to support an otherwise good bill.]

2) All persons eligible for coverage must be covered. There can be no “opt out” for individuals or families. Tax credits or similar assistance should be available for those who are too poor to afford coverage, but they have to get the coverage. If insurance companies must accept all applicants and all preexisting conditions, then it makes no sense to allow healthy Americans to stay out of the system before the need for insurance becomes obvious.

3) The tax favored treatment for employer-sponsored insurance should be ended, or at least sharply reduced. People who cannot get health insurance through work should not be disadvantaged the way they are now.

4) Individuals and small groups should be able to join large risk pools, in order to remove cost distortions due to underwriting.

5) Sensible tort reform is necessary. This includes caps on non-economic damages and an effective distinction between ordinary and gross negligence. In return for setting limits, the medical profession must do a better job of policing its members. The current practical necessities of defensive medicine and huge malpractice premiums greatly add to overall health care costs, while doing very little for patient well being.

6) End the interstate prohibition on selling medical insurance. Most states need more effective competition among its potential health insurers. Allowing the sale of insurance across state lines would be a big help.

7) Emphasis on prevention, as opposed to treatment and cure, needs to be a component of health care reform. There needs to be financial incentives for people to participate in wellness programs and annual physical exams.

8) For all the talk about “death panels,” the fact is that a large chunk of health care costs take place in the last six months of the patient’s life. I am not about write off somebody for being terminally ill, but there needs to be more honest discussion about the costs associated with extraordinary measures to keep somebody breathing for a few extra months, or weeks, or days. I don’t know what the appropriate answer is, but this is a big element of the national health care bill, and the issue must be faced with more honesty than it has had so far.

9) The public option is not as great an idea as its advocates suggest. This is especially true if there is an “opt out” provision for each individual state. It would likely have the effect of denying coverage for many vulnerable Americans. It will do nothing to contain actual costs, and the notion that it will “save” money by paying doctors at Medicare (or Medicaid) rates makes no sense. Doctors and hospitals can presently treat Medicare as a loss leader item, pushing up the costs to everybody else. They cannot do that if there is no everybody else. The public option either works like Medicare, providing a short term illusion of cost saving, or it works like a private insurance company, with no saving. The “trigger” provision suggested by Olympia Snowe and some other senators, where the public option would be created something like five years in the future if demonstrated to necessary by conditions at that time, might make sense.

Anyway, the status quo cannot continue indefinitely. We need to have some sensible health care reform, but we need to get something that can pass both the House and Senate. Passing a feel good measure that passes only one house of Congress is useless. I believe that a health care reform bill with the characteristics outlined above would be good public policy, and can pass Congress if President Obama makes clear that this is something he supports. It may seem to be too much of half-hearted reform for the liking of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, but even a half-hearted reform now leaves open further reforms in the near future, if those are believed to be needed. The reverse is not true. Failure to pass something now will almost guarantee a very long delay in passing any reform. It will also seriously weaken Obama’s presidency. I do not want that to happen.

When public officials abuse their trust

The Bard of Wilmette — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:26:35 EST

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court is to hear a case involving alleged misconduct by prosecutors in Iowa in a case dating back to 1977. An editorial today in the Washington Post titled The right not to be framed provides useful background on the case. Two black men convicted of murdering a retired white police officer are suing the prosecutors for fabricating evidence to frame the two men, who each spent 25 years in prison for the crime. The convictions were overturned by the Iowa Supreme Court, which concluded that the star witness was a “liar and a perjurer.” One of the two defendants was cleared. The other one initially sought a new trial, but eventually agreed to a conviction, with the sentence limited to time served.

It appears that the prosecutors are not seriously disputing the allegations of their own misconduct, because they are emphasizing not their innocence, but rather that “there is no freestanding constitutional right not to be framed.” According to the allegations, the prosecutors knowingly coaxed supposed witnesses to fabricate testimony against the suspects. The justification for claiming immunity to lawsuits based on malicious prosecutorial misconduct is based on the idea that if you let this suit go forward, then you would have to allow it for every acquitted defendant and every defendant whose case was subject to minor mistakes by the prosecution. That is ridiculous, and the U.S. Supreme Court should say so.

Prosecutors are an important part of protecting the public from the bad guys, and they should be immune from lawsuits based on innocent errors and “gray area” incidents of possible wrongdoing. Sometimes, the wrongdoing is apparently clear in hindsight, but seemed reasonable at the time it happened. Personally, I am not sympathetic to lawsuits based on alleged misdeeds of this kind. For a lawsuit based on prosecutorial misconduct to have legal standing, the alleged misconduct must far exceed the usual kinds of activity that might be of dubious legality. For the lawsuit to be successful, there should be a high burden of proof by the plaintiff. However, it is outrageous to suggest that such a lawsuit should never have legal standing, no matter how badly the public official abused his authority.

Readers of my past OFA postings might recall that I was opposed to bringing criminal charges against President Bush and/or Vice-President Cheney, as some of my fellow bloggers were inclined to do. As deplorable as some of their (Bush and Cheney) actions were, they can at least make the credible argument that they acted with the motive of protecting the American people from terrorists. I believe that some of their methods were illegal, and they deserve a very harsh judgment by future historians, but I have never thought that criminal charges against them would be appropriate. I mention this now, in order to make clear that I am not a big advocate for legal punishment of government officials for abusing their office. This appears to be one case where it is appropriate.

Here is a link to the Post editorial:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/01/AR2009110101950.html?wpisrc=newsletter

A major newspaper's pundit contest

The Bard of Wilmette — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:44:59 EST

Some weeks ago, The Washington Post announced an op-ed writing contest, where non-professional writers were invited to submit an essay of 400 words or less. The essays would be judged by the clarity of writing, and content with an interesting message, but not on whether or not the editors agreed with the content. There were thousands of submissions, including one from yours truly. Out of these thousands, only ten of these amateur writers would advance to the second round, and the process would gradually whittle down to a single winner, who would get the honor of contributing a regular column for something like ten weeks. The winner would receive a fairly modest fee for his/her columns, but the main prize would be the prestige, not the money.

My essay was not one of the ten that made it to the second round, and of course, I was well aware that my odds were very remote. Anyway, now that I am officially out of the running, I would like to share my essay with my fellow OFA bloggers:

With multiple international crises and a serious economic recession to address, along with an ongoing effort to accomplish major reforms in healthcare, other issues have understandably been set aside for now. It can wait awhile, but I hope that some time before the end of Barack Obama’s presidency, there will be a serious examination of the various laws enacted, and enforcement methods used, in the name of “getting tough on crime.” We have the infamous war on drugs, which generally criminalizes the casual possession and use of various drugs, some of which are relatively harmless. We have the “three strikes” laws in many states, which in some circumstances impose long prison terms for minor offenses. Capital punishment is as popular as ever. Politicians frequently try to outdo each other in the contest to appear tougher on crime, because that perception is always a big advantage in elections. Conversely, an American politician who dares to suggest that these measures are ineffective in combating crime have as much chance of getting elected as would a candidate for the Iranian parliament who publicly doubts the existence of God.

I have no problem with being tough on crime, but I believe that many of the actions done with that supposed objective are ineffective at best, and in some cases counterproductive. Smarter and wiser people than yours truly may disagree, but let’s at least challenge some of the cherished assumptions.

Problems with the war on drugs include wasted resources (police, courts, jail), drug classifications which defy common sense (tobacco cigarettes are legal, marijuana is not), enrichment of organized crime (because lawful merchants cannot supply the people with what they apparently want), and the lost opportunity for excise tax revenue.

The three strikes laws remove the ability of a trial judge to use common sense in sentencing a convicted defendant. By imposing a mandatory twenty year sentence (for example) when a much shorter sentence is appropriate under the circumstances, the prisons become overcrowded with inmates who should not be there.

The usual justifications for capital punishment are false. They do not generally deter crime or save the taxpayers money, nor can we be sure that an innocent person is never executed. Execution undeniably does serve one purpose, which is to satisfy our collective thirst for revenge for an especially gruesome crime.

Let’s have some open an honest debate on these issues.

Now, back to the present day (11/2/09). I wrote the above words about a month ago. The Post editors had to sift through thousands of submitted essays – most of them undoubtedly well written – and it cannot have been easy to select the ten best. For the second round, they asked the would-be pundits to write a 750 word essay, on a different subject matter from the one they used in the first round. Two examples are provided in today’s on-line edition of the post:

http://views.washingtonpost.com/pundits/contestants/mara.gay/2009/11/mom_in_chief.html

http://views.washingtonpost.com/pundits/contestants/darryl.jackson/2009/11/sarah_palins_second_act.html

In my own (obviously biased) opinion, their writings are no better than mine, and Mr. Jackson’s is definitely worse.

Keeping Barack Obama human

The Bard of Wilmette — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:17:48 EDT

The OFA blog today contains a post from somebody, apparently with the moniker “Worship,” with an interesting message:

Our first announcement to all Obama supporters We want to move past being known as an Obama supporter, and move into the realm of an Obama Worshiper. President Obama is the greatest world leader the world has ever seen, and we should worship the ground he walks on out of respect for him and his accomplishments.

While I respect the sincerity of people whose admiration for President Obama seems to extend to the level of elevating the president into a deity, I cannot share the attitude. I want to be clear about my own attitude. I do admire Barack Obama as a person. He is the first presidential candidate to get any direct financial support from me. His campaign was also the first, since I was an idealistic high school student forty years ago, where I volunteered my time. I shared in the excitement of his 2008 election victory. This was not merely a victorious candidate who got my vote, but also (for the first time in my life) my enthusiastic support.

To be realistic, however, it is far too early to be sure that Obama will be a great president, let alone the greatest world leader the world has ever seen. For one thing, a great man (or woman) who happens to be the president is very different from being a great president. The qualities are not the same.

President Obama has, in my opinion, qualities that potentially can make him a great president. He is highly intelligent, a well read student of history, and trained to understand and appreciate competing viewpoints regarding a particular issue or problem. He is secure enough about himself that he does not take political attacks personally. He understands, maybe to a greater degree than nearly any of his predecessors (on a level with the senior President Bush), the role of diplomacy in international relations. While not historically a good predictor of presidential performance, Barack Obama is also (by all available evidence) an excellent family man who lives by an admirable personal moral code. Maybe that is not very important, but if nothing else, the absence of any scandal in his life at least precludes his being a target of personal blackmail. It also could give him some additional credibility when he is trying to push some moral cause.

Great presidents have to be excellent politicians. This means sometimes compromising with ideals in order to achieve something important. It sometimes involves choosing the least bad of several unappealing alternatives (the war in Afghanistan comes to mind). It involves making mistakes. Most historians have judged (correctly, in my view) Franklin Roosevelt as one of our greatest presidents. Despite that, however, there is absolutely no justification for FDR rounding up large numbers of Japanese-Americans and putting them in concentration camps. That is just one example. Jimmy Carter had, and still has, many of the same admirable personal qualities as we see in Barack Obama. Unfortunately, Mr. Carter was not a successful president.

If Obama is going to be a great president, the biggest pitfall he has to avoid is the tendency for presidents to be isolated from conflicting policy arguments. Many of our presidents would not tolerate even private dissent. They surrounded themselves with advisors who only told them what they wanted to hear, and anybody who dared to differ with the president’s inclinations would soon be out of a job. Other presidents became that way after starting out differently. In Obama’s Harvard Law training, he learned the value of competing arguments as a means of ultimately arriving at a good solution to a problem. This does not mean that he will get it right every time, but at least he should be well aware of the legitimate reasons in support of an alternative answer. This is a very good quality for Obama to have, but the surest way for him to lose it would be if he is surrounded by people who worship the ground he walks on. Obama is not right all the time, and when we believe he is wrong, we should say so. To cite one small example, he was wrong to slap a punitive tariff on tires from China. In my own opinion, he has not handled the health care reform efforts in Congress as well as he could, although events in the coming several weeks will make it clearer than it is now whether or not my criticism on this issue is premature.

Interesting allies regarding the war on drugs

The Bard of Wilmette — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:08:48 EDT

Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker has an excellent op-ed in today’s (10/21/09) Washington Post. Ms. Parker is generally conservative, but not right wing, and this column concerns the Obama administration’s decision that the federal government will not interfere with states which permit the use of medical marijuana. I think it is an excellent column, because it articulates the case I have been trying to make in some previous blog postings, but in this case with the skill of a professional writer. She praises the administration for making the first step toward sensible drug policy, but she also advocates going further.

The usual arguments in favor of legalizing (or at minimum, decriminalizing) weed note that it is less harmful and addictive than some other currently legal products, that its illegal status means a huge waste of police/court/jail resources, and various other ways that the “war on drugs” is counterproductive, at least regarding marijuana.

In addition to these things, although the foolishness of the “war on drugs” has a long bipartisan history, self-described conservatives should oppose the long standing U.S. policy on ideological grounds. It is a case of government interference with an individual’s choice regarding a recreational activity. Besides that, it is (or at least was, when the supposedly conservative George W. Bush was president) a case of the federal government overruling the states on matters of social policy. True conservatives should be appalled by such arrogance of big government.

Anyway, here is a link to Kathleen Parker’s column:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/20/AR2009102003084.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2009102003110

End the war... on Fox News

The Bard of Wilmette — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:40:59 EDT

I have zero respect for Fox News, and in my own opinion, that organization deserves nothing but contempt. Then again, I can say that, because I am nobody of significance. For President Obama’s top White House aides to say it is quite different. Contrary to the assertions of David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, Fox is a news organization. It may be highly slanted and lacking in integrity, but it is still a news organization. It contains legitimate journalists, in addition to the ranting pundits. In my opinion, it is a big mistake for the Obama White House to openly carry on a campaign against Fox News. In doing so, he lowers himself to their level. Maybe I don’t personally think so, but that is the way it looks to a lot of people.

One of the qualities I most admire about Barack Obama is his ability to stay above most of the petty verbal trashing. There can be no serious doubt that at least some of the anti-Obama rhetoric is based on racist motives. By “some,” I do not suggest that most is based on racial fear or anger. A lot of opposition to Obama’s policies is based on pure political differences, and would be no different than if the same policies were being articulated by a white president. On the other hand, I doubt that the ridiculous “birthers” would have gotten much attention if Obama’s ethnic background was similar to mine. Anyway, despite the likelihood that some of the unfair attacks on Obama are based on racism, Obama has never made that accusation against any of his political rivals, nor has he said or implied that the opposition from ordinary voters is based on racism. This is very much to Obama’s credit. Of course, racism still exists, but President Obama is right to never use racism as an excuse for political difficulties or defeats.

So why does he declare war on Fox News? It just makes Obama – or his White House staff, which amounts to the same thing – look as petty as Nixon and Agnew did when they basically accused much of the press of being unpatriotic. Obama should not bring himself down to Nixon’s level. During the campaign, Obama did an outstanding job of remaining good-natured and calmly shaking off the taunts of his political opponents. As a result, he was the one who looked like a statesman, while the others looked like low-class political hacks. President Obama should remember how Senator and presidential candidate Obama handled political attacks.

Here is a link to an essay by somebody who apparently does not agree with me. The writer says the White House is acting appropriately in “fact checking” the various lies by Fox News. That statement may be true, when it comes to false statements of apparent fact, but that does not extend to general disparaging characterizations about Fox News. That goes far beyond fact checking.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910090010

About that assumed necessity for 60 Senate votes...

The Bard of Wilmette — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:54:12 EDT

I have not seen anybody discuss the issue so far, so maybe the answer is so obvious that it is not worth the brief time to address this question: Is it really necessary for a healthcare reform bill to get the support of 60 senators? I understand the business about filibusters and cloture votes, but the press has implicitly assumed that, without exception, every senator who does not support the Senate legislation will automatically support a filibuster against the bill. Maybe this is true, but have our Senate leaders (along with former Senators Obama and Biden) even considered the possibility that one or a few senators might behave differently from what is assumed?

One famous TV newsman, who should know better, brought up the issue again yesterday about Barack Obama's "present" votes while in the Illinois State Senate. The implication was that Obama was too much of a weasel to vote for or against a proposed bill, so he voted "present" in a cynical attempt to avoid committing himself. The context of yesterday's reference was in relation to Obama's taking some time to consider his alternative courses of action if Afghanistan. In the Illinois state legislature, "present" has a specific meaning, of which most of Obama's critics are either ignorant or else willfully distorting the picture. In effect, "present" means the same thing as "nay" (or "no"), but is basically a signal that the legislator supports the intentions of the bill, but that the bill as written is too flawed to support. I bring this up now, only to illustrate that what may seem obvious is not necessarily so.

Back to the subject of getting healthcare reform through Congress, it appears that the House will pass some kind of a bill, the Senate will pass a very different kind of a bill, and hopefully a conference committee will work out some unified bill that the president can sign. This process is clearly difficult, and it is not yet certain that anything will eventually pass both houses of Congress. It would be a difficult task in any circumstances, but it is made much more difficult by the fact that a determined group of 41 senators can block any legislation. Even getting unity among the Democrats in the Senate seems impossible. Some of the progressives have indicated that they will absolutely refuse to support a bill that does not contain certain provisions, while some moderates in the same party apparently will refuse to support a bill that does contain those same provisions.

Is it at least possible that a small number of senators could be persuaded, even if the bill that emerges is personally disappointing to them, to invoke cloture? In other words, they might not vote in favor of the legislation itself, but they would agree to kill a filibuster that would prevent the Senate from voting the bill up or down. President Obama's popularity may not be as high as it was when he first took office (those poll ratings were never going to be sustainable), but he is still by far the most popular and admired politician in the country. There have got to be some senators who owe him, at minimum, the opportunity for a Senate bill to come to a floor vote. In addition, some "blue state" Republicans, most notably Olympia Snowe, might find it to their own political advantage to kill a filibuster, even if they do not support the bill. The Senate bill may not really need 60 votes.

I have previously written about my own preferences about what healthcare reform bill I would like to see enacted into law, but I will not rehash the arguments here, because that would confuse the more basic issue. Politically, Obama needs some kind of healthcare reform bill to pass, and I would rather see a disappointing healthcare reform bill pass than to have no healthcare reform pass. While the task is difficult, I believe it is at least possible that support by a slightly under 60 senators could be enough.

The depression that did not happen

The Bard of Wilmette — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:01:43 EDT

In a famous Sherlock Holmes story, one of the important clues was a dog that did not bark. In evaluating the early stage of the Barack Obama presidency, one of the significant achievements may be the depression that did not happen. Sure, unemployment is 9.8%, the highest rate since Ronald Reagan's first term, and the U.S. economy at this time is hardly the backdrop for bragging rights. What we will never know for certain is what would have happened in the absence of some of the controversial measures taken by Barack Obama during the first year of his presidency. The U.S. has experienced a nasty recession, but it could have been a great deal worse. It looks like the recession may be technically over, in the sense that the economy could show positive growth in the quarter that ended Sept. 30, 2009. The numbers are not in yet, but it looks likely that the recession is over, or about to be over. High unemployment will continue to be a fact for some time to come, and for those who are unemployed, it has to feel more like a depression than a mere recession that may be technically over.

Former Vice-President Dick Cheney tells anybody who will listen at Fox News that the previous administration kept America safe for 7+ years after the "9/11" terrorist attacks in 2001. Given the rest of the legacy of that administration, there is little to brag about. The most significant achievements of the Bush "43" record are the tax cuts and the Iraq War. Both were presented to the American public on a foundation of lies, although I really do not want to rehash the arguments here. My point is that the main positive legacy that Bush "43" officials emphasize is the disaster that did not happen: a major terrorist attack in the U.S. after 2001. I have always thought that this was an overblown claim, and that their careless disregard for constitutional rights was not a necessary component for keeping America safe. Still, for the sake of the moment, let's concede the argument that Bush-Cheney kept us all safe from the terrorists after you-know-what. It is obvious that Bush administration officials, who want to portray their record in as positive terms as possible, are counting on the absence of later terrorist attacks in the U.S. as an important positive element of their legacy. Their biggest credit, in other words, is not for something that actually happened, but for something that did not happen.

In a similar line of thinking, I believe that a major achievement of the first year of the Obama presidency is a disaster that did not happen: an economic depression reminiscent of the 1930's. There has definitely been a serious recession, and unemployment will remain uncomfortably high for many months after the resumption of positive economic growth. The recession was brought on by the collective actions of governments, companies, and individuals over a long period of time. President Obama inherited a bad recession, and irresponsible stewardship from the federal government during both Republican and Democratic administrations contributed to the problem. A long period of very low interest rates discouraged saving and encouraged increased debt. In effect, presidents and congresses continued to put off the needed changes, because it was easier to put off the day of reckoning and let their successors get the blame than to assume the responsibility themselves. It does no good for Obama to blame his predecessor(s) for the conditions confronting him. He knew what he was getting into, and he wanted to be president anyway. The U.S. economy is badly in need of certain adjustments, and there is no way to make those adjustments painless.

The U.S. economy may be starting to recover, but it will not feel very satisfying for quite some time. This would be the case, no matter who was president. Where I believe that Obama deserves some major credit is that the recession did not turn into a 1930's-style depression. It could have happened. The stimulus bill, which I thought was basically a good idea but not well executed, is criticized for being ineffective. It may have been ineffective in bringing down unemployment, but its main effect - and I don't know if Obama will ever get credit for this - is that it prevented a far worse economic downturn than what actually happened.

Economics columnist Robert Samuelson, who is hardly an apologist for Barack Obama, has an interesting column on the subject. Most of us, including yours truly, are not old enough to remember the 1930's, so we may sometimes be naive in characterizing a modern recession as being similar to the depression. This is not at all the case. Here is a link to Samuelson's column in today's (10/5/09) Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/opinions/?nid=top_opinions

Joe Wilson is guilty of bad taste, and bad timing

The Bard of Wilmette — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:17:47 EDT

Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst ("You lie!") during President Obama's speech to the joint session of Congress this week was extremely inappropriate by any standard, and in my opinion, such conduct should be reprimanded in some manner. Even if the president was George W. Bush, and the congressman was somebody who I normally liked, there is no excuse for that kind of extreme rudeness on the part of our high government officials. The president is both head of government and head of state (kind of like the combination of temporary monarch plus prime minister). To some extent, I believe in the idea of respecting the office, even if not the office holder. I am not trying to legislate my idea of good taste. People who know me personally know that legislating "good taste" is just about the last thing in the world I would want to do. Hate mongers such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have the legal right to carry on with their rants about Obama supposedly being a racist, or drawing idiotic comparisons to Hitler. Limbaugh and Beck have counterparts on the left who engage in similar over-the-top verbal attacks against so-called conservative leaders. In spite of the LEGAL rights of these people, which I have no intention of curtailing, I do think that it is reasonable to expect some degree of decorum by our elected officials. Joe Wilson clearly violated that principle. He can think whatever he wants, and if he privately trashes the president while talking with friends/family/congressional staff, I do not think that is a big deal. Within the halls of Congress, I expect better behavior by our esteemed representatives. Actually, I kind of wondered if Mr. Wilson was tempted to throw his shoes at the president. Maybe he was too far away to get a good shot, or maybe he did not want to lose a perfectly good pair of shoes. Mr. Wilson did apologize privately to Mr. Obama, and the president graciously accepted the apology. Then again, it also appears that Mr. Wilson's apology was very half-hearted, and he has indicated that he meant what he said. I think he also owes an apology to Congress, because his outburst is (or should be) an embarrassment to Congress as a whole.

The irony in all this is that Mr. Wilson's chosen moment to accuse the president of lying was in a context where the president was certainly not lying. This was over the question of whether or not the federal government would be forced to include illegal immigrants in its "universal" coverage. Some of the scare mongers make this claim, but it is not true, according to any of the pending bills in Congress, and President Obama made this clear. "You lie" was the shouted out response by Joe Wilson. Besides being in such poor taste, Mr. Wilson is also objectively wrong. I could even say that Wilson is the one who is lying.

One claim made by President Obama that I do find hard to believe is that passage of his proposals will not add to the government's deficit. While I would certainly not suggest that he is lying, I think it is fair to suggest that he is quite possibly being overly optimistic. The truth is that we cannot know with certainty what the effect on future government finances will be as a result of Obama's proposed health care reforms becoming law. I hope that he is right, that we can achieve all these desirable health care goals in a budget-neutral way. I believe that this is not very likely, and I know that nobody in the White House can say with perfect knowledge that this will not add to future deficits.

To take an example from recent history, recall that President George W. Bush assured us all back in 2001 that the budget surplus that he inherited was so structurally solid that his major tax cut legislation would, at most, merely reduce future suplusses by half. Mr. Bush and his top economic advisors were absolutely certain of this, and to emphasize the point further, he said that all this even provided for an economic downturn plus some other as-yet-unknown crisis (today is September 11; I am trying to think of what kind of unknown crisis they might have contemplated in the early summer of 2001). We all know how that turned out, don't we? The point is not that Mr. Bush was lying in his belief that the government would continue to be in fiscal surplus for years to come, but rather that he had no legitimate basis for his tone of apparent certainty. Maybe Obama has better economists than his predecessor did, and maybe their analysis is carried out with greater objectivity. Maybe, but not to the point where I am likely to believe any statements of apparent certainty about the long term future of government finances.

Despite the unfounded hysteria (regarding alleged death panels, illegal immigrants, required abortion services, etc.) about the health care reform proposals, there are legitimate concerns regarding how the program will be paid for. I want to see President Obama meet the issue more forthrightly than I believe he has up to now. For many reasons, I am rooting for health care reform to succeed, but I do not personally believe the program is likely to be neutral on the budget. Hey, I like President Obama. I strongly supported him in his campaign, and I generally give him favorable marks on his performance during his first several months as president. If a supporter such as yours truly does not believe his proposals will not add to the deficit, what must the opponents be thinking? On the other hand, to the best of my knowledge, very few of those in Congress who now emphasize the fiscal concerns with health care reform in 2009 expressed any skepticism in 2001 when they were told by Mr. Bush that his tax cuts would not lead to budget deficits. Call them partisan hypocrites if you want to, but the issue is still a matter of legitimate concern.

The last good chance for health care reform

The Bard of Wilmette — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 23:18:48 EDT

I do not know what President Obama is going to say in his address to the joint session of
Congress tomorrow, but I am convinced that the success of his entire presidency is likely to depend on his ability to achieve some kind of health care reform by the end of this year. It is not critical that he get something passed that is as far reaching as he has sometimes suggested that he wants, but he badly needs something that can credibly be called health care reform... at least a good start in that direction. I am beginning to wonder if President Obama, who ran such a brilliant campaign for the presidency just last year and who possesses such extraordinary public speaking skills, has already become so isolated in the White House that he is losing his political touch just a matter of months into his presidency. I really hope that I am wrong in my suspicions. I cannot think of another public figure in America that I admire as much as Barack Obama, but he has not handled the health care reform issue very well. He avoided the Clintons' 1993-94 mistake of trying to dictate a detailed plan to Congress, but he went too far in the other direction by having Congress work out all the details. Now, it appears that we have multiple plans with irreconcilable conflicts, and the very real possibility exists that there will be no health care reform at all. I do not mean to dwell on mistakes already made, beyond noting that Obama should learn from the experience, and hopefully do a better job with his next major initiative requiring congressional approval.

What I want the Obama White House to do is to face certain facts. First, Obama has effectively staked the prestige of his presidency on accomplishing health care reform during his first year as president. Second, any mistakes (or political miscalculations) already done cannot be undone. The political situation is less favorable than it was a couple of months ago, but there is no turning the calendar back. Third, major reforms are often done in stages. Think of the landmark civil rights bills of the 1960's. There were several bills, passed over a period of a few years, enacted to give all Americans certain rights that for many had previously existed in theory but not in practical effect. Fourth, passage of some health care reform bill now, even if more limited than many of its boosters would like, would make possible additional reforms later. Fifth, in contrast to the immediately preceding point, failure to pass any health care reform this year will almost certainly make any reform impossible for many years to come.

I do not believe that any of these points can be seriously disputed. In case any explanation of the last two statements is necessary, look back to the early years of Bill Clinton's presidency. A huge health care reform bill was crafted in the White House, and was presented to Congress with the message, in effect, "Take it or leave it." We know how that turned out. The proposal was rejected, and the 1994 mid-term elections swept the Republicans into control of both the House and Senate, and no health care reform of any kind was even possible for the next fifteen years. If no health care reform passes this year, I think it is very likely that we will see similar political developments. Whether Obama serves four or eight years as president, he would be badly weakened by the failure to pass health care reform during his first year. On the other hand, passage of a health care reform bill, even a bill that omits some of the provisions that many advocates would like to see, will strengthen Obama's political standing, and will keep open at least the possibility that further reforms could be passed later.

The people who argue, as Howard Dean keeps telling us, that "health care reform without a public option is no reform at all" have it all wrong. In my opinion, the members of Congress who hold that attitude are the real enemies of health care reform. This is presumably not their intention, but it is their effect. We have already seen what happens with insisting on "all or nothing." They get nothing. Actually, it is worse than nothing, because the cause of reform is set back for many years, due to adverse political developments that follow this kind of political defeat. President Obama has some very smart political advisors (Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, etc.) who should understand these things, and I hope they are counseling the president appropriately.

What kind of health care reform should still be achievable this year? Drop the public option. Whether it is a good idea or not, it will not pass this year, and its continued presence in the debate makes any kind of reform nearly impossible. Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. We are trying to encourage competition, but the current prohibition is a major impediment to competition. Allow all Americans to join large risk pools. This should have the effect of removing most, if not all, individual underwriting issues. Prohibit all companies selling health insurance from discriminating against any members or prospective members due to their personal health issues. Health insurance in America can remain mostly under private enterprise, but only on the condition that nobody's coverage can be denied or revoked due to personal circumstances.

Health insurance reform that has these characteristics, even though it does not contain the public option, would be a substantial achievement, blowhards like Howard Dean notwithstanding. There are other aspects of health care reform I would like to see, but they are less critical for immediate purposes. I would add them if doing so would help pass the bill. If not, I hope they can be put into place in the near future. In the long run, health care reform will only succeed if it has the effect of reducing overall health care costs. Enact some meaningful tort reform. Among other things, this should help attract Republican support to the cause. That would be good politically, but I also favor the measure on its own merits. Excessive malpractice insurance and defensive medicine add significantly to health care costs, without any incremental benefit to patient care. Make it easier to get rid of bad doctors. There are three major hospitals within five miles of where I live. I know of one sadistic and/or incompetent doctor who was booted out of one of the three hospitals. He transferred to a second hospital, then was booted out of that one, too. Now, he is practicing on unsuspecting patients at the third hospital in our area. I really do not know if this kind of situation is subject to a legislative cure, but something has to be done to prevent bad doctors from simply moving to a neighboring hospital with a clean slate. End the tax difference between health insurance from an employer versus individually purchased insurance. A tax credit to individuals should replace the current system where most employer provided health insurance is tax deductible for the employer but not taxable as a benefit to the employee. For people whose incomes are too high for Medicaid, but too low to afford private health insurance, provide tax credits or subsidies. It is bound to be difficult trying to determine the details that make the best sense, but as a general principle, some Americans will need some kind of subsidy.

Anyway, all this has been my effort to make the case that health care reform can still succeed, but at least for the short term, the public option has to be dropped. I hope that President Obama will make a good case to Congress tomorrow, keeping in mind the political realities he faces. In the Sept. 8 Washington Post, Matt Miller has a good essay on the subject:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/07/AR2009090702070.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR

Do not prosecute Bush-era interrogators, unless...

The Bard of Wilmette — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:28:21 EDT

It is not easy to take the side of the Bad Guys, but on the subject of possible prosecutions for alleged Bush-era torture of captives by CIA operatives, I might be playing for what I would normally consider the wrong team. Attorney General Eric Holder has apparently seen some new information that leads him to believe that prosecutions in some cases might be warranted. Of course, I do not know what his new information is, but I would strongly advise against prosecuting the interrogators themselves, unless there is strong evidence that they went far beyond even the guidelines of the Bush Administration Justice Department. The Bush Administration, as we know, did everything they could to restrict the definition of "torture" as only applying to the most extreme forms of torture, and then basically said that anything short of that was acceptable as "enhanced interrogation techniques." If CIA or military personnel clearly engaged in what even the Bush Justice Department agreed was torture, then I can see a case for prosecution. More likely, the interrogators followed the guidelines they were given, but the guidelines themselves were later (and correctly) revised to prohibit certain actions that had been deemed acceptable under President Bush. Where that is the case, it would be wrong to prosecute the interrogators. Legally, they should only be judged based on the standards in place at the time of their actions.

This was a topic of hot debate a few months ago, and I thought the issue had faded away. Now, it is back, which cannot be welcome news for President Obama. I wrote a blog post back on April 29 on this subject, and so far, I stand by my earlier essay. In case anybody is interested, here is the link:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/georgemartin/gGxpby

Obama NEEDS a victory on healthcare reform

The Bard of Wilmette — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:07:15 EDT

One of Barack Obama's heroes in history, Abraham Lincoln, made clear during the Civil War that preserving the Union was his top priority. As for freeing the slaves, Lincoln said that whichever alternative best served preserving the Union (in effect, winning the war) would guide his decision, even though he personally would prefer to abolish slavery. If his main goal of winning the war would be best served by freeing all the slaves, he would do it. On the other hand, if his main goal was best served by freeing none of the slaves, or freeing some and not others, he would act accordingly. In modern terminology, Abraham Lincoln was a practical politician who recognized that achieving his top priorities might sometimes have to come at the expense (whether temporary or otherwise) of his secondary considerations. I raise this issue not to debate the merits of Abraham Lincoln and his priorities, but because his dilemma from the 1860's has been faced by most of his successors, albeit usually in less dramatic circumstances.

Fast forward to 2009, and President Obama needs to focus on his top priority, and what is needed to achieve it. It is apparent that, aside from averting the potential for the recession to become a depression reminiscent of the 1930's, healthcare reform is Obama's top domestic priority. If the general economy was in better health, Obama would probably have a much easier task in accomplishing significant healthcare reform. Unfortunately, we have this recession, and even if it is technically over now (with positive economic growth for the current quarter, and it is not yet clear if this is the case), unemployment will remain high for awhile, and it will be at least several more months before the American people in general will feel good about the general economy. In these circumstances, it is a major uphill battle for any major reforms.

While any reasonable person would have to admit that the success or failure of healthcare reform in 2009 does not have quite the same ramifications as the outcome of the Civil War, President Obama has staked his reputation on accomplishing some meaningful healthcare reform. In my own opinion, it would be better politically for Obama if he is able to achieve healthcare reform with legislation that has bipartisan support. Subsequent efforts to accomplish other goals, such as a good immigration reform bill, will be easier to attain if at least some Republicans participate in the process. On the other hand, if the Republicans are determined to oppose anything and everything supported by Obama, and the signals on this matter are mixed, courting Republican support becomes a waste of time. Democrats have comfortable majorities in both the House and Senate, and if the Democrats can unite behind one healthcare proposal or another, in theory it should not matter what the Republicans do.

The problem is that the Democrats are not even close to being united. The moderates and progressives seem to be insisting on mutually exclusive conditions (I intend no value judgments on the labels "moderate" and "progressive" and I assume equal moral standing to the motives of each group), and it seems highly questionable as to whether or not they can reach a consensus.

I suggest that the fate of Obama's presidency is very much at stake. He needs to achieve healthcare reform, and as a practical matter, he needs to achieve it before the end of this year. Obama is still the most popular political leader in the country, and is far more popular than any congressional Democrat. Obama has indicated a preference for a bipartisan bill, but it is not clear that this is possible. While attracting at least some Republican support is desirable, it is not absolutely necessary. It is essential that the moderate and progressive Democrats reach an agreement that both subgroups can agree on. Obama has got to meet with representatives of each faction and pressure them to reach an agreement. The essential points are as follows:

1. Obama is by far the most popular Democrat in the country.

2. Obama's political strength, or weakness, in 2010 will determine the outcome of many congressional elections next year.

3. The success or failure of healthcare reform in 2009 will be a big factor affecting Obama's (and congressional Democrats') political standing in 2010.

4. Democrats' control of both the House and Senate means that if healthcare reform fails to pass, it will be only due to the inability for Democrats to agree on a bill to pass. Blaming the Republicans for the failure will not come across as believable.

5. The main goals of healthcare reform are health insurance coverage for all Americans, which cannot be denied or revoked due to personal health issues or the change or loss of a job, plus containment of healthcare costs.

In case he reads these pages, my advice for President Obama is to become more directly engaged with congressional leaders than he appears to have done up to this time. He may have to sit down, for example, with Senator Conrad and Speaker Pelosi together and tell them: "I need some kind of healthcare reform bill to pass. My personal preference is closer to what the House is working on, but I need something that will pass both the House and Senate. This will necessarily require compromise from both the moderates and the progressives. If you fail to deliver this, you will wreck my presidency, and if that happens, you and all of your fellow Democrats in Congress stand a good chance of losing your power and influence after the 2010 elections. You could also have the effect of shifting control of Congress to people whose agendas are far different from all of ours. You have the power to prevent this from happening, but if you insist on sticking to provisions that will be impossible to get through, the best opportunity for healthcare reform in 15 years will be wasted. Our party will get clobbered in next year's elections, and it will be richly deserved. I am not trying to dictate the details, but you have got to get this done! I was elected president last year by a sizeable margin, and with long coattails. You and your fellow Democrats in Congress owe me this."

Again, this is a little bit like Lincoln and the slavery question. Lincoln's attitude about race was not very enlightened by modern standards, and his emancipation proclamation in 1863 came after he had already been president for over two years. Even then, it did not apply to the slaves in the border states that were not part of the confederacy. Still, his actions set in motion the ending of slavery by constitutional amendment just a few years later. Obama needs a political victory regarding his healthcare reform efforts, and he needs it badly. If what he gets in the short term is less than what he and his progressive supporters like, he should take his proverbial half a loaf now. Those who argue that "healthcare reform without a public option is not healthcare reform at all" are missing an important point. The public option is a means, not an end. If a more limited form of healthcare reform passes this year, it will be reasonably possible to get the more comprehensive aspects of reform next year. Conversely, if nothing passes this year, no meaningful reform will pass for many years to come, and as I suggested above, Obama will be politically weakened and the Republicans could well retake control of Congress after 2010.

As for the more limited healthcare reform that might become law, I think that Obama can credibly call it a major achievement if a bill passes that assures practically all Americans of access to decent health insurance, regardless of a person's employment, income, or personal health. If a bill that addresses these issues can be passed and signed into law, it will be a major step forward. Even if the bill that passes this year seems incomplete, if it achieves these objectives, or at least goes a long way toward achieving them, it becomes an important political victory for the president, and makes possible other valuable accomplishments in the future, on this and other issues.

Another case for moderate healthcare reform

The Bard of Wilmette — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:44:51 EDT

Last week, I posted an essay, which in effect argued that the centrist healthcare reform plan by a coalition of moderate Democratic and Republican senators deserved support. My main points were that:

This bipartisan proposal stands a good chance of passage (if President Obama publicly supports it and the more leftist congressional Democrats can agree to settle for it). The other proposals’ prospects of passing look doubtful.
While it may not be ideal, especially to those who are determined to have a more radical overhaul, this would go most of the way toward meeting the goals of universal coverage and eliminating discrimination based on personal health issues.
Much more than the pending bills in the House, the Senate proposal would credibly address the valid concerns about unsustainable costs, and would therefore be more sustainable for the long term.
Do not confuse ends with means. Single payer and public option are possible means toward achieving certain admirable goals, but they are not the ends themselves.
Do not let the supposed perfect become the enemy of the good. Failure to support a good, if more limited than desirable, healthcare reform bill now could set back any meaningful reform for many years, as we already should know from the experience of 1993-94.
Healthcare reform is the intended crowning achievement for the first year of Barack Obama’s presidency. Failure to pass such a reform – which is a serious possibility – would seriously undermine Obama’s political standing.

I did not note it at the time, but I also do believe that there is genuine value to passing healthcare reform on a bipartisan basis. It is possible that nearly all congressional Republicans will refuse to support any reform at all, making bipartisanship impossible, but I believe it is worth the effort. If a good effort at bipartisanship fails, it will be the Republicans, not the Democrats, who will be generally perceived to be at fault.

Some of my fellow bloggers reacted as if I was auditioning for a show on Fox News, and of course, they are correct. My job is to make Glenn Beck look like a reasonable and thoughtful intellectual by comparison to my own idiotic rants. Nonetheless, I want to note that Paul Begala, whose liberal credentials are impeccable, is making a similar case for the compromise Senate proposal. He notes that the original Social Security Act of 1935 was very limited in scope, compared to what it became later on, but it was a critical beginning. Here is a link to his article in the August 13 Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/12/AR2009081202575.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

The angry mob mentality at town hall meetings

The Bard of Wilmette — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:22:16 EDT

I have been reading Renegade, Richard Wolffe’s excellent book about Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, and got reminded about something that I had practically forgotten about. After all, it happened a whole year ago. There were widely circulated rumors that Obama was (and supposedly still is) a Muslim, that he took his Senate oath on a Koran rather than a Bible, that as a child he attended a radical Muslim school in Indonesia, and assorted other complete lies. All this was spread by right wing kooks, who may or may not have believed what they were saying. However, some of Obama’s more decent minded political opponents, including John McCain and Hillary Clinton, assisted in the process by their equivocal “defense” of Obama against the false claims [“There is no truth to those rumors… as far as I know.”]. It was not until very late in the campaign that Colin Powell said what should have been said earlier, that while Obama is not a Muslim, it should not have been a big deal even if he was. Then again, given the general circumstances, a presidential candidate who is Muslim is effectively unelectable. If the facts did not support the candidate’s identification as a Muslim, the next best thing was to spread lies to make that Muslim identity widely believed. Fortunately, in spite of great efforts to create such impressions, it was not enough to prevent Obama’s election.

While I know that all presidents, and most presidential candidates, are targets of false and irresponsible charges, the irrational fears about the Obama presidency make me wonder how much racism in the U.S. has really diminished, and whether it has just taken a more subtle form. The attacks on Obama are different in scale from the attacks on his recent predecessors. I have heard the claim, for example, that George W. Bush knew about the “9/11” terrorist attacks in advance and did nothing to stop them so that he would have an excuse for a big power grab, and an excuse for invading Iraq in order to settle a personal score with Saddam Hussein. While I do believe that Bush talked himself into believing justifications (unsupported by objective evidence) for a war that he wanted based on different motives, the notion that he knowingly stood by while thousands of innocent people got killed by terrorists is ridiculous. The difference between the false allegations about Bush and Obama is that only a small lunatic fringe believes the claims about Bush, and no elected officials or mainstream media personalities ever promoted such a notion. In Obama’s case, the false rumors are given currency by elected officials, and especially by cable news pundits and radio talk show hosts.

Now that the right wing has failed to prevent Obama from becoming president, they have worked to undermine his legitimacy as president, with the “birther” campaign suggesting that Obama was not born in the U.S. and is therefore supposedly not a natural born citizen, and not eligible to serve as president. Again, this has been aided by some members of Congress. If that is not enough, we now have town meetings disrupted by people who were brought in for the purpose of preventing any exchange of ideas and information regarding proposed healthcare reforms. There are legitimate concerns about some of the proposed legislation. The town hall meetings should be a forum for those questions and concerns to be raised, but shouting down speakers with false assertions about “death panels” and other nonsense just serves to prevent the opportunity for the town hall meeting attendees to learn anything about the policy issue.

I expect hate mongers such as Rush Limbaugh and some of the crowd at Fox News, as the spiritual heirs to communist witch-hunting Senator Joe McCarthy, to engage in this kind of dumbing down of American political discourse. It is very disappointing when Republican office holders encourage this behavior, or at best stand by passively, implying approval. My own congressman, Mark Kirk, is generally regarded as a moderate Republican, and he has recently declared his candidacy for Obama’s old Senate seat (currently being kept warm by interim Senator Roland Burris). I want to challenge Mr. Kirk to denounce all politicians and pundits who encourage the mob mentality at these town hall meetings. There are several competing healthcare reform bills pending in Congress. Whether Kirk favors or opposes a particular proposed bill, he could really distinguish himself by publicly condemning the conduct that has been actively encouraged by Sarah Palin and others. I would further encourage anybody out there who is represented by a Republican in either the House or Senate to do the same thing. Contact your Member of Congress, and let him/her know that you expect a civil discussion of important issues at town hall meetings. Whatever their own positions are regarding healthcare reform, congressmen and senators should stand for the principle that freedom of speech means allowing the discussion of ideas. Conservatives and liberals alike should be able to agree on this. You have a concern that a proposed piece of legislation would have serious negative effects? Fine, raise the issues, ask your questions, but shouting down speakers at these meetings is no more “free speech” than is screaming “FIRE” in a crowded theater. So far, to the best of my knowledge, the mob behavior has not yet descended into actual physical violence, but that seems likely to follow. There have been death threats. When there is actual violence at (or following) any of these town hall meetings, we can blame the politicians and other public figures who encouraged it with rants about “death panels,” but I would also blame the politicians who knew better but who also elected to stand by and let it happen.

On a lighter note, I was surprised to see a very pleasant puff piece in the August 9 Parade Magazine by, of all people, Bill O’Reilly. Whether O’Reilly actually wrote it or not does not matter. He either wrote it or authorized its ghost written content. The message is basically non-political, and suggests that the compelling personal life story of Barack Obama should be an inspiration to America’s children. At least on this occasion, O’Reilly showed that he can separate his opposition to Obama’s policies from his evaluation of Obama as a person. Here is a link to the article:

http://www.parade.com/news/2009/08/09-what-obama-can-teach-americas-kids.html

Compromise needed for healthcare reform

The Bard of Wilmette — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:24:26 EDT

Yesterday I passed a guy on the road. He was wearing a tee shirt with this message: “13.1 = half of nothing.” I wondered, what does that mean? Oh, yeah, 13.1 miles is half a marathon, and the implication is that somebody who runs “only” half the distance of a marathon might as well have just stayed in bed. As one who has never run more than 3 miles at one time, I believe that anybody who can run 13 miles can claim a major personal achievement. Besides that, I also assume (with admittedly not much factual knowledge on the subject) that the health benefits to the individual are not significantly different, whether he/she runs 13 or 26 miles.

I bring this up because the implied attitude of the guy in the tee shirt reminds me of the healthcare reform negotiations. This is the first meaningful opportunity to accomplish valuable healthcare reform in the U.S. in a long time. In the most recent previous opportunity – during the early part of the Clinton presidency – the Clintons had a decent chance, and they blew it. I say this not to pile on Bill and Hillary Clinton, but as a reminder that the Obama administration and its congressional allies should be careful not to repeat the mistakes made at that time. There is widespread agreement on the general need for healthcare reform, but also a lot of disagreement on the specifics regarding what can and should be done. The most important stumbling block is not Republican opposition to any proposed reforms, or that vested interests in the status quo give large contributions to certain members of Congress. The real barrier to healthcare reform is the seemingly irreconcilable differences between the leftists and the moderates within the Democratic Party. Both groups are interested in healthcare reform, but each of the two groups seems persuaded that only their own side’s proposals are worthy of support.

I realize that most of the bloggers on this web site probably disagree with me, but I am with the moderates on this issue. In the first place, it is important to keep in mind what the goals of reform really are, and not confuse the means with the ends. In the second place, we cannot forget that politics is the art of the possible, rather than the forum for expressing supposedly ideal outcomes that have no realistic chance of becoming law. What are the real goals? They are:

Universal access, or coming as close to it as possible.
Coverage that cannot be denied or revoked due to individual health issues.
Reduced healthcare costs, regardless of the payment sources.

I cannot think of any others. In a way, the first two points are variations on the same theme. We really just need a system where everybody, or nearly everybody, has access, and where the total costs can be reduced. Single payer, public insurance option, and similar ideas are not goals, but rather proposed means of achieving the goals listed above. I do not have much regard for the arguments that the drug or insurance companies are identified as malevolent factors that should be simply regarded as the enemy, which is the strongly implied message in some emails I receive. They may be part of the problem, but they are also part of the solution, if there is to be a solution. The qualifier about “coming as close as possible” to 100% coverage is also important. If 16% of the American people presently have no health insurance, and the only proposal with a realistic chance of passage by Congress would reduce the uninsured from 16% to 5%, is there not still a lot of value to such a plan? This could well be the situation we face. Opposition from the left in this case is the equivalent to saying that “13.1 = half of nothing.”

A focus on universal access alone will not get any reform done. The concerns about the program’s costs are entirely legitimate. The program needs to be paid for, and simply increasing income taxes on the wealthy will not come close to paying for it. One fact that all sides of the healthcare debate can agree on is that the U.S. spends far more on healthcare – whether measured as a percentage of GDP or in proportion to the population – than the other rich countries do. At the same time, we get inferior results in terms of many measurements, such as average lifespan, compared with many other countries. No health insurance reform will be effective without our finding ways to reduce the total costs of healthcare. The ways to make this happen involve changing people’s incentives in the direction of lower cost behavior. These incentives include relatively non-controversial items such as emphasis on prevention, which is far less expensive than treatment after the patient is already sick. More controversial, but very valuable, is tort reform, which could largely eliminate the “need” for defensive medicine: tests and procedures that have little or no value in patient care, but which are done in order to protect against malpractice lawsuits. The presence of a small number of bad doctors, along with the possibility (however slight) of multi-million dollar jury awards for alleged malpractice, raises the operating costs for every doctor and hospital. It should be easier to get rid of bad doctors than it is at this time, and it is also reasonable to establish limits on non-economic damages to a plaintiff in a malpractice suit. Punitive damages should be limited to extreme cases and, even then, should not benefit the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s attorney. The purpose of punitive damages in a lawsuit is to dish out extra penalties to a defendant whose conduct was outrageously reckless, if not criminal. It should not be for the purpose of additional feathering the nest of the plaintiff and his/her attorney. The best form of punitive damage should be loss of license to practice medicine. The continued existence of litigation lottery keeps the total healthcare cost much higher than it needs to be, and with no incremental benefit to the society.

A small group of moderate Democrats and Republicans in the Senate has been working on a bipartisan health reform bill. What they come up with will almost certainly not be anybody’s idea of perfect, but it is likely to be a major step forward in improving the presently unsatisfactory situation. It also stands the best chance of actually getting enacted into law – IF the leftist wing of the Democratic Party can be brought around to accepting it. President Obama has got to show some leadership on this issue now. He was careful to avoid the Clintons’ mistake of crafting a huge piece of legislation and trying to force Congress to accept it, and of course the results then were disastrous. Instead, Obama has let Congress work out the details, but now that competing plans have come to the surface, Obama has got to make clear what he wants, and what he will do to achieve his own policy goals. My feeling is that Obama is sentimentally with the leftists, but as a practical politician, he should also realize that the leftists’ bills will not pass. Opposition to House committee bills is growing every day. It does not matter whether you or I think that opposition is deserved. It continues to build, and I am persuaded that those bills will never make it through. The bipartisan Senate effort has a real chance of success. Obama, along with Speaker Pelosi and her like-minded allies, may regard the bipartisan Senate proposal as a half measure, but it would still amount to a major accomplishment for Obama’s first year in office. Holding out for something they think is closer to the ideal answer will almost certainly result in getting nothing at all done. Obama’s political standing will be badly diminished, which would be a shame for many reasons. If that turns out to be the result, they should not blame the Republicans, the insurance companies, or any other supposed villains. Instead, they should look in the mirror, because that is where they will find the culprit.

Here is a link to an article by the bipartisan Senate group:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/04/AR2009080402523.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

Sometimes, we cannot afford to avoid waste

The Bard of Wilmette — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:59:11 EDT

I want to thank “Obama Doug” for posting an excellent article from today’s (July 30) Washington Post by R. Jeffrey Smith. Here is a link to that article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/29/AR2009072902676.html

The article notes a lot of seemingly obvious waste in the $636 billion Defense Appropriations Bill. There are numerous examples of programs that, in the opinion of the president and the defense secretary, are either redundant or have outlived their usefulness. On the other hand, many of these programs benefit certain companies who operate in the districts of powerful congressmen. The earmarks are spread widely enough that overwhelming congressional support is assured, and the notion that many billions of dollars are wasted clearly does not bother most members of Congress.

As we all know, the president does not have the authority to selectively veto the components of the legislation he doesn’t like. He must accept or reject the bill in its entirety. The president can threaten to veto the bill if it contains provisions X, Y, and Z… but as a practical matter he will not do that.

In his own comments, Obama Doug recommended a presidential veto. There are several good reasons to support a veto decision. Some of the programs are widely agreed to be unnecessary, and the justifications for keeping them are lame at best. One justification is that it provides jobs for various people. By itself, that does not seem too bad. All federal spending involves creating or maintaining jobs. Still, if job creation is the goal, there are far more efficient ways to do that than by building a bunch of airplanes that are not needed. One of the dumbest justifications goes something like: “If we drop this program now, the $3 billion we previously spent on it will have been wasted!” Sorry, Mr. Congressman, that $3 billion already spent has been wasted, anyway, and we cannot get it back. Sunk costs are completely irrelevant to the decision regarding future expenditures.

With all that in mind, if I was advising President Obama, I would NOT recommend that he veto the Defense Appropriations Bill. This is a case of knowing when to pick your battles. It is ironic to say that Obama cannot afford to veto a bill that contains a lot of waste of the taxpayers’ money, but that is the situation. For one thing, there should be no doubt that the bill would be easily overridden, so the veto would be an empty gesture. For another, a veto would antagonize many members of Congress, and that is something Obama cannot afford to do. His intended crowning domestic achievement for his first year in office – if not his whole presidency – is healthcare reform. This will be difficult to attain, even while maintaining the best of congressional relations; it will be completely impossible if he makes new congressional enemies.

The value of beer diplomacy

The Bard of Wilmette — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:32:31 EDT

Just in case anybody out there is not already tired of hearing and reading about the prospect of President Obama having a beer at the White House with a certain professor and a certain policeman, I submitted the following as a prospective "op-ed" piece for the Chicago Tribune. It is highly unlikely that the newspaper will really use it, since they receive many submissions for every one they actually accept for publication. Therefore, I thought I would share it with my fellow bloggers:

AN OPEN INVITATION TO PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

Dear Mr. President:

In your attempt to diffuse the situation between Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates and Cambridge, Mass. Police Sergeant James Crowley, and between their respective supporters, you have offered to have both Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley over to the White House for a beer. I believe this is an excellent idea, and I want to go on record with an offer to supply the beer. There are two reasons for this.

First, as a public spirited American citizen, I do not want to stick the taxpayers for the cost of the beer. As valuable as beer diplomacy may be, the country is already in a serious fiscal deficit, and I would hate to have anybody opposing the meeting on the grounds that taxpayer expenditure of beer will aggravate the deficit. The issues involved are far too important, and a good teaching moment should not be squandered due to fiscal concerns.

Second (in an example of enlightened self-interest), in case I am invited to join the president, the professor, and the policeman at the White House get-together, I want to be able to choose the beer that I am going to drink. Think about it. In the richest country in the world, many Americans go without any kind of beer, and many others are underserved by their current beer. Now, don’t get me wrong, Mr. President. If you are happy with the beer you are currently drinking, you can keep it. The same goes for Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley. For those who are underserved by their beer at this time, what I am offering might be an appealing alternative.

Under my proposal, no government bureaucrat will be dictating anybody’s choice of beer. As far as I am concerned, my choice of beer should be my own, perhaps after appropriate consultation with my bartender, or my liquor store operator. When government bureaucrats start telling people what kind of beer they have to drink, that is the first step on the slippery slope to socialism… or so I have heard, anyway.

So there you have it, Mr. President. I will supply the beer. I would be happy to make recommendations, but I would also honor any request that you might have, along with the requested beer preferences of Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley. If my offer is of interest, you can contact me. I look forward to hearing from you.

By the way, if necessary, I can prove that I am a natural born U.S. citizen. I have a birth certificate showing that I was born in Evanston, Illinois. There are some kooks on radio and television who, along with their friends in Congress, suggest otherwise. For those people in other parts of the country, Evanston might be best known as the home of Northwestern University, but it is also one of the largest nearby suburbs of… Nairobi. Oops! Okay, you caught me. I cannot live a lie any longer. The truth is that I was born in Kenya, and decades ago, my parents put a birth announcement in Chicago area newspapers, just to make it look like I was born in the U.S. Why did they do this? Obviously, they anticipated that one day, I might want to buy a beer for the President of the United States, and it would look better if I was a U.S. citizen.

Police and race relations

The Bard of Wilmette — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:00:28 EDT

President Obama says he will not retract his comment that “the Cambridge police acted stupidly,” regarding the incident where well-known Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates was arrested last week for disorderly conduct. Although he refuses to back down from his remark, I expect that he privately realizes that he would be better off if he had not said it. The incident is most unfortunate because none of the participants looks very good, although none of them are real villains, either. My best guess (which is all I can do, not being a direct witness to the event) is that the neighbor who phoned the police needlessly created trouble with her initial call, the policeman did not use his best judgment at the scene, and the professor assumed the worst possible motives by the policeman and overreacted. And of course, none of them will admit to even the slightest imperfection in his or her own conduct, so nobody is going to calm down.

Was Professor Gates really a victim of racial profiling in this case? I doubt that many people knowledgeable about the issue would deny that racial profiling is a fact in our society. We may underestimate or overestimate how common it is, but it certainly exists. However, the fact that it exists in general does not mean that it can automatically be fairly attributed to a specific incident where the facts are in dispute. Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley tell conflicting versions of the incident, and I believe that each of them is completely sincere about the accuracy of his own version. Each of them, in his own mind, is the aggrieved party. Professor Gates is a personal friend of President Obama, and it is understandable that the president would take his friend’s side. While it is understandable, Obama should have resisted that impulse, or at least chosen different words. From the point of view of the policeman responding to a call about a break in, he does not know whether or not the people in the house are armed and dangerous. It is a stressful situation. In retrospect, it looks like, at minimum, Sergeant Crowley was not at his best at that moment. Obama could have put it that way at the press conference, and nobody would get very upset about it. Instead, by saying that the police “acted stupidly,” Obama contributed to blowing the incident out of proportion. I am not saying that Sergeant Crowley is innocent of the racial profiling accusation. It is just not at all clear that he is guilty, either.

OK, some of the readers might be thinking: “Hey, Mr. White Guy, what the hell do you know about discrimination or racial profiling?” The answer is that I probably know much less about it than those who are directly affected by it. There are three things I do know about racial profiling. One is that it does exist. Two, our society will be improved if racial profiling would greatly diminish, or better yet, disappear completely. Three, not everybody who is suspected of racial profiling is guilty of it.

I do not want to leave a false impression here. I have been an enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama since before he became a nationally known public figure. This is not diminished just because I think he makes a mistake once in awhile. Everybody makes mistakes, of course, and this poorly chosen remark was one of his. It has created a big distraction that makes passing healthcare reform and other important domestic initiatives a little more difficult than it was already.

Looking for the "racist" in Sotomayor

The Bard of Wilmette — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:28:30 EDT

The confirmation hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who is expected to become our next Supreme Court Justice, gives the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee an opportunity to shine in the spotlight. Because it is a lifetime appointment, likely to last twenty years or more, the senators have a serious responsibility. The nominee should be treated with courtesy and fairness, but should not be given a free pass.

I want the senators to show some degree of consistency in their principles. For example, many Republican senators argued – when President Bush nominated John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court a few years ago – that the president won the election and should be able to have his judicial appointments confirmed, provided that the nominee’s basic qualifications are well established. That is a reasonable position to take. It implies that the suspicion that a conservative (or liberal) president’s nominee will likely reach “conservative” (or “liberal”) decisions most of the time should not be a reason to vote against a proposed judicial appointment. If that was a guiding principle when a Republican was president, it should be the same guiding principle when a Democrat is president. This does not mean that the Republicans should all passively accept the Sotomayor appointment without question, but they should agree not to oppose her confirmation simply on the basis that they expect her to take the so-called liberal position most of the time. For one thing, those expectations sometimes prove to be wrong. I also want to note that when Bush nominated Roberts for Chief Justice a few years ago, I wrote to my then-senators (Durbin and Obama), recommending that they vote to confirm Judge Roberts. Roberts would not have been my personal choice, but I thought he had excellent qualifications and an appropriate temperament, and that should have been enough for the president to have his choice confirmed.

There should not be any serious doubt regarding Sotomayor’s resume qualifications. She excelled academically at top level schools, served as a prosecutor, and has long experience as a federal judge, both at the trial and appellate levels. The reasons for opposing her confirmation basically boil down to the following:

Her “wise Latina” comment in a speech in 2001.
Her decision in the recent New Haven firefighters case.
Comments by Obama about “empathy” and “what is in the judge’s heart.”
Her comment that foreign laws might in some cases have a bearing on her decisions as a Supreme Court Justice.

It is fair enough to ask Judge Sotomayor about these matters, but I think it is ridiculous to suggest that any or all of these tidbits disqualify her for the job. She was less effective than I would have liked in dealing with the “wise Latina” remark. What she said was okay, but she should have added something like; “What I really meant at the time, and continue to believe now, is that a panel of judges – the nine members of the Supreme Court, for example – will likely reach better decisions if they come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences, than if they all have nearly identical backgrounds. I did not mean to suggest that one Latina judge is better than one white male judge, or that it would be preferable for a whole group of judges to be Latina or any from other particular demographic group.”

I think that Sotomayor addressed the other concerns very well. The notion that “empathy” is somehow a negative quality is curious. As a former prosecutor, Sotomayor probably feels more empathy for crime victims than she does for defendants accused of crimes. At any rate, I think she effectively refuted the notion that she would ignore the law if there was a conflict between applying the law and siding with the more sympathetic party to a case.

Rush Limbaugh can blatantly call Sotomayor a racist. He has a radio audience consisting of people whose outlook is similar to his own, and as long as his like-minded radio audience listens to him, he can continue his hatefest without constraints. Senators do operate with some constraints. Senator Jeff Sessions is well aware of his political base in Alabama. There are relatively few voting Latinos in that state, so he can better afford to play the “bad cop” than some of his colleagues can. As long as he maintains a relatively polite manner, he can attack Sotomayor all he wants. While not overtly calling Sotomayor a bigot or racist, he implied it when he emphasized her old “wise Latina” quote and asserted that she has “repeatedly over a decade or more” made similar statements. Sessions is playing to his political base, and has little at risk by doing so. Senators Kyl and Cornyn have large Latino constituencies in their states, and they take a bigger risk if they are perceived as treating the nominee unfairly.

Is there any credible evidence in Judge Sotomayor’s hundreds of judicial rulings that she is a racist, or that she sets aside the law in order to steer the outcome of a case to the party that she personally likes more than the other? If so, I want to see the evidence. In the absence of such evidence, I believe that Sotomayor is entitled to a strong presumption in her favor. An offhand comment in a speech might be troubling, but as far as I can tell, her actual record as a judge suggests that she follows the law, does not “legislate from the bench,” and does not treat parties to a case differently based on personal preferences. How many members of the Senate Judiciary Committee can make a similar claim?

Good riddance to Sarah

The Bard of Wilmette — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:40:42 EDT

Howard Fineman and some other astute political observers have written in recent days that Sarah Palin's announced resignation as Alaska's governor is a clever first step toward a 2012 presidential run. I just do not believe that this is true. If she really expected to run for president in 2012, it is fully understandable that she would not run for reelection as governor when her current term expires at the end of 2010. If she does have presidential expectations, however, it does not make sense for her to resign just over half way through her first term as governor. Although she is a darling of the Republican Right (I am trying to recall who the conservative pundit was who basically admitted to being sexually excited over Ms. Palin during her vice-presidential run), she has almost zero respect or credibility from the rest of the country, and quitting her current job for no obvious reason at this time would hardly help in building up her reputation.

If Governor Palin is resigning early because of family considerations, I can respect that. That could be a contributing factor, although I doubt that it is the primary reason. I think it is more likely that the main reason is that her being routinely lampooned by commentators and comedians caused her to lose her taste for electoral politics. If this is the case, she would have to be quite a masochist to want to run for president, in 2012 or any other year.

The main direct effect of her resignation is likely to be that she will make many times more money (probably something like $50,000 per speech) as a private citizen than she could possibly make as a government officer. As a private citizen with a major fan base among the right wingers of America, she could become something similar to Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. She could articulate her message, make a fortune, and be accountable to nobody. She will be able to raise a lot of money for other Republican candidates, but contrary to the assertions of some political writers, I do not think it is likely that she will be doing that in order to collect a lot of political IOUs. She might be thinking about it, but I think it is more likely that her distaste for the political arena is genuine.

Was some of the criticism and jokes aimed at Sarah Palin unfair? Yes, some of it was. Should we feel sympathy for the governor? Hardly. This is not exactly a nice person we are talking about here. During her campaign for vice-president, Sarah Palin constantly told anybody who would listen that then-Senator Obama was "palling around with terrorists." She did everything she could to suggest that Barack Obama was siding with the terrorists against all decent American people. She belittled Obama's background as a community organizer, as if that was Obama's sole qualification for president. She also made very clear that she believed that the only "real Americans" were small town conservatives similar to himself, implying that those of us who do not fit that description ideally should not have the right to choose our political leaders.

Palin's defenders might argue that the job of a vice-presidential candidate is to attack the other party's presidential nominee, and that some distortion of the opposing candidates' records is part of the way the system works, and that the Republicans are no more guilty of these distortions than are the Democrats. That may all be true, but just as distorting a political opponent's record is as American as apple pie, so is political satire. One of the most famous pearls of wisdom attributed to Harry Truman was: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Governor Palin is simply taking that advice. As far as I am concerned, Sarah Palin combines several unattractive qualities. She is shallow, vindictive, and self-pitying. Perhaps that characterization is (slightly) too harsh, but I am expressing it as a matter of opinion, not fact. Nixon was vindictive and self-pitying in the extreme, but he was not shallow. I would hate to get another president with Nixon's personality traits, but I believe that Palin would be even worse. At any rate, I think it is extremely unlikely that we will ever find out, and that is a good thing.

What is Dick Cheney's fondest hope?

The Bard of Wilmette — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:30:40 EDT

There was an interesting discussion this morning (6/16/09) on MSNBC’s Morning Joe program. Conservative pundit Joe Scarborough asked liberal pundit Ed Schultz if he truly believed that former Vice-president Dick Cheney hopes that there will be a successful attack on Americans by terrorists… in order to vindicate Mr. Cheney’s repeated claims that President Obama’s actions weaken America’s security. Mr. Schultz said unequivocally that this is exactly his belief. Mr. Scarborough responded with something like, “I like you personally, Ed, but I could not disagree with you more. I can understand your not liking Cheney, but do you really believe that he wants to see innocent Americans killed, just to prove a point?”

The truth is probably more complicated than that. On one level, Mr. Cheney does not want to see another successful terrorist attack in the U.S. or against Americans anywhere. As much as I detest Dick Cheney, I do not believe he is actively and consciously rooting for another ‘9/11” type of disaster. On the other hand, I do believe that Mr. Cheney bitterly resents the fact that many Americans, including Mr. Obama, have rejected many of the actions used by the Bush administration (and to a substantial degree, directed by Cheney) in the name of fighting terrorism. I believe it is very likely that the Bush presidency will be generally regarded as a failure by future historians. In addition, whether good or bad, there can be no serious dispute that Dick Cheney was an extremely powerful vice-president, and any verdict on the Bush ‘43’ presidency is largely a verdict on Cheney himself. He knows that he is unpopular right now, and he very much wants to be vindicated. There is not much else that is likely to acquit the Bush ‘43’ presidency, and they (Bush and Cheney) are effectively counting on “They kept us safe from the terrorists for 7 years” for their vindication. If they did keep us safe (as they would argue), then how dare the opponents (Obama and his political allies) question the methods they used to keep us safe? If the new administration obeys all laws – constitutional, international, and statutory – and there are still no successful terrorist attacks in the U.S., or against American targets elsewhere, that would cut into the Bush/Cheney argument that their legally and morally questionable methods were necessary.

In summary, while Mr. Cheney does not consciously want Americans killed by terrorists during President Obama’s watch, and he would be genuinely appalled by such a suggestion, I believe that he desperately wants his own record vindicated, and a successful terrorist attack while Obama is president is the only way he is likely to get it. In other words, I believe that Cheney has very mixed emotions regarding the prospect of another major terrorist attack against Americans.

Sarah Palin v. David Letterman

The Bard of Wilmette — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:20:59 EDT

Was David Letterman's joke about an unspecified daughter of Sarah Palin in poor taste? Absolutely. Is Governor Palin's reaction appropriate? I cannot answer that with a simple "yes" or "no." Apparently, the Palins' 14-year-old daughter accompanied her parents to the baseball game in New York, while their 18-year-old daughter did not. Mr. Letterman probably did not know that. I cannot believe that his joke was intended to refer to the 14-year-old, as Ms. Palin claims to know for a fact. Even assuming that the joke was an intended reference to the 18-year-old, the joke was certainly in poor taste, although in my opinion much less objectionable than if the reference to the younger girl is assumed.

As a group, the children (at least those who are not yet legally adults) of celebrities have my sympathy. They get a lot of press attention, and usually not because of their own behavior, but rather because of their famous parents. Any incident showing their imperfection gets magnified way out of proportion, and it must be hard for many of them to have a normal and well-adjusted life. Their parents have chosen to be famous, and for them an invasive media is a price they knowingly pay for being famous and (in many cases) rich. Their children are innocent pawns in all this, and the unwanted attention is due not to their own choices, but the choices made by their parents. I cannot claim to fully understand Sarah Palin's perspective. I am not at all famous, nor is anybody in my family. I have sons, not daughters, and they are now adults. With that disclaimer in mind, I can certainly understand Ms. Palin's lashing out at a comedian who made a joke on national television ridiculing her (Palin's) child.

I do not remember exactly when it was, but either during the 1992 campaign or early in the Clinton presidency that followed, Saturday Night Live performers (Mike Myers and Dana Carvey) did a Wayne's World sketch that basically noted that the daughters of Al Gore were attractive, and in some way they suggested that Chelsea Clinton was ugly, at least by comparison. Hillary Clinton put Myers and Carvey in their place, not by raising the heat, but by coldly observing that comedians whose idea of "comedy" consists of cruelty to a child deserve nothing but contempt. Without regard to any liberal or conservative political leanings, Sarah Palin would have served her own cause, and that of her family, much better if she had taken a lesson from Hillary Clinton. The Wayne's World incident quickly disappeared, and the Clintons, on that matter, had the unquestioned claim to the high moral ground.

During the recent campaign, Sarah Palin used her whole family as a campaign prop. The older daughter's out of wedlock teenage pregnancy was celebrated for its "pro life" message. In effect, Ms. Palin set up her own family to become objects of ridicule later on. By contrast, Barack Obama kept his own daughters out of the public eye as much as he reasonably could during the campaign. It was a wise decision.

In my opinion, Sarah Palin has overreacted, even though I admit she had something to overreact to. By asserting that Mr. Letterman was "joking" about the statutory rape of an underage girl (I think that no objective observer would agree with that claim), and by claiming double standards in the press, Ms. Palin unwisely has produced the following effects:

· By exaggerating the offense, and by lashing out at the media in general rather than just David Letterman in particular, she undercuts her own claim to the high moral ground.

· She guarantees the story far more attention than it would otherwise receive.

· She reinforces the doubts most of the public already has in her ability to handle adversity.

Give Sotomayor a fair hearing, then confirm her.

The Bard of Wilmette — Sat, 30 May 2009 22:03:56 EDT

Self-described conservatives are divided regarding how to approach the appointment of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court by President Obama. Those who either never held elective office (such as Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan) or whose public office careers are probably behind them (such as Newt Gingrich) are savaging Judge Sotomayor as if she was some kind of evil force that the sinister President Obama released from a bottle. Those who do hold elective office (such as Senators Jeff Sessions and John Cornyn) are far more cautious, realizing that they have virtually no chance to defeat the nomination anyway, and that there is little to be gained from antagonizing female and Hispanic voters. And let's be honest. Obama has to be enjoying the split between the extremist and realist elements in the Republican Party. The Republican senators, who in nearly all cases are part of the realist faction, all understand that they have to seen as giving Judge Sotomayor a fair hearing. They will ask her some tough but basically fair questions, as they should. Most, but not all, will probably vote against her confirmation. They will make the political calculation that:

1. They cannot attack Sotomayor personally, by accusing her of evil motives or lacking credentials for the job. That would alienate a lot of voters. Instead, they will try to show that her judicial philosophy is, in their view, inappropriate for the Supreme Court.

2. If they are perceived as treating her fairly during the hearings, and in their own public statements, they will not lose votes from supporters of Sotomayor's confirmation, other than the votes they were never going to get anyway.

3. Voting against her confirmation will reassure the party base, which tends to be more doctrinaire than Republican senators themselves are.

4. Barring an unforeseen major scandal, Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed, due to the electoral arithmetic. The president is popular, and his party holds a near filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate. All Senate Democrats will vote to confirm.

As for Rush Limbaugh and the other non-officeholders with a similar point of view, they make a very different set of calculations. They have no incentive to be respectful toward anybody but those who share their own twisted philosophy. Mr. Limbaugh, among others, blatantly calls Sotomayor a "racist." Some people have apparently alleged, without attribution, that Sotomayor is not very bright, and supposedly a lucky beneficiary of affirmative action. Her graduating summa cum laude at Princeton and being editor of the Law Review at Yale strongly suggest otherwise. Some have claimed, without citing any examples from her 17 years as a federal judge, that Sotomayor is an extreme judicial activist who routinely substitutes her personal preferences over the rule of law. The one controversial case associated with Sotomayor which has been cited by critics is Ricci v. DeStafano, the New Haven firefighters discrimination case. In that case, Sotomayor and her 2nd Circuit colleagues upheld the actions of the city of New Haven, and also the federal district court. Arguably, a ruling that overturned the decisions of the city and the district court would have represented judicial activism.

As far as I can tell, Judge Sotomayor has outstanding resume qualifications. Any attempt to belittle her qualifications would likely backfire. She has made some public statements that could legitimately be questioned at the Senate confirmation hearings. Widely quoted in recent days, she said in California in 2002, after referring to the statement attributed to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor that "a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure that I agree. I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not would reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." As a white male with no plausible claim to any "compelling personal narrative," I would regard Judge Sotomayor's statement as fair game for questions by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. What exactly did she mean with that statement? On the other hand, it is quite a stretch to use this statement, and maybe a few others quoted out of context, as a basis to accuse her of being a racist. In any case, I don't think there is much danger (if that is the word) to white males being underrepresented on the Supreme Court any time soon. In the long history of the Supreme Court, we have had well over 100 justices, and all but four (soon to be five) of them were white males, and most of them have been ethnically similar to yours truly. If identity politics is the name of the game, white middle class men whose ancestry is from the British Isles should be able to cope with one "wise Latina woman" among the nine justices of the Supreme Court.

Did Obama choose Sotomayor because she is both female and Hispanic? I don't think there can be any serious doubt that this particular combined identity had a lot to do with her being selected by Obama for the Court. There is usually a political element to Supreme Court appointments, and this one is no exception. Latinos and women mostly supported Obama's election, and have been underrepresented in the Supreme Court. If this was a case of packing the Supreme Court with nine Latina women, critics might have a legitimate complaint. In fact, however, Sotomayor would be the Court's first Hispanic ever, and would be one of only two sitting female justices. Demographics aside, Sotomayor's credentials are excellent. If there is CREDIBLE evidence that her views are unduly biased, that will undoubtedly come out in the Senate hearings. Otherwise, she should be confirmed.

Empathy and politics on the Supreme Court

The Bard of Wilmette — Sat, 16 May 2009 13:13:25 EDT

Last week, Torgny V.O.B. had a concise but elegant post titled Empathy is a Virtue. This, of course, was in the context of President Obama’s statement that empathy is one quality that he is looking for when he appoints a Supreme Court justice to fill the vacancy created by the announced retirement of Justice David Souter. Torgny is correct, of course, and the notion that empathy is not a virtue seems to be based on the concern that “judicial activists” will simply substitute their personal preferences for the rule of law.

It would be a legitimate concern, if empathy was the one and only consideration, but that premise is hardly believable. Judges should rule on the law, and on whether or not a particular law is constitutional. To most self-described political conservatives, the issue is quite simple: Supreme Court justices should be “strict constructionists.” It is not as simple as people such as George W. Bush seem to think. There are a lot of issues facing the courts in the 21st century, which the authors of the Constitution could not possibly have foreseen. In addition, not all of the Constitution’s authors had the same original intent. The Supreme Court justices should not substitute their own preferences in clear contradiction of the law, but they have to do a lot of interpretation, and their own personal experiences enter into those interpretations. This is true of so-called conservatives just as much as it is of so-called liberals.

One of the socially more explosive issues in America at this time is to what extent, if any, abortions should be legally permitted. People on both sides of the issue lobby heavily for the purpose of getting judges who are believed to be nearly certain to rule on their side of the issue. Although the Constitution does not explicitly establish a right of privacy for U.S. citizens, it has been widely accepted that such a right is implied by other rights that are clearly articulated. The controversy is mainly over whether that right to privacy includes a pregnant woman’s right to have an abortion.

I am a U.S. citizen, and I clearly have the right to express my own opinion on this and other issues, but my perspective is bound to be different from people who have to deal with the issue more directly than I do. Can states, or the federal government, pass laws which criminalize abortions? If so, subject to what limitations? Is the death penalty unconstitutional? Where do we draw the line between the rights of a criminal suspect and the ability of the police and prosecutors to put away the bad guys? What are the legal limits of affirmative action, or of eminent domain? Is there a constitutional right to same sex marriage, or its near-equivalent, civil unions? None of these issues has personally affected me, or the people closest to me, in any significant way. I will not state that empathy is, or is not, one of my qualities, but it is fair to say that a person who has had to deal with these issues on a personal level has a different perspective than somebody who has not.

In the more than 200 year history of the Supreme Court, all but four justices have been white men. We have had two black men and two women. We have one black man and one woman among the nine present justices. It is almost as predictable as the sun rising in the east tomorrow that Justice Souter’s replacement will not be another white man. While I generally do not like identity politics, it is a reality that we face. To those who suggest that race and gender should not be a factor at all, and that the president should appoint only the most qualified individual to the Court, I would ask if those people made the same argument when Bush ‘41’ appointed Clarence Thomas. I am not belittling the credentials of Justice Thomas, but it was very much a political appointment. Mr. Bush wanted a young black conservative. If Clarence Thomas was not all three of those things, he would not have been considered. Of the names that get floated in the media now as possible Court appointments, you can forget all the men. It appears to me that the two most likely candidates are New York appellate judge Sonia Sotomayor and solicitor general Elena Kagan. Given the likelihood that Obama will have at least two additional replacements to fill after Souter, I would not be surprised to see both of them on the Court within the next few years. Sotomayor has the advantage at this time of being both female and Hispanic, so I would expect that she will be Obama’s first Supreme Court appointee, unless there is something in her background (e.g. tax problems) that might make her confirmation difficult. Sotomayor and Kagan appear to be political moderates, and would probably be more acceptable to conservatives than other possible candidates who would be viewed as more to the left. Based on the limited information I have about them, Sotomayor and Kagan both appear to be well qualified for the Supreme Court, and would satisfy President Obama’s political considerations.

A tortured debate

The Bard of Wilmette — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:14:42 EDT

For the past few weeks, former Vice-President Dick Cheney has been saying, in effect, that the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” used by the U.S. against suspected bad guys was justified because:

When our side does it, it is not torture, and
The methods used were critical to preventing additional terrorist attacks, and
Even if it is torture, the recipients were terrorist murders who deserved it anyway.

It seems to me that the first and second points are false, and the third one, whether true or false, is not a valid justification for torturing suspects in captivity.

Under the Bush administration, the U.S. engaged in practices – not simply by a few low-level rogue operatives, but under guidelines approved by the president – some of which are widely agreed to constitute torture. It can be debated regarding some of the methods used, but there should be no doubt that waterboarding qualified as torture. The U.S. in the past has approved of prosecuting for waterboarding as a war crime. If waterboarding is torture, then it is torture, regardless of which side does it.

The apologists for Mr. Cheney in Congress and the media point to the mildest of the questionable techniques, and then sarcastically ask: “Is that really torture? Should we have risked another ‘9/11’ attack because we were afraid to hurt the terrorists’ feelings?” Fortunately, I have never been in the position of knowing what I would do if I was subjected to torture, but it is not hard to guess. I would say anything to make it stop. If I though it would make a difference, I would confess to the assassinations of both John and Robert Kennedy, and for a little icing on the cake, Abraham Lincoln.

What surprises me about the Democrats’ reaction to Mr. Cheney is that they have implicitly accepted Cheney’s terms of the discussion. According to Cheney and his friends, torture was effective in getting valuable information about the terrorists’ plans. The other side says that torture is not effective, or that even if it occasionally produces genuinely valuable information, the same information could probably have been obtained by other means. This basis for argument gives Cheney an advantage he should not have. Did the “enhanced interrogation techniques” actually help the U.S. to prevent another terrorist attack on U.S. soil? It is probably impossible to prove either way, but the assertion is at least plausible. The problem with presenting the issue this way is that there is an implied assumption that there is no incremental cost to using torture as a means of getting information. Cheney, and everybody else who advocates for torture, should be vigorously challenged on that point. In fact, there is a huge cost to the U.S. when its leaders try to give legal sanction to torturing people. To use economic terminology, in any major decision, the expected benefits should be weighed against the expected costs. Is it worthwhile to waterboard (or otherwise torture) so-called high-level detainees who might be able to provide information that could help prevent future acts of terrorism? If the cost is perceived to be zero, as Mr. Cheney implies, the resulting benefit – even if zero or negligible – should still at least equal the cost.

What is the “cost” of an American president deciding that torture is an acceptable method of interrogating prisoners? Although it would be difficult to quantify, I would say that the cost is huge. The U.S. is still the largest economic and military power in the world, but our relative power is declining, and we need allies. Our ability to influence world events in our favor is largely a function of our ability to persuade other countries to act in a manner consistent with our interests. To a large degree, our power to persuade depends on our continuing to be seen as a force for good, and respectful of international law. If we decide that international law is something to be followed only when it is convenient, and that torture is acceptable as long as we claim to be doing it for lofty purposes, our reputation and moral standing take a big hit. The resulting costs are immense. Simply asserting that “America does not torture” only makes us look like hypocrites if the claim is demonstrated to be false. Pictures and believable journalistic accounts of prisoners under American control being mistreated are effectively a recruiting poster for the terrorists. They also increase the likelihood that Americans will be mistreated when the bad guys have the opportunity. The way I see it, Mr. Cheney greatly understates the cost to the U.S. of using torture as an interrogation tool, and he also greatly overstates the incremental value that results. People are widely debating only the second half of that statement (does it produce valuable information?), but most discussions I have seen on television ignore the first half (what is the cost?).

If we are able to agree that the Bush administration did authorize torture (while claiming the contrary), and that some captives were in fact tortured, who – if anybody – should be prosecuted, either for committing acts of torture, or causing others to do so? There are some well-reasoned arguments in favor of such prosecutions, but based on presently known information, I do not favor prosecuting anybody. Basically, I am weighing political reality more heavily than moral or legal purity. If there is strong evidence of criminal wrongdoing far beyond what is now known, that would be different.

There is widespread agreement with President Obama that the CIA operatives who acted within the guidelines they were given should not be prosecuted. They were following what they had reason to believe were lawful orders. If those orders were later determined to have been unlawful, it is not fair to charge the interrogators themselves for crimes based on ex post standards. Some people have suggested that the U.S. should prosecute the Bush Justice Department lawyers who crafted the morally challenged standards and gave an apparent legal stamp of approval to torture. Although it might be emotionally satisfying to see some of these people in the slammer, I cannot see a legal justification for prosecuting a lawyer who offers morally repugnant advice to a client, even though the client in this case was the Pesident of the United States. If there is a basis for disbarment of some of these lawyers (and I don’t know if that is the case), that would suit me fine, but I think a criminal prosecution would be wrong.

That leaves the question of whether to prosecute Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and perhaps a couple of other high officials such as Mr. Rumsfeld or Mr. Gonzales. These are the people who gave the orders. Legally and morally, they probably deserve it. Politically, I think it is a bad idea. In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, they could argue that preventing further disasters was such a critical priority that everything they did with that objective in mind should be regarded as both legal and proper. If they believed that aggressive interrogation of suspected terrorists, and the equally illegal warrantless domestic spying, were useful in protecting the American people from another attack, they would have been derelict in their duty if they had refrained from such actions. We can argue several years later, with the benefit of hindsight (and of course, no additional terrorist attacks in the U.S.), that some of their actions were illegal, but they should be judged on the basis of what the political atmosphere was like at that time. Personally, I do not buy that argument, but my guess is that most Americans would accept it. The prosecutions would be widely seen as politically motivated, and based on changed standards. I do not want George W. Bush or (even worse) Dick Cheney to get the chance to become martyrs. They do not deserve the moral high ground, and criminal prosecutions against them would hand them that opportunity. Remember that back in the 1980’s, even a contemptible lawbreaker like Oliver North was able to transform himself into a folk hero when it was commonly perceived that he was treated unfairly. It would be much better to let Bush and Cheney live out their remaining years in personal comfort and prosperity… and the disgrace that they richly deserve. The best way to make sure that torture is never again part of U.S. official policy is not to jail the former leaders, but to make sure they are thoroughly discredited. A criminal trial would be counter-productive.

If there is going to be a fact-finding commission to examine some of the possibly illegal actions of the Bush administration’s “war on terror,” it should be set up by the president (not by Congress), and the appointees should be a highly respected group of Democrats and Republicans – people whose integrity is beyond doubt. If the commission is widely perceived to be loaded one way or the other, it would be worse than useless. On the other hand, if the commission is generally perceived as fair to all sides, it could provide a valuable public service.

How dare you offer to shake my hand!

The Bard of Wilmette — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:43:10 EDT

One of my favorite classic movie comedies is Duck Soup (1933). Through some unlikely circumstances, Rufus T. Firefly (played by Groucho Marx) becomes the political leader of a country called Freedonia. Due to an exchange of fairly trivial insults, Freedonia is on the brink of war with a neighboring country, Sylvania. After mediation by a mutual friend of Firefly and Trentino, Sylvania’s ambassador, it looks like war has been averted. All that is needed to secure peace is a handshake. Firefly is glad to have peace, and figures at first that Trentino will shake his hand, and all will be well. But suppose he doesn’t? Firefly quickly talks himself into believing that it is not only possible, but nearly certain, that Trentino will snub the handshake gesture. When the ambassador arrives, Firefly is all worked up, and yells, “So you refuse to shake my hand!” Instead of offering a handshake, Firefly slaps Trentino, and both sides are determined to go to war.

In addition to the usual Marx Brothers gags, Duck Soup was a good work of satire. 1933 was also a long time ago, and we have come along way since then, or have we?. I was reminded about that movie the other day, when several conservative pundits and Republican leaders basically accused President Obama of selling out America’s interests by shaking hands with Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega at the recent Summit of the Americas. Supposedly, President Obama sat passively by while Mr. Chavez and Mr. Ortega humiliated America on the world stage. Pat Buchanan characterized Obama’s behavior as one of the biggest disgraces by an American president that he could ever recall. And that is from a guy who worked for Nixon!

For decades, presidents of both parties have engaged in apparently comfortable social relationships with dictators and other unsavory leaders of various countries with deplorable human rights records. This has not been limited to large gatherings by the leaders of many countries, but has also involved wining and dining assorted despots individually. There are often legitimate reasons for doing so. Out of around 200 countries in the world, only a few dozen are liberal democracies, characterized by a free and independent press, due process of law, and fairly contested elections. The U.S. has to deal with the other countries, also, and it is usually in our best interest to show at least some degree of courtesy toward their leaders. Obama has been clear that improved relations with, for example, Venezuela, will depend on more than a simple gesture or two, but shaking hands with Mr. Chavez at a large gathering does absolutely no harm, and might possibly do some good.

One of the most universal desires of people is to be treated with respect, and most Latin Americans of all political persuasions believe that this is not what they have received from the United States. Had Obama conspicuously refused to shake Chavez’ hand when it was offered, the insult would have been felt throughout Latin America. Such a snub would have nearly guaranteed poor relations with the whole region. By shaking his hand, and that of Mr. Ortega, along with a small conciliatory gesture toward Cuba, Obama at least provides the possibility of improved relations – not only with those specific countries, but also with all of Latin America. Maybe such an improvement will not happen, but it costs nothing to explore the possibility. Contrary to the assertions of Mr. Buchanan and his ideological allies, Obama acted in the interests of his country. It is his critics who might be well advised to watch Duck Soup to regain some proper perspective.

Obama does not need an honorary degree from ASU

The Bard of Wilmette — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:37:25 EDT

Arizona State University has drawn wide attention to itself by inviting President Barack Obama to be a commencement speaker, but contrary to the usual practice, and in an implied snub to the president, the school is not offering an honorary degree to Mr. Obama. One TV pundit suggested that Obama cancel his plans to speak at Arizona State. Unless there is some crisis that would demand that Obama cancel that engagement anyway, he should take the high road and keep his commencement date.

Although I am not familiar with the process of colleges and universities offering honorary degrees, I would think it is at least possible that Arizona State might reconsider its position. Even if that is not the case, however, Obama has every reason to conduct himself with class, and not concern himself with such a petty issue. As we all know, Obama has managed to build a fairly accomplished resume up to this time: graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, editor-in-chief of Harvard Law Review, teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago, state and U.S. Senator, author of two well-regarded best selling books, and… I know there is something else… now I remember – President of the United States. In addition to all of his public accomplishments, by all indications he is an excellent husband and father. Does Obama really need an honorary degree from Arizona State University to validate his success?

Some people have observed that Arizona State has previously bestowed honorary degrees on people seemingly less deserving than President Obama. That is something that the students and faculty of ASU can debate about. I think that ASU’s action is a little strange, but Obama should not react as if this was a matter of great importance.

Legalizing weed is good, but not the top priority

The Bard of Wilmette — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:04:01 EDT

President Obama recently was criticized for casually dismissing a question about the possible economic stimulus effect resulting from the legalization of marijuana. Although I am on the side of those who would legalize marijuana – or at least getting the federal government out of the way of individual states’ efforts to set their own rules on that subject – I can hardly blame Obama for not wanting to address that issue at this time. The new president has inherited the worst economic crisis within the lifetime of most of us, along with two wars that have not gone very well. In attempting to address the economic issue, he is tying in reforms for education, healthcare, and energy policies, so that the economic recovery will hopefully be far more long term than one based on asset inflation and reckless increases in consumer debt. Obama has a lot of good ideas, but I am concerned that he could be trying to do too much at one time. I hope that he manages to prove my doubts to be misplaced.

At any rate, although I agree with the advocates for the legalization of marijuana, this is the wrong time for Obama to push that issue, even if he privately agrees with it. He is using all of his available political capital to push those issues that he (understandably) believes are the most critical at this time. What he can do, and appears to be doing, is to reduce the federal enforcement efforts against users of the “evil weed.” Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune has a good column on the subject. My one implied disagreement with Mr. Page is that I think he does not take into account the practical reality that President Obama would seriously impair his ability to tackle the bigger issues if he added legalizing marijuana to his policy agenda at this time. Still, it is a good column. Here is the link:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0401pageapr01,0,1071790.column

How should history judge George W. Bush?

The Bard of Wilmette — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:56:52 EST

As I write this, we are less than 72 hours from the inauguration of Barack Obama as our 44th president, and George W. Bush will very soon be history. Rating the presidents is a popular game. As we enter the final days of the 43rd president’s reign, many professional pundits and others are putting in their two cents worth, rating the presidential performance of Mr. Bush. Since I don’t get paid for expressing my opinions, my own view is not even worth the proverbial two cents, but here goes…

As President Bush and some of his friends have correctly noted, it is too early for any “final” verdict on his presidency. There are various future events that could modify our initial conclusions regarding the Bush record. It is at least possible, for example, that Iraq will emerge in the near future as a stable liberal democracy, and a model to be emulated by its Arab neighbors. If this actually happens, even Mr. Bush’s harshest critics would probably have to revise their evaluations upward at least a little bit. I do not think that such an outcome is likely in the foreseeable future, but it is possible. The main point here is that our judgment at this time has to be regarded as tentative, and subject to possible reassessment in either direction based on subsequent events.

Before getting into the factors that I believe are the most crucial in judging the Bush presidency, I want to dispense with the factors that some people sometimes emphasize, but which I think are of little or no importance. First, the controversy surrounding his election eight years ago, and the possibility that the election was “stolen” on his behalf by the Republican political establishment in Florida, has no bearing on how we should grade the Bush presidency. Whether or not his becoming president was the result of improper shenanigans of some kind, the fact is that George W. Bush has been the President of the United States for the past eight years. It is his record as president that matters, not how he got to the White House in the first place. Second, let’s assume that Mr. Bush is basically a nice guy, a devoted family man, and that his actions as president were motivated by sincere intentions to best serve the interests of the American people. That also does not matter. We judge our presidents by what they actually did, and the effects of their actions, rather than our assumptions about their motives.

In his recent public comments, Mr. Bush has (like any other retired or soon-to-be retired president) tried to put a positive spin on his own presidential record. More than anything else, he emphasizes the fact that since 9/11/2001, there have been no subsequent terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. His point is that he has kept America safe for the past 7+ years. The implication by Mr. Bush and his supporters is that this factor is such a major plus in his record that it far outweighs all the possible, but unspecified, negatives. I do not agree.

I can give him some credit for the absence of terrorist attacks in the U.S. during the past seven years, but subject to some significant qualifications. In the first place, if the lack of terrorist attacks since 2001 is the crowning achievement of his presidency, then it is also appropriate to note his administration’s failure to recognize the threat of Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11. Vigilance by the administration since then has undoubtedly helped to prevent subsequent attacks, although it must share a significant share of the credit with the good work by many local police departments and the intelligence agencies of other countries. However, in addition to the productive resources that have been used in combating terrorism, President Bush also wasted extraordinary resources that were supposedly for the same purpose, but which contributed no incremental value. Is America really safer and stronger than it was seven years ago? In many ways, I strongly doubt that it is.

As much as anything else, the war on terror has defined the George W. Bush presidency. After the 9/11 attacks, it was apparent that the Taliban in Afghanistan had provided a base for the Al Qaeda terrorists, and it was appropriate to go after them. Had President Bush focused on that mission, he might have succeeded in establishing an effective and responsible Afghan government, capturing or killing bin Laden, and at a fraction of the costs actually incurred in the “war on terror.”

Instead, Mr. Bush turned his attention on Iraq and its odious dictator, Saddam Hussein. While nobody disputes that Saddam Hussein was a very bad guy, by 2003 his ability to be a menace beyond the borders of his own country was very limited. He had been effectively contained by the economic sanctions, no-fly zones, and weapons inspections. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was completely unnecessary, and even if we concede (which I do not) that the decision to invade Iraq and force regime change was a proper exercise of American power, the policy was executed with gross incompetence. Although Mr. Bush has tried to deflect responsibility for these mistakes on others (the CIA and its counterparts in allied governments, along with some of our military leaders), he is absolutely responsible for all of the mistakes pertaining to the Iraq War. It was Mr. Bush, and advisors personally selected by Mr. Bush (such as Donald Rumsfeld), who ignored sound advice and accurate information that did not fit their preconceived notions. The main justifications given by the president for the war (a strongly implied connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, plus Saddam’s alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction) were bogus. The costs of the war to America have been huge, in terms of lives, treasury, and diplomatic damage. So far, it is not at all apparent that Iraq or the Middle East – and America’s interests in that region – have derived a net benefit as a result of the regime change. The one country in that region that has undeniably gained from Mr. Bush’s actions is Iran, and that cannot possibly have been Mr. Bush’s intention. For all of Saddam Hussein’s faults, his one “virtue,” from the U.S. point of view, was that he was an enemy and counterweight to the Shiite theocracy in Iran. While that fact would not justify supporting his regime, forcibly removing Saddam from the picture brought on a successor government in Iraq that is supported and influenced by Iran. President Bush had articulated his notion of an “axis of evil,” consisting of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. The implication was that these three countries were allies of each other, conspiring together to do evil deeds at every opportunity. It appears to me that Mr. Bush was handed a catchy phrase by a speechwriter, and then sincerely bought into its implication. In fact, Iraq and Iran were enemies of each other, and to some degree each of those two countries served as a check on the power of the other. Not any more, thanks to President Bush.

Personally, I am appalled at the Bush administration’s contemptuous attitude toward civil liberties and international law’s prohibitions on torture. George W. Bush should, and probably will, be condemned by future historians for his disregard for the laws and the Constitution that he swore to uphold. In the name of keeping America safe from terrorists (which nobody should dispute is a worthy goal), Mr. Bush has claimed the right to torture suspects, lock people up without time limits or any due process, spy on American citizens without a warrant – and all of this in direct contradiction of statutory and international law. The Bush administration has, in effect, asserted that anything it does in the name of national security is legal and proper, and not subject to any laws that would suggest otherwise. In its efforts to hold itself above the law, the Bush administration is very much on the wrong side of history.

However, I do not weigh these factors as heavily as some critics are inclined to do. The Bush record in these areas is very bad, but compared to some of the other wrongheaded policies by this president, these problems are more easily corrected. In times of perceived threats to the American way of life, civil liberties have often been discarded. Within the living memory of many older Americans, many thousands of Japanese-Americans were rounded up and put into concentration camps. This was morally reprehensible, and it served no legitimate national security purpose. That episode has to be regarded as a disgrace in modern American history, but it has not prevented most historians from an overall judgment that Franklin Roosevelt was one of our great presidents. Mr. Bush’s willingness to use torture as an interrogation tool, and his attempts to claim that the president is beyond the reach of the law, have been a disgrace, but they have far less long-term impact than many of his other actions. Civil liberties and the rule of law can be easily restored by the next president’s reversal of these policies and practices of President Bush.

Leaving aside the issue of keeping America safe from international Bad Guys, the major domestic legacy of the Bush administration was his tax cut legislation during his first term. The president had campaigned on his intentions to reduce taxes, and as president he lobbied hard to get the legislation through Congress. He was successful in getting Congress to pass something very close to what he wanted. If the net effect of the tax cut is good, Mr. Bush deserves the credit; if the net effect is bad, he deserves the blame. In my own opinion, the tax cuts had more negative than positive effects. I am less bothered than some people are by the fact that most of the benefits went to those with high incomes. Reducing marginal tax rates generally have a stimulating effect on economic activity. The real problem with the tax cuts is that they were accompanied by huge increases in government spending. Recall that, back in 2001, Mr. Bush inherited a government in fiscal surplus. He claimed at the time that surpluses would continue indefinitely into the future, and that even under the worst case scenario – a recession plus an as yet unforeseen national emergency – the enacting of his tax cuts would supposedly only reduce future government surpluses by half. The tax cuts passed, and we soon afterward got our national emergency (the terrorist attacks) and the recession. In little time, we went from a record surplus to record deficits. It can be argued that the tax cuts made the 2001 recession milder than it otherwise might have been, but they also made the long-term problem of an increased national debt much worse. This president, who preached the Republican mantra of small government, greatly expanded the government’s spending and power. Maybe Congress should be held responsible for some of the increased spending, but President Bush did not veto a single bill during his first term.

Recessions are part of the business cycle, and I do not blame President Bush for the fact that a recession occurs on his watch. However, his policies are responsible for making existing problems worse. Regardless of whether tax rates go up or down, increasing government spending is really a tax increase, and reducing the government’s ability to pay for the spending programs amounts to sending an ever increasing I.O.U. to our children. To his partial credit, Mr. Bush attempted in 2005 to reform social security, which is headed for a demographic time bomb in the coming years. He had a sensible suggestion regarding slowing down the pace of benefit increases in the future. Unfortunately, when he had his one good opportunity to accomplish meaningful social security reform, he made the mistake of insisting on a partial privatization of the program, and he wound up accomplishing nothing. This was a squandered opportunity for an important and positive accomplishment by President Bush.

Mr. Bush has displayed a hostile attitude toward financial regulation, with unfortunate results that should not come as a big surprise. The banking and mortgage crises occurring near the end of his presidency are not entirely his fault, but the Bush policies aggravated the problem.

There are several other aspects of Mr. Bush’s presidency that may be less significant than the issues discussed above, but which also add to the negative side of the ledger. He fired federal prosecutors for not being sufficiently partisan in their jobs, which are supposed to carried out in a non-partisan manner. He famously said in a speech that “we are addicted to oil,” but his energy policies did nothing to address the problem of the “addiction.” From a national security standpoint, the U.S. continues to have an unhealthy dependence on oil, which leaves us vulnerable to the whims of some hostile foreign governments. Any time a situation called for a scientific study, Mr. Bush made sure to stack the deck, in order to make sure that the panel concluded what he wanted them to conclude. His approach is the antithesis of the principle of scientific inquiry. I honestly do not know whether or not global warming is as big a problem as Al Gore suggests, but it does appear to be a bigger problem than Mr. Bush has ever cared to acknowledge. The longer the problem is put off, the more drastic the consequences will be. Mr. Bush has been an advocate of free trade, but he has supported steel industry and farm legislation that violate trade agreements (to be fair about it, most recent presidents have supported free trade in theory more than in practice). In addition, he has been consistently hostile to all international organizations, regarding them as infringements on American sovereignty, and he did not see fit to make an exception for the World Trade Organization. Although it is not a popular cause, free trade is in the general interest of the American people. Mr. Bush seems to understand this, but he never spent much effort promoting it. That is too bad, because with a recession facing us, and Democrats in solid control of Congress, expansion of trade opportunities within the next several years looks very unlikely. Back to the Middle East, it may not have been possible for President Bush to solve the problem between Israel and the Palestinians, but he never made much of an effort in that area, and the situation there is worse now than it was when he became president eight years ago.

In summary, although our verdict on the George W. Bush presidency for now must be regarded as tentative, it is hard for me to see a realistic possibility that his presidency will be regarded as anything but a failure. He claimed that he would pursue a “humble” foreign policy, but instead his record on foreign affairs was the most arrogant in memory. He ordered an invasion of a country that had not attacked the U.S. or its allies, nor was it an imminent threat to do so. The consequences of this totally unnecessary war have left America weaker (economically, militarily, diplomatically) than it would otherwise be. During the Bush presidency, America has been less respected by the rest of the world than at any other time in several generations. This is important, because the world is continually becoming more interconnected. Our country is still the most powerful in the world, but in dealing with other countries in the future, our power to persuade will be far more important than our power to coerce. Mr. Bush talked of the conservative virtues of limited government, but his actions were the opposite of his expressed intentions. He had the federal government overrule the states when a state decided on a policy that was not to his liking (medical marijuana, for example). One of his major goals, with the enthusiastic assistance of Dick Cheney, was to strengthen the presidency by claiming that it is not subject to constraints by the law, or by actions by Congress or the courts. These extreme interpretations of presidential power may well have the effect of weakening the presidency. That is what happened following similarly imperial claims of presidential power by Richard Nixon. I am not judging Mr. Bush harshly because his goals and priorities might be different from mine. Instead, I am saying that he is a failed president because he failed in terms of his own stated goals.

Reflections on the 2008 campaign

The Bard of Wilmette — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:41:36 EST

On the last day of 2008, I am looking back on the political developments this year. In www.my.barackobama.com, I have written over 100 essays in the past year, and posted comments to many more that were written by others. I have also gained the benefit of acquiring several dozen new “friends” who I will very likely never meet, and the exchange of ideas has been very enjoyable. All of us who regularly contributed postings to mbo.com can look back and observe snapshots of our own attitudes over the course of the year, like a photo album but with words rather than pictures. It is an unusual pleasure to have been able to enthusiastically support, as opposed to merely settle for, a presidential candidate, and still a rarer pleasure to have that candidate win the general election. Barack Obama is about to become president at a time of great challenges, and it is not reasonable to expect that all of the problems he inherits will be fully solved any time soon. I am hopeful that he will do a good job, and that his decisions will be the correct ones most of the time.

In looking back on my own writing over the course of this past year, I can see that I (like most bloggers in varying degrees) sometimes had the tendency to overstate the case. For example, there were some harsher statements about Bill and Hillary Clinton than they deserved. Hey, that is what happens when we get on our electronic soapbox. I regarded some of their public statements against Obama – when Senators Obama and Clinton were competing for the Democratic presidential nomination – as offensive and unworthy of accomplished public officials. Then again, many of our most admired political leaders throughout American history engaged in much worse political claptrap than anything either of the Clintons said or did in this campaign. It is easy to lose perspective.

If Obama did not run for president, or if his campaign fizzled out at the beginning, I could have comfortably supported Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, or Chris Dodd for president. They are all good people, and I think that any of them would have made a good president, although I always believed that Obama was the best available candidate. Once it became apparent that either Obama or Clinton would be the nominee, Joe Biden was my first choice for vice-president, and I was glad to see him get the job.

I was much less comfortable with Hillary Clinton as a candidate, although I almost certainly would have voted for her over any Republican nominee this year. Part of my problem with Mrs. Clinton as president is that, for all of her obvious intelligence and knowledge of the issues, she did a very poor job with her healthcare reform efforts in 1993. Her only experience in actually running anything did not go well at all. Later on, I was also appalled by what I regarded as very obnoxious behavior on her part toward Barack Obama. On reflection, I probably made too much of that at the time.

Many Obama supporters were admirers of John Edwards, but I cannot agree at all on the merits of Mr. Edwards. If he had won the Democratic nomination, I still am not sure if I could have brought myself to vote for him over Senator McCain. Many people admire Edwards for his calling public attention to poverty in America, noting that most politicians at least claim to be fighting for the middle class (where most Americans, including yours truly, identify themselves). Few politicians, other than those representing districts with high rates of poverty, talk about poverty at all, and it is arguably to Mr. Edwards’ credit that he raises the issue. That may be true, but I also believe that his policies would in the long run be disastrous for the people he is allegedly trying to help. The other problem I had with Edwards was his grandstanding about being the only candidate willing to “take on corporate America.” That strikes me as very similar to when Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin talked about the “real Americans,” as opposed to those of us who are apparently fake Americans. In the case of both John Edwards and Sarah Palin, it appeared to me that if they could have their way, a major segment of the American population would not be welcome to have their views represented in Washington. As far as the later revelations about Mr. Edwards’ philandering were concerned, I was just relieved that he had made himself politically irrelevant.

The other two Democrats seeking the presidency at the beginning of the year, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, were both political jokes as far as I was concerned, and did not need to be taken seriously.

Among the Republicans running for president at the beginning of the year, I thought that John McCain was their best candidate. I liked him in 2000, when he competed with George W. Bush for the Republican presidential nomination. As in the case of Hillary Clinton, I was more negative in my comments about John McCain during 2008 than he probably deserved. McCain is basically a good person. On the other hand, I doubt that he would have made a good president. My biggest single objection to McCain as president was that he intended to appoint more right wing judges to the Supreme Court (and presumably the other federal courts). Thanks to a concerted effort by Republican presidents over the past generation, the courts are already overrepresented by right wing judges. McCain and all the other Republicans seeking the presidency this year were dedicated to continuing that trend. In varying ways, I thought that the other Republican presidential contenders, with the exception of Ron Paul, had all of McCain’s faults and none of his virtues. I do not think that Ron Paul would make a good president, and he never had a realistic chance for his party’s nomination, but I still like the guy. In a way, he is the conscience of his party, a reminder of conservatism’s libertarian roots.

As an amateur student of American history and the presidency, I have become persuaded that one of the qualities common to our better presidents has been a strong sense of history. The good presidents have understood what worked in the past, and what didn’t work, and they knew how to apply the lessons from the past to the present situation. A good president also has to be a good manager. He (or, some day, she) cannot be much better, although it is possible to be much worse, than the people he hires for his cabinet and White House staff. He has to be able to delegate a lot of the work to these people, but at the same time the ultimate responsibility is his. I think that Barack Obama has the qualities that can make him a great president [Whether or not things actually turn out that way, we will not know for quite some time]. He is a big reader of history and related subjects, and some of his reading choices have been exactly what I would have recommended, in the event that he was to solicit my opinion. He is surrounding himself with very talented and knowledgeable people. It also at least appears that he wants honest advice from these people, as opposed to some presidents who have tended to ignore or dismiss advisors who dared to tell the president anything that conflicted with his own preconceived ideas. The president should encourage spirited debate among his advisors, but once the policy has been decided, those same advisors should be able to publicly support the president, or else resign. If a particular advisor finds that the president no longer values his input, he should resign. It seemed to me that Colin Powell should have resigned as Bush’s Secretary of State long before he actually left the job, rather than continue to publicly support a policy he knew was wrong.

As Obama takes office on January 20, some of the challenges he faces will be formidable. I hope that the Obama presidency will focus on long term solutions to problems. This applies to a lot of areas, but I am thinking specifically about the economy. Much of the current economic crisis is the result of people and institutions pursuing short term goals. As long as asset prices were rising, investors and home owners benefited from highly leveraged deals. The Detroit-based auto makers emphasized the SUVs and light trucks because that was where the profits were best. A few years ago, Congress even passed a law giving tax favored treatment to businesses that bought SUVs (as opposed to ordinary passenger cars). Managers at investment banks and industrial corporations were paid huge bonuses based on short term results. All these things seemed to help keep the economy humming along… for awhile. The pursuit of short term results is often contrary to the longer term interest. A company that cuts out (or drastically reduces) spending on maintenance or on research and development can make one quarterly income statement look good, but it is likely to have a negative impact on its future. I think it is likely that the economy will get worse, maybe for a year or so, before it gets better, and I hope that Obama (and Congress) will have the wisdom to avoid the kind of quick fixes that seem to address some problem, but which make the situation much worse in the long run. For example, they should resist their protectionist inclinations, even though there could be a political price to pay.

Anyway, having supported Barack Obama’s candidacy from the beginning, I got what I wished for. My candidate got elected, along with my preferred choice for vice-president. I hope that I will continue to be pleased with the election results in the years to come.

An update on the team of rivals

The Bard of Wilmette — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 15:08:37 EST

I have recently read two books about the presidential campaign. Submitted for your approval – as Rod Serling used to say when introducing his Twilight Zone episodes – the setting is basically as follows: The United States is engaged in an undeclared war, which originally enjoyed popular support, but the war has been seriously mismanaged. The general public has observed incompetent leadership at the top, and many who originally supported the war have now come to believe that the war was a mistake. The incumbent (and soon to be retiring) President of the United States has seen his own popularity drastically reduced, for several reasons but mainly because of the widespread perception that the war was both badly conceived and poorly executed. In the Democratic Party, the two leading anti-war presidential contenders are both sitting members of the U.S. Senate. They are ideologically similar, and policy differences between the two of them are minor. Unfortunately, these two senators personally detest each other. This is cause for great concern among Democrats, because a badly divided party would likely result in their losing a presidential election they otherwise should have a good chance of winning.

Sound familiar? As you probably have figured out by now, the year is… 1968. The unpopular president is Lyndon Johnson. The two feuding Democratic senators running for president are Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy. As we all know now, Senator Kennedy was assassinated, Vice-President Hubert Humphrey won the Democratic nomination, but with the Democratic Party sharply divided between the pro-war and anti-war factions, Republican nominee Richard Nixon won a close but decisive election.

There are some parallels between the 1968 and 2008 political situations, although one significant difference is that, despite some bitter exchanges, the personal relationship between Senators Obama and Clinton was nowhere near as bad as the antipathy between McCarthy and Kennedy in 1968. Many of the supporters of either Obama or Clinton declared that they would find it impossible to support the other candidate in the general election, but in the end, the great majority of Clinton backers wound up voting for Obama in November, and I think it is likely that, had Hillary Clinton managed to win the nomination, most Obama supporters would have voted for her against Senator McCain. It was a hard fought contest for the Democratic nomination this year, but after Obama officially won the prize, both Hillary and Bill Clinton delivered when it mattered. For months, the Clintons did everything they could to suggest that Barack Obama was not qualified to be president, even to the point of implying at times that John McCain would be preferable to Obama as president. When Obama still won the nomination, the Clintons did an about face and enthusiastically endorsed him, as if all the previous criticism of Obama was meaningless. In a way, it was meaningless. To put it another way, it was politics. Different candidates compete hard for their party’s nomination, and the losing candidates then support the nominee of their own party in the general election.

I do not know the exact nature of the personal relationship between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, but it is a reasonable guess that at least to some degree, they are friends. They are fellow Democrats, ideologically similar, and have been Senate colleagues for the past four years. It is likely that Mrs. Clinton resented her younger colleague’s aggressive, and ultimately successful, pursuit of a presidential nomination that she believed was rightfully hers. In spite of that, both Clinton and Obama understand the nature of politics, and there appears to be a mutual respect between the two of them. That mutual respect was missing in the relationship between Kennedy and McCarthy forty years earlier. Obama did not have to offer Clinton the job of Secretary of State, and she did not have to accept it. Both of them had good alternatives available to them.

Shortly after the election, I wrote in a blog post that I hoped that Bill Richardson, and not Hillary Clinton, would get the top job at State. As it turns out, the job will be Clinton’s. There is no use now in wishing that Obama had made a different choice, and I hope that Mrs. Clinton will do an excellent job. I read somebody’s commentary to the effect that as Secretary of State, Clinton would undermine the Obama presidency by trying to advance her own agenda for 2012. That is (very probably) nonsense. If Mrs. Clinton really intended to challenge Mr. Obama for the 2012 presidential nomination, there is no way that she would accept an offer to serve in his cabinet. If President Obama is made to look bad in the area of foreign policy, Secretary of State Clinton would certainly not look good. For now, Obama and Clinton have a commonality of interests. Obama has assembled a team of very talented and accomplished people to serve in his cabinet and other top posts. If he can use these people effectively, Obama can be a great president. For Hillary Clinton and the other top officials, their own reputations will be best enhanced if they succeed in making the president look good. Mrs. Clinton most likely will never become President of the United States. That is probably a disappointing reality to Mrs. Clinton and her fans. However, she does have the opportunity to establish a valuable legacy for herself in American history, by being the best Secretary of State that she can be.

Rev. Warren's role on Jan. 20 is not important

The Bard of Wilmette — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:22:59 EST

President-Elect Barack Obama has incurred a lot of hostility to his decision to have Rev. Rick Warren, a well-known televangelist, lead a prayer at the presidential inauguration. The principal reason for the opposition is that Rev. Warren is believed to be anti-gay, and that giving him the honor of leading a prayer at the inauguration is a huge insult to a group of Americans that strongly supported Obama in the election.

Rev. Warren would not have been my choice, but I think the hostile reaction is excessive. Personally, I never pay any attention to what any preacher says at a presidential inauguration. The one exception I recall is when Rev. Martin Luther King Sr. gave a rousing speech at the inauguration of President Jimmy Carter. Other than that, I do not know who the preachers are, or what they say. It is just part of a ceremony. To me, objecting to the presence of Rev. Warren is like being a guest at somebody’s wedding and complaining about the couple’s choice of music being used in the ceremony. Rev. Warren is not my proverbial cup of tea, but I fail to see that it is an important issue.

Is Rev. Warren really anti-gay, as his accusers suggest? The accusers certainly have a basis to believe that he is. He has said that anybody (gays included) are welcome to attend his church, but that gays who do not renounce their “lifestyle” cannot be members of his church. And of course, he was strongly in favor of California’s (his home state’s) Proposition 8, which would have the effect of prohibiting and invalidating same-sex marriages in that state. On the other hand, his record suggests that he is not infected with the same kind of ugly bigotry that characterizes some other celebrated TV preachers.

My own position on same-sex marriage is basically the same as that of President-Elect Obama. I am open to persuasion to the contrary, but it seems to me that civil unions (marriage in everything but name) plus protection against discrimination should be sufficient to address the legitimate civil rights issues, regarding gay rights. Social acceptance cannot be legislated; it takes time and patience. I think that most people can accept the idea of civil unions, and maybe after several years and we find that the sky is not falling, same-sex marriage by name will also gain wider acceptance. If I lived in California, I would have voted against Proposition 8. While I am not really an advocate of same-sex marriage, I believe that it is a mistake to make them constitutionally prohibited, which Proposition 8 does at the state level. On the other hand, there is too widespread a tendency to label people as bigots if they disagree with us on this or some other issue.

Think of the major civil rights legislation from the 1960’s. While it is probably fair to say that nearly all bigots opposed those civil rights measures, it is not fair to say that bigotry was a motivation for everybody who opposed those laws. There were principled conservatives who were personally against discrimination but who also believed that it was not the business of the federal government to prohibit what was admittedly obnoxious behavior. Their reasoning was wrong, of course. Before the passage of those laws, a significant segment of the American population was effectively denied many basic rights, including: the right to vote, job opportunities, decent education, and availability of housing and public accommodations. The federal government had a legitimate interest in safeguarding the rights of citizens whose civil rights were otherwise denied. The fact that the principled conservatives were allied with the bigots in opposing the civil right laws – although for different reasons – did not make them bigots themselves, even though they were (by any reasonable person’s reckoning today) on the wrong side of the issue.

In a similar way, I think that the people who voted in favor of Proposition 8 were mistaken, but it is too simple just to label everybody who voted for it (and those in other states who cheered it on) as bigots. Some of those who voted for it probably thought, rather than voting for same-sex marriage to be permanently prohibited in California, that civil unions are okay but they did not want to have same-sex marriage recognized immediately. That would be a misunderstanding of the wording of the proposition, but the point is that many of those who voted in favor of Proposition 8 are not really “anti-gay.” Others who voted for it undoubtedly feel that – as I suggested above – civil unions and anti-discrimination laws (regarding jobs, housing, etc.) are sufficient in meeting the legitimate civil rights issues regarding gays. Reasonable people can disagree over that issue, but I cannot accept the notion that all of those who believe that the word “marriage” should apply specifically to a union of one man and one woman are “anti-gay.”

To those who are upset about Rev. Warren having a high profile role at the inauguration of Barack Obama, I suggest that they accept – at least for now – the notion that President-Elect Obama just wants to reach out to a wide variety of Americans, including groups that did not support him in the election campaign. Watch what he does as president. I think he will satisfy most people who might be suspicious about his commitment to civil rights. The selection of Rev. Warren is a symbolic gesture to the evangelicals, and it has no other practical significance.

Obama should reconsider the union bill

The Bard of Wilmette — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:24:28 EST

I have been an enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama’s presidential prospects since the beginning, and his actions since the election have generally acted to reinforce my optimism regarding his coming presidency. Having said this, however, there are a few issues where I believe he is on the wrong side.

One of these is the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which is promoted by organized labor. EFCA would replace the current system, where the employees of a given group vote by secret ballot on whether or not to affiliate with a union. If I understand it correctly, under the current system, the election is required once the union organizers get the signatures from 30% of the employees. Those employees are not necessarily requesting to be part of the union, but in many cases are initially just exploring the possibility. They are looking to have an election, but without committing in advance on how they will vote. It seems to me that the present system works pretty well. With the decision being made by secret ballot, workers can choose their preference without pressure or retribution either from the union itself, the co-workers, or the employer. This is the real employee free choice.

In contrast, EFCA would require an employer to recognize a union – without an election – once organizers collect signed cards from a majority of employees. Some of these employees might be interested in considering the possibility, but EFCA would effectively remove that step in the process. It is not hard to imagine the pressure or intimidation that a worker could feel when forced to publicly declare his or her decision.

In a way, EFCA is like the line-item veto that most presidents and some pundits advocate. It might have good effects some of the time, but the advocates of both measures tend to ignore the negative effects. The main effect will be to strengthen the hand of the unions (in the case of EFCA) or the president (in the case of the line-item veto). While in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama actually advocated EFCA because it would supposedly protect workers from intimidation by their employers. Mr. President-Elect, that does not make any sense. Current law provides protections for workers from retribution by employers for attempting to unionize. In any case, one of the most valuable rights a worker has right now is the right to a secret ballot, and EFCA would take that right away. Shouldn’t a worker also be protected from intimidation on the part of the co-workers and the unions?

This issue has nothing to do with the historical importance of unions. The rise of the unions a few generations ago led to raising the living standards for millions of workers. I don’t think there is a serious dispute that raising those previously appalling working conditions and living standards was a good thing. There also cannot be much doubt that it was the rise of the unions that made those positive changes possible. Still, it does not logically follow that, because the unions helped many workers in the past, strengthening the position of the unions in the 21st Century will be good for workers going forward.

I believe that Barack Obama has shown excellent judgment on many issues, and in his approach to problem solving. It appears to me that he has chosen an excellent cabinet and other top advisors, and he will make sure that he is at least aware of the arguments that run contrary to his initial policy inclinations. I hope that EFCA will be one of the issues where he reconsiders his position.

Obama and Blagojevich

The Bard of Wilmette — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:59:09 EST

President-Elect Barack Obama has been criticized by some Republican politicians and pundits for his cautious initial response to the scandal surrounding Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. In today’s (12/11/08) Wall Street Journal, for example, columnist John Fund lays out the case for tainting Mr. Obama with Illinois’s culture of sleaze. The fact that Obama has been closely associated with Illinois Senate President Emil Jones, who in turn has been a close ally of Mr. Blagojevich, is apparently enough to convince Mr. Fund that there is something sinister about Obama’s apparently limited reaction to the explosive criminal charges against the governor. Mr. Fund also cites the rantings of a soapbox columnist, John Kass of the Chicago Tribune, as supporting evidence for his own claims.

Rod Blagojevich, Barack Obama, and Mayor Richard Daley are the three highest profile Chicago-based public officials. All of them are Democrats. We can reasonably assume that they all know each other, and it should be no surprise that, being elected officials from the same political party, they endorse each other in elections. It does not mean that they are friends, or that they are in any practical sense political allies, other than by definition. In Illinois, the Democrats control both houses of the state legislature and all of the statewide political offices. Given that starting point, it is amazing that Governor Blagojevich has almost no political friends at all, with the possible exception of Emil Jones.

I don’t know whether or not the president-elect has taken the time to read the 76-page complaint against Mr. Blagojevich. I get the impression he has been busy with other matters in recent days. Both by temperament and by training, Mr. Obama knows that it would be inappropriate for him to shoot his mouth off about the Blagojevich matter before he knows more details. His low-key initial response is appropriate. However, I do think that the president-elect should soon weigh in on the issue, and in very unambiguous terms.

I am well aware that Mr. Blagojevich is entitled to the legal presumption of innocence, although the U.S. Attorney’s case appears to be very strong. I also assume that the U.S. Attorney is ready to offer a plea deal, something like this:

“The case against you is overwhelming. Try to fight the charges, take your chances with the jury, and we will see to it that you get at least twenty years, and “minimum security” will not be an option. You will almost certainly be convicted, and would be an old man before you regain your freedom. Or… Resign your office immediately, plead guilty to the charges, and we will recommend five years in a minimum security prison. You could rejoin your family and get your life back while still relatively young and healthy. This offer stands for 24 hours.”

If Blagojevich really believes he is innocent, he should not plead guilty, but his own attorneys should explain to him just what he is up against. Blagojevich’s immediate predecessor as Illinois governor, George Ryan, is in prison for his own misdeeds, and the case against Blagojevich is much stronger than the case was against Ryan.

Whether Blagojevich decides to fight the charges or not, he should resign immediately, or at minimum take a leave of absence for long enough for Illinois’ lieutenant governor, Pat Quinn, to appoint the new U.S. Senator. Any appointment made by Blagojevich would be badly tainted, regardless of whether or not Blagojevich is eventually convicted.

If bad taste offends you, do not read the following...

The Bard of Wilmette — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 10:40:37 EST

Today is Thanksgiving – a very enjoyable holiday – so why would I risk ruining that positive feeling with a suggestion in very bad taste? I guess that is just the kind of person I am. The other day, we all saw the scene on television where Alaska Governor Sarah Palin “pardoned” one turkey at a turkey farm near Wasilla, and then amiably chatted away with a TV reporter while the gruesome slaughter of another turkey took place on camera a few yards behind her. During the recent campaign, a contributing factor to Ms. Palin’s stardom was her hunting prowess. There is nothing quite like shooting animals from an airplane to bring out the best character traits in all of us… or so I have heard.

The scene at the turkey farm got me to thinking: Who, or what, would I most like to have slaughtered under the smiling gaze of Sarah Palin? The two possibilities that come to my mind are both characters from irritating television commercials: the gecko in those Geico Insurance ads (in the animal category) and the Commissioner of the More Taste League in those Miller Lite ads (in the human category).

Okay, now the disclaimer, like the ones you hear at the end of so many commercials on TV or radio: This is not intended to advocate the murder of actors who are trying to make a living pitching a product. It is the fictitious characters themselves who I would like to see bumped off. No harm intended to any real person or animal.

The bailout, or buyout, of Detroit

The Bard of Wilmette — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:01:33 EST

One of the great things about being an American is that anybody can express his or her opinion, no matter how idiotic it may seem to be. With that in mind, I have a suggestion regarding a prospective bailout of the so-called “Big Three” Detroit-based automobile manufacturers. First, a disclaimer, even though it may be so obvious that it does not need to be stated: I am not an expert on this subject, or come to think of it, on any subject.

The combined market capitalization of General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler has been reduced to such a low level that the federal government could easily buy a controlling interest in any or all of these companies… at a cost which would be a small fraction of what I believe would be the total economic cost if one or more of these businesses was to fail. Rather than a bailout, I am suggesting a buyout. The details would be subject to debate and negotiation, but as a starting point, I would have the buyout contain the following characteristics:

The U.S. government (“Uncle Sam”) would buy a controlling interest (between 51-100%) in GM and Ford, at the October 31, 2008 price per share. Shareholders would not be forced to sell, but if the deal fails to go through, those shareholders would be at serious risk of their stock being worthless. The same offer would be made to Chrysler’s ownership, with a price set by independent appraisal if there is no ready agreement on the price.
Most top management would be fired. Some carefully chosen exceptions could be retained. No salaries would exceed that of the President of the United States.
The new board and management would run the business(es) with the goal of returning it to the private sector as a profitable enterprise. This would require:

reducing the number of brands, to the extent that they are redundant, and
renegotiating labor contracts. Some factory jobs will be lost, and others will be subject to wage reductions.

Legacy costs will have to be reduced. Retirees would lose, let’s say, 30% of their defined benefit pensions.
Secured creditors of the Big 3 would accept 90 cents on the dollar for all receivables that were open as of December 1, 2008. Unsecured creditors would accept 80%.
Uncle Sam will guarantee the labor, pension, bond, and accounts payable obligations, subject to the limitations noted above.
As an owner, Uncle Sam will, if it seems to be appropriate, also invest in making the business(es) more technically advanced, to enhance “shareholder” value.
The government-run enterprise would have a projected maximum time of five years. If it cannot be re-privatized within that time, it would subject to an orderly liquidation, unless Congress authorizes an extension.

The effect of all these measures is that everybody involved – shareholders, white and blue collar employees, retirees, creditors – will have to give up some of what they thought was secure, but hopefully averting a major financial catastrophe that is the likely alternative.

The image of the CEOs flying into Washington this week in their private jets, and then asking for taxpayer assistance, is funny, in a grim sort of way. It demonstrates just how clueless they really are. I would like to hear them say something like: “You can demand my resignation as a condition of financial assistance, or if you prefer, retain my services at a fraction of my previous compensation. However, do not let millions of innocent people suffer because you think that I am arrogant and/or incompetent.” In my opinion, important decisions should not be heavily influenced by the obnoxious behavior of the messenger. As much as I dislike the notion of GM and the others being “too big to fail,” I believe that the consequences would be so devastating to the U.S. economy that we cannot afford to be ideologically pure. I believe in capitalism and free markets, and the principle that the system involves failure as well as success. Many observers say, “Let them fail, or reorganize after a Chapter 11 filing.”

If I could be persuaded that the only people getting hurt in the process would be the shareholders and a bunch of overpaid employees, I would probably agree. The reality is different. There are a lot of currently well-run and financially healthy companies that could be ruined by the bankruptcy of any or all of the auto makers. These companies include the suppliers to the auto makers, and the suppliers of the suppliers, and so on. For many U.S. businesses, both inside and outside the automotive industry, an aggregate of billions of dollars worth of accounts receivable would quickly become worthless. This is not at all similar to having a major U.S. airline file Chapter 11.

Anyway, this is what I believe would be a wise course of action for the federal government, regarding how to avert economic disaster resulting from the failure of the Detroit-based auto makers. Everybody involved will have to suffer some loss, but this is the only way I can think of that has a chance of keeping an undeniable recession from becoming a major depression. One more thing: this will have to happen quickly. The program suggested here may be very unappealing, and for many reasons, but waiting the two months until Barack Obama takes office may be too late. If GM, for example, files Chapter 11, a lot of additional damage will result, and I am not at all sure that the damage will be reversible.

Anybody got a better idea?

Clinton for Sec. of State? I prefer Richardson

The Bard of Wilmette — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 10:08:50 EST

From inside Barack Obama’s staff, which had been unusually disciplined regarding message, comes the “leak” that President-elect Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton met to discuss the possibility of Clinton serving as Obama’s Secretary of State. The prospect of Clinton as Secretary of State is very interesting, to say the least, but I am curious about the leak itself. Did Obama authorize the leak to the press? If so, why? If not, how is he going to handle it? As of this writing, it is not clear whether Obama actually offered Clinton the job, or that if he offers her the job, she would accept it. My own feeling is that this press leak was a poor idea. If Obama authorized it, he made a mistake in doing so. If somebody on his staff acted unilaterally, he should fire that person, because he cannot have staff members pursuing their own agendas. Maybe everything will turn out very well, but the situation has needlessly invited the potential for major embarrassment to the incoming administration.

I hope that in the case of all the people who are being considered for any position in the new president’s cabinet, Obama would make certain rules and expectations clear. Something like this:

You are being considered for this important post because I want to have the best cabinet possible, and I believe that you have the intelligence, experience, judgment and temperament to do an outstanding job. Assuming that you take the job, there are certain things we need to remember at all times. You will be the head of the department, but I will be the president and ultimately responsible for all the actions of my administration. Your job is to carry out my policies. I want your honest advice. I do not want you to simply reinforce my own preconceived inclinations, if that is contrary to your own judgment. You can and should argue your case, whether in private conversations with me or in a cabinet meeting. However, I may on occasion decide against your recommendations, and once the decision is made, your job is to help carry out the president’s policies. I welcome private dissent, but if we reach a point where you cannot publicly support my administration’s policies, you should resign. You will choose your own top deputy, subject to my approval. You will have wide latitude regarding how you choose to run your department. The President’s Cabinet is a team of talented individuals, but it must function effectively as a team, and the president’s authority as “head coach” can never be in doubt. To extend the sports analogy for just the moment, I believe in giving credit to the players for our successes, and I will take the responsibility for our failures. However, if and when we reach a point where either you or I decide that it is time for a parting of the ways, I expect the resignation to be quiet and dignified.

Back to the subject of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State, I think it is possible that she can be a good one, but I also have some nagging doubts about whether or not she will be a good team player, and whether or not her administrative skills are good enough. If she is offered and takes the job, and two years later, President Obama decides that he needs to make a change, will she resign gracefully? I know that Obama was very impressed with Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals, and I can understand the case for making Hillary Clinton Obama’s Secretary of State, but I have my doubts.

For a long time, my preference for that post has been Bill Richardson. Mr. Richardson has the diplomatic credentials at least equal to those of Mrs. Clinton, along with better administrative experience, and (in my opinion) less political and emotional baggage. While it looks like the job is Clinton’s if she wants it (if the job is not being offered to her, then the press leak was uncharacteristically reckless), I hope that the job ultimately goes to Richardson. If Obama wants to make a political payoff to Clinton, which would be understandable, my suggestion is that he appoint her to fill a vacancy in the federal judiciary, along with the understanding that she would at least receive serious consideration later on for the Supreme Court. If Hillary Clinton is going to be our next Secretary of State, I hope she will be a good one and prove my doubts wrong.

A suggestion on behalf of foreign trade

The Bard of Wilmette — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:09:52 EST

Everybody who knows me personally is well aware that I have strongly supported the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama, and that I am very pleased with his election victory. It has been my feeling that Obama has the intelligence, the real life experience, the temperament, political skills, and (in most cases) the policy inclinations that could make him an outstanding president. At any rate, we will soon be able to find out.

One policy area that has concerned me is trade policy. Obama claims to believe in free markets and free trade, and I have no doubt that he understands the intellectual arguments in support of those principles. Unfortunately, his Senate actions in these areas suggest that his support of free trade is mainly as an abstract idea.

A Wall Street Journal editorial has a useful suggestion. Let the outgoing president take the political heat for some free trade deals which have merit but not popular support. I do not have much regard for the WSJ when it comes to purely political issues (the war on terror, judicial appointments, etc.), but when it comes to economic issues, they really know their subject. Check out the following:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122645083164919237.html

President Obama and political correctness

The Bard of Wilmette — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:04:23 EST

Our president-elect, Barack Obama, will face many tough challenges when he assumes the presidency this coming January 20. I hope that he will not aggravate those already difficult circumstances by having to worry about political correctness.

On the personal level, Barack and Michelle Obama have two decisions to make regarding their family life. Where are they going to send their daughters to school? Also, what kind of dog are they going to get? Just in case Barack and Michelle were about to solicit my opinion on these important topics, I will take this opportunity to state the obvious: In your capacity as parents, act in the interests of your children, and ignore any political ramifications.

I read today that the mayor of Washington, Adrian Fenty, has put out the word that he at least hopes that the Obamas will consider sending Malia and Sasha to a public school in Washington, D.C. It seemed to me that President Carter sent his daughter to a public school because that would reinforce his just-plain-folk image. Perhaps I am being unfair to Mr. Carter, and to the D.C. public schools, but Barack and Michelle Obama should send their daughters to whatever school will best serve the interests of Malia and Sasha. If that should happen to be a private school, even if it is one with considerable snob appeal, then that is where those kids should go. The educational environment is a big consideration, as is the social environment, and the fact that Secret Service protection will be ever-present for the president’s immediate family. What Barack and Michelle should not consider at all is how the choice of a school for their children will impact his political standing.

In a similar way, the choice of a First Dog should be based on what is good for the family. The dog should not be a political prop any more than the children’s school. According to the president-elect, one of his children has allergies to most dogs, but apparently certain dog breeds should not be a problem. He stated his preference for getting a dog from a shelter, but noted that this goal tends to conflict with the more important issue of the allergy in the household. Personally, I think that mutts are often great dogs. My favorite dog was a Save-a-Pet mutt who lasted about 13 years. Then again, nobody in our household has dog allergies. I am sure that, in the end, the Obamas will do the sensible thing and get a dog who presents little or no risk of allergic reactions in the Obama family. Whatever dog they wind up getting, I just hope that political considerations will not enter into the decision-making process.

Okay, so much for two issues that are interesting but of no real importance outside the Obama family. There is a more substantive political correctness matter facing Mr. Obama. Larry Summers, a highly respected Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration, is believed to be under serious consideration for the same job in the upcoming Obama administration. However, there is serious opposition to Mr. Summers, because of remarks he made as Harvard University President a few years ago. Mr. Summers noted that, while men and women on average performed about equally in academic achievement in math and science, the variance among men was greater, so that men were over represented at both the top and bottom ends of the spectrum. He suggested that these differences should be studied, both to verify (or refute) the observations, and (if those observations appear to be verified) to test possible hypotheses that might explain the reason for these differences. Mr. Summers never suggested any inherent inferiority of women, but some of the P-C police declared that he was guilty of being out to keep all young women barefoot and pregnant.

Let me add a personal note here. I am the father of two sons (and no daughters). None of the three of us have ever been especially good science students. In contrast, my sister was an outstanding science student, and she has a good job now doing… scientific stuff. She probably would be annoyed to have me publicly characterize her as an “accomplished scientist,” but that label fits her more than almost anybody else I know.

I cannot see that Larry Summers is guilty of any serious wrong-headed thinking. Even if his premise (that males are more likely than females to reach the top academic percentile in math and science) is wrong, he was speaking as the head of a prestigious academic institution, where inquiry and challenging conventional wisdom are supposed to be the way of life. If we think he is wrong, instead of condemning him for heresy, demonstrate the error of his ways by constructing a superior study that will (or at least might) refute his assertions.

We should also keep in mind that Larry Summers is under consideration for Treasury Secretary. I believe that his alleged views about the differences in abilities between men and women have been badly misconstrued, but even if that is not the case, it is of no relevance to the government post in question. If Mr. Summers was under consideration for heading the Department of Health and Human Services, or Education, I could at least understand the objections, and I might agree that the controversy at Harvard would deserve careful scrutiny.

The economy is in recession, possibly the worst recession in the lifetime of most of us, and President Obama will need the best Treasury Secretary he can get. Maybe that person is Larry Summers. The Treasury Secretary should be chosen on the basis of how it is believed he or she will perform in that capacity, and not on the basis of whether he/she offended some people with remarks made on an unrelated subject a few years ago. Maybe somebody else would be better than Mr. Summers for that job, but the decision should be on factors directly relevant to the specific job.

The problems with Palin are McCain's fault

The Bard of Wilmette — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 10:17:50 EST

I thought that I might have written my last post in my.barackobama.com, but I could not resist registering a comment on the sniping by some unnamed McCain campaign officials regarding Sarah Palin.

Personally, I always thought that Governor Palin was a terrible choice to be John McCain’s vice-president. I make no judgment on whether or not Palin is a good governor of Alaska, but it quickly became apparent that she was hopelessly out of her depth as a candidate for national office. From what I know about her political philosophy, she is (in my opinion) on the wrong side of most policy issues, but that is not my concern. I am not a Republican, and that party hardly needs my advice on which candidates it should select for high public office. My concern regarding Ms. Palin is that she displays an incredible ignorance, and complete lack of curiosity, about the world outside her home state.

I give her the benefit of the doubt by assuming that her alleged ignorance about whether Africa is a continent or country is false. I also assume that the $150,000 wardrobe embarrassment is entirely the fault of others. It still leaves plenty of examples, demonstrated directly by Ms. Palin as opposed to being attributed to her, showing that she is unfit for the job she was seeking. In response to fairly easy questions, she could not name one news magazine or newspaper that she reads, except for pathetically claiming that she reads “all of them.” She could not name one Supreme Court case, other than Roe vs. Wade, where she could comment on the Court’s ruling. She also used the word “maverick” so many times, to describe both Senator McCain and herself, that I got the impression that she believed there was some magic in that word. If was as if her debate strategy was: “Remember to use the word ‘maverick’ any time you can’t think of anything else to say.”

So, John McCain’s personal selection for vice-president turned out to be somebody who could excite the social conservatives in the Republican Party base, but who also turned off many moderate Republicans and conservative intellectuals. Whose fault is that? John McCain, of course. There were plenty of well-qualified Republicans available to McCain, but he rejected all of them, either due to personal dislike (Mitt Romney, for example), or a sense that his personal preference would not be acceptable to the social conservatives (such as Tom Ridge). If he wanted a woman for his running mate, calculating that this would attract many former Hillary Clinton supporters, he could have chosen either of the U.S. Senators from Maine, but again, either Senator Collins or Senator Snowe might be judged to be too moderate for the Republican base. I think that another factor in McCain’s thinking is that he likes to spring surprises, and he certainly did that with his choice of Sarah Palin for V-P. He hardly knew Palin, having met her twice briefly before offering her the V-P candidacy.

As it turned out, the selection of Palin did not work out very well. Palin’s defenders (such as MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough) argue that Palin at least gave McCain a temporary boost in the polls, that no other V-P candidate would have even done that, and that there was no way that any Republican ticket was going to win this year. The first point is true, and the other two are speculative. If the Republicans are going to learn from this election defeat, however, they should face certain realities.

Their presidential candidate selected a running mate who he hardly knew. Contrary to his slogan about putting “country first,” he made the cynical calculation that his running mate would help him get elected (by motivating social conservatives and attracting unhappy Clinton supporters). McCain did not consider that Palin would help him govern after they took office, and he obviously could not have regarded her as an ideal choice to become president in the event that McCain could not complete his term.

Immediately following the election, some unnamed McCain campaign officials trashed Palin to the media, and they really went over the top in doing so. I do not like Sarah Palin, and I believe she is shockingly ignorant regarding matters a candidate for national office should know about, but I cannot believe that Palin’s ignorance goes to the level of not knowing that Africa is a continent. As for the allegation that she does not know which three countries participate in the North American Free Trade Agreement, I think that is possible, but I cannot accept the claim of an anonymous source.

I cannot help wondering if McCain himself quietly approved the leaking of this information to the press. I presume that McCain’s selection of Palin was done in consultation with one or more of these campaign aides who are now feeding trash talk about her to journalists. If the Palin selection was a disaster, McCain and any campaign aide who had a role in choosing her should bear the responsibility.

This episode reminds me of a few years ago, when the company where I work was trying to deal with a small businessman who was both crooked and incompetent. As he was getting caught up in his own lies, he gave us the “I am surrounded by idiots” argument. The reason why things were going wrong, and promises repeatedly broken, was that his employees were hopelessly inept. He is blaming the people he hired, and continues to employ, in spite of their supposed incompetence. I guess that is a lot easier than accepting any responsibility for the actions of his subordinates. Fans of John Cleese might also think of the Basil Fawlty character. Restaurant patron (after receiving the wrong order): “I told your waiter…” Fawlty: “Yes, well, he is hopeless, isn’t he? You might just as well have told the cat!”

In retrospect, Sarah Palin probably should have declined McCain’s offer, and if she was interested in national office, she could have spent the next two or three years quietly becoming better informed about national and international issues, preparing to run in 2012 or 2016. However, when the offer is made, it must be hard to turn it down. As things stand now, Palin is a laughingstock, and it will be a tall order for her to gain credibility for a future presidential run. As for McCain, if he wants to know who is really to blame for the problems with the McCain-Palin ticket, he should look in the mirror.

Obama's cabinet

The Bard of Wilmette — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 00:33:17 EST

For all the problems that we have in America, this week’s presidential election and the reactions to it serve as a reminder of an important positive characteristic of our country: the peaceful, and even cooperative, transfer of power between leaders of opposing political parties. After a very long and hard fought campaign, John McCain gave a gracious and classy speech, pledging to do his part to assure that Barack Obama will be able to begin his presidency with bipartisan wishes for success. President George W. Bush has also pledged to be fully cooperative in the transition, so that his successor will be completely ready to assume the duties of the presidency on January 20, 2009. I have made a lot of unflattering statements concerning Senator McCain and President Bush over the past several months (or years, in the case of Mr. Bush), but with the campaign finally over, they are acting as they should, genuinely putting “country first,” as opposed to the empty political slogan used by the McCain campaign.

This cooperative tradition only dates back to 1952, when outgoing President Truman made the point of putting his personal feelings aside to help incoming President Eisenhower in making the transition as smooth as possible. From what I have read, such cooperation was unprecedented at the time, at least when there was a change in parties. Since then, of course, this has become the conduct expected by the American public. Too many countries around the world cannot even have a peaceful transition of power, and in some of those who do, the outgoing leadership is not always helpful in easing the path for its successors.

Newsweek’s web site contains several brief essays from former cabinet officers in both Democratic and Republican administrations. Their messages are basically words of advice for their near-future counterparts in the upcoming Obama administration. The majority of those contributing this advice are Republicans, although that does not really matter. They all appear to be motivated by a genuine desire to be helpful.

In general, most of these former officials recommend that the new cabinet official (let’s say, Attorney General, just to pick an example) seek out the perspectives of all living predecessors in that post, and maybe also all living ex-presidents. While I strongly hope that President Obama will not pick an Attorney General who would operate in a manner similar to John Ashcroft or Alberto Gonzales, my guess is that there would still be some value to getting the perspective from both of those men. In addition, for all of their faults, I think they would be happy to help if they were asked.

Another common piece of advice from these ex-cabinet officers is they must clearly understand what the president expects of them. The cabinet official should be able to give the president his (or her; I hope the reader has no objection to my use of the masculine pronoun for the sake of simplicity) honest advice, but then publicly support the president’s decision even if retaining a private disagreement. In addition, the cabinet official should be able to work cooperatively and effectively with his counterparts at other departments where there are overlapping responsibilities. It is no secret, for example that in the first four years of the current presidency, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and State Secretary Powell were not cooperative with each other. The cabinet official should also have a deputy who he can trust completely, and he should also understand the role and value of his department’s career employees. For at least some of the cabinet officials (Treasury Secretary being an obvious example), it is also advisable to establish a good relationship with his counterparts in the other G7 countries.

I would add a few guidelines I did not see in these Newsweek articles.

One is that there should be no expectation of job security. Every cabinet officer serves at the pleasure of the president, and he should resign without argument or complaint if either he wants to leave (for any reason), or if the president wants him to leave. Along these lines, I would advise Obama not to appoint close personal friends to the head of cabinet departments. It would be awkward for him to have to fire his friends.

Another point is that the cabinet official’s job is to carry out the president’s policy, but he has to be able to give the president his honest advice, even if it is contrary to the president’s inclinations. If he feels that the president is paying no attention to him, or that the president has chosen a very bad course of action, he should not hang around. I always thought that Colin Powell should have resigned as Bush’s Secretary of State long before he did, because it was apparent that Bush was not listening to him.

While the primary duty is to carry out the president’s policy, it has to be done within the law, and it would be destructive to the president’s image if he is perceived as systematically favoring one group over another. Specifically regarding the job of Attorney General, this should be a non-political post. Far too many of them in my lifetime have been personal cronies of the president, using the machinery of the federal government to reward friends and to punish supposed enemies.

Anyway, I am very glad that Obama won the election (and that, among other things, Obama will be appointing the federal judges for the next four years). His reading tastes – notably Team of Rivals – suggest to me that he will make good decisions regarding his cabinet. However, there are some potential pitfalls, and I hope that he will get some good advice on selecting people whose jobs, in part, will be to give him good advice.

Looking forward to the Obama presidency

The Bard of Wilmette — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:41:06 EST

This is my last Obama campaign blog post, and you won’t have The Bard to kick around any more. Whoops! For a second, I thought I was Richard Nixon. It is a great relief that the election is over, and that Barack Obama has been elected the 44th President of the United States. Literally millions of us donated time and money, mostly in small amounts, but adding up to immense aggregate totals. Sarah Palin’s sneering reference to Obama’s background as a community organizer was way off the mark. The now president-elect’s skills as a community organizer had a great deal to do with the success of his campaign against what were originally very long odds. For yours truly, it feels very good to have been able to support a presidential candidate – with genuine enthusiasm as opposed to settling for somebody who is merely okay – and to be on the winning side. As a life long Cubs fan who is less than 100 years old, I can report that it is a special treat to see our team (in this case, Obama-Biden) win the big prize.

I cannot remember who it was, but I heard somebody joke the other day that President Bush’s successor will inherit so many large problems that the winner of the election might want to demand a recount. When he takes office in January, President Obama will have some serious challenges, and in case he happens to read this, I believe that he would be wise to consider the following ideas:

He will begin his presidency with immense goodwill. To a large degree, this is true of all new presidents, and it applies to Obama even more so than with most other new presidents. The overwhelming majority of the populations of practically every country in the world are thrilled with Obama’s election and anxious to see him succeed. As for the domestic U.S. population, most are looking forward to the retirement of Mr. Bush and the arrival of his successor. Obama also must keep in mind that the bipartisan best wishes will not last long.

While I am not a believer in the notion that there is some magical importance to the “first 100 days” of a new presidency, President Obama should use the first few months of his presidency to push for his most politically difficult policy initiative. I don’t think it matters whether it takes 100 or (let’s say) 150 days, but the new president’s reservoir of goodwill does not last long, no matter what he does. Healthcare reform was an important issue in the campaign, and achieving it might be one of those things that can only be accomplished in the first few months of his presidency. My (possibly inaccurate) recollection is that Jimmy Carter tried to do too many things at once right after he became president. If he had a dozen or more “top” priorities, it became meaningless, with the consequence that he accomplished none of his goals. President Obama must focus on one or two major initiatives at a time, and healthcare reform probably ought to be his first major task. Another major policy issue to confront early is tax policy. If Obama plans to raise taxes, even if it is only to 5% of the population, he will stand the best chance of achieving it while he enjoys general popularity.

One of my favorite qualities about Barack Obama is that he is a good listener. I expect him to have excellent advisors around him, and that he will seek input from advisors who do not necessarily agree with him, or with each other. Obama is secure enough about himself that he is not afraid to be surrounded by policy experts who are smarter than he is, at least in their own areas of expertise. One of his favorite books is said to be Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals, which detailed Abraham Lincoln’s cabinet. Obama is an excellent student of history, and for a historical role model of a president, Obama could certainly do a lot worse than study the presidency of Lincoln. I am not so naïve to think that Obama will never make a wrong decision as president, but I am confident that he will make the right decision most of the time. His odds of success are enhanced by his own intelligence, his temperament, and his deep knowledge of history in general and of the U.S. Constitution in particular.

Last night, Obama said that he would be president of all the people, and he will work to earn the trust of those who did not support his candidacy. All newly elected presidents say basically the same thing, and they probably mean it at the time they first say it. However, there has usually been a tendency to depart from that ideal quickly. I hope that Obama never forgets that his success as president will depend on his ability to work constructively with the political opposition. Although his own party will have solid control of both the House and Senate, Obama will be most effective if he is able to work with congressional leaders in both parties.

One of the major concerns Republicans raised about Obama in recent weeks was the prospect that Democrats would have strong control of both houses of Congress, and that Obama would be either unwilling or unable to stop the ambitious super-liberal agenda of Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid. I do not recall any prominent Republicans objecting when their own party controlled all facets of the federal government a few years ago, but there is still some validity to their point. Obama may find himself in occasional opposition to some of the Pelosi and Reid programs. He should make sure that those differences are worked out before the issues are even public. He should meet with the congressional leaders privately every week if possible, so that he can help shape the legislative agenda in a way that both sides could hopefully support.

In this little essay, I have avoided policy specifics. I do not want to say something here like: “Obama should pursue this specific policy” or that he should “stop the proposed XYZ Program.” If he follows the approach that he at least hinted in his campaign, he will appoint good advisors, genuinely listen to them, make sure that he understands the issues from a contrasting viewpoint, and then make a well-informed decision. Obama has the qualities that could possibly make him an outstanding president. He will also have to deal with some very stressful circumstances for our country. After he becomes president, I hope he never loses the fine qualities that made such a good candidate in the first place.

It's the Barack Obama Show!

The Bard of Wilmette — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:02:32 EDT

I watched Barack Obama’s half hour infomercial last night (Oct. 29), along with some of his appearance with Bill Clinton in Florida later in the evening. Nobody asked my opinion, but the great thing about these blogs is that nobody has to. We can sound off anyway, so here goes…

I thought the infomercial was well done. It seemed to be calculated mainly toward the former Hillary Clinton supporters not yet sold on Barack Obama. If Obama appears to be heading into this election with about 80% support of those who had voted for Clinton in the primaries, this program looks designed to improve that figure to 85%, if not better. If Obama is successful in getting 85% of the former Clinton supporters in the general election, he should almost certainly succeed in winning the election.

The program profiled a few families who are personally appealing characters, who face some challenges, and who live in so-called battleground states. The tone of the message from Obama was completely positive. There was no mention of Bush, McCain, or any of their allies. The one minor criticism I have of the program is that in order to blunt the McCain campaign’s attacks on Obama’s alleged socialism and “sharing the wealth,” I would like to have seen a small business owner included among those hard working Americans profiled in the program. This could be an owner of an independent store or restaurant (or maybe even a plumbing service, with licensed plumbers), who enjoys a high current income but who also knows that this high income level may be short lived. Many of these people are also Obama supporters, but they are never represented in Obama’s ads or public statements.

As for the first public campaign appearance of Barack Obama with Bill Clinton, I thought it was overdue, but much better late than never. Although I have long suspected that Bill and Hillary Clinton will privately vote for John McCain in this election, it does not really matter. They have both credibly come across as Obama supporters since the beginning of the Democratic convention. As good a public speaker as Obama is, there is nobody who can match Bill Clinton’s combination of high intellect and working class appeal. Obama needs Clinton’s assistance in appealing to a significant portion to the traditional Democratic Party base, and Clinton needs Obama’s help in restoring his own public image with Blacks and liberal intellectuals – two important elements of the electorate whose regard for Bill Clinton had declined during the primary campaign. It seemed to me that Obama and Bill Clinton should have made appearances together earlier than last night, even if motivated by mutual self-interest rather than genuine friendship. On the other hand, if Obama wins this election, we can argue that he will have used both Bill and Hillary Clinton in exactly the right dosages.

McCain set the rules, and he still complains

The Bard of Wilmette — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 22:54:29 EDT

In his final efforts to rescue his uphill efforts to win the upcoming presidential election, Senator John McCain is making a variety of wild charges and complaints against Senator Barack Obama. The problem for Senator McCain is that he has basically set the ground rules, and he is still losing. The election is still six days away, and anything can happen. Barack Obama has not yet won the election, and while his chances look promising, it is still possible that Obama can lose this election to McCain. We cannot be over-confident.

The McCain campaign is complaining that Obama “lied” about his supposed promise to be subject to the federal matching fund rules. Many in the news media, including some who support Obama’s candidacy, are on record as agreeing with McCain’s version of the story. As I see it, Obama’s only mistake was to have hinted in the first place that he would agree to be bound by the constraints of the federal matching funds. His agreement was subject to conditions that would not (and almost certainly could not) be met. This included the advertising by the so-called “527” groups and by the political parties. Obama should never have even implied that he would accept federal matching funds and be bound by the resulting limits on campaign spending. Obama does have more campaign funds than McCain does, but the effective advantage is less than some news reports suggest. The Republican Party has more money than does the Democratic Party, and they have spent a big portion of their treasury advantage on behalf of McCain’s presidential efforts. The 527’s are completely uncontrolled, of course. Barack Obama said in his book, The Audacity of Hope, that political fund raising is the part of his job that he likes the least. Whether he likes it or not, it is clear by now that Obama is very good at that aspect of his job. More to the point, John McCain had a big part in writing the rules regarding campaign financing. Does he remember McCain-Feingold? What Obama is really guilty of is mastering the rules of campaign financing that were handed to him, and playing the game far better than anybody else. McCain is the last person in the world who should have a valid complaint on this issue. Did McCain, or any other Republican, ever suggest that they had an unfair advantage when they were the ones who had superior financial resources?

The McCain campaign is also emphasizing Obama’s supposed list of unsavory friends and allies. McCain himself, to his partial credit, has largely avoided grandstanding about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s former pastor, although vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin has graciously agreed to pinch-hit on that subject. McCain has spent a lot of personal effort tying Obama to former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, and now their campaign is emphasizing Obama’s possible friendship with Rashid Khalidi (who they claim is a former spokesman for the PLO; in any case, McCain also has historical ties to Mr. Khalidi). Obama’s actual ties to all of these people are far less sinister than his political opponents try to suggest, but IF that is the standard – guilt by association, no matter how vague that association may be – than McCain’s own list of unsavory friends easily rivals that of Obama. Is it necessary to cite a few examples? How about Todd Palin (“first dude” and husband of Sarah) and his Alaska Independence Party? How about Rev. John Hagee, a high profile bigot whose support McCain actively solicited, before he repudiated the reverend when that connection became embarrassing? How about the U.S. Council for World Freedom, which, despite its apparently benign name, was linked to former Nazi collaborators and right-wing death squads in Central America? How about financial crook Charles Keating? For the most part, the Obama campaign has avoided playing up McCain’s associations with these people. It did briefly run an ad reminding us of McCain’s connections to Mr. Keating, but even that was only in response to McCain’s attack ads implying that Obama is a close friend of Bill Ayers, who committed politically motivated acts of arson way back when Obama was a young child. The only real guilt-by-association that the Obama campaign has emphasized, regarding Senator McCain, is McCain’s high degree of support for the policies of President George W. Bush.

McCain is also making a big deal out of his own supposed superior experience, compared to that of Obama. Historically, resume credentials have been a poor predictor of presidential performance, but even assuming McCain’s claims (1. that his experience for the job of president is far superior to Obama’s; 2. that this superior experience implies superior wisdom and judgment, and is therefore an important indicator that McCain would be the better presidential choice) to be true, why in the world did McCain select Sarah Palin to be his heartbeat away from the presidency? Regardless of whether or not we agree with Ms. Palin on policy issues, she has shown that she is shockingly ignorant on matters outside the state of Alaska. Name one Supreme Court case, besides Roe v. Wade, where you disagreed with the Court’s decision. Can’t think of one? Okay. Name one magazine or newspaper that you read as a source of news. Can’t name one of them, either? Okay. What can you tell us about the actual job of the vice-president? That he or she is in charge of the Senate?

Finally, the McCain campaign has basically conceded that the Democrats are likely to strengthen their presently narrow control of both Houses of Congress, and they are issuing dire warnings of what will happen if the Democrats also capture the White House, with the implication that over time, the federal judiciary also will eventually tilt in the Democrats’ direction. They tell us that one-party rule would be a disaster. Did Senator McCain, or any other notable Republican, complain about one-party rule when their own party had effective control of all branches of the federal government from 2001-2007? I didn’t think so. I have my own concerns about one political party having overwhelming control of all branches of the government. The Democrats may be as prone to overreaching (when they get the opportunity) as were the Republicans. There are some policy issues (free trade being one example) that I believe will not be well served with Democrats strongly in control of Congress as well as the White House. Still, McCain is an obvious hypocrite when he warns of the dangers of one-party rule when he clearly had no problem when his own party was in control.

In all these cases, John McCain has basically set the rules, and failed his own tests. If McCain loses his bid for the presidency next week, it will be a well-deserved loss. In part, McCain is a victim of circumstances (I could not resist stealing a line from Curly Howard of the Three Stooges) beyond his control: unpopular incumbent president, economic crisis, etc. He was probably the best candidate of the Republicans who were running for president at the beginning of this year, but he has not run a good campaign. In part, his problem was that he had to try to solidify the party base AND keep his popularity with independents, but he could not effectively do both, so he opted for the party base. In contrast, Obama has run a skillful campaign, appears to have a reasonably unified party, and I hope and expect that he will be elected. His margin of victory may be large or small, but one way or another, his odds look good.

Obama and tax policy

The Bard of Wilmette — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:30:52 EDT

One of the phrases recently jumped on by the McCain campaign is that Obama is determined to “share the wealth.” This is a phrase that scares a lot of people, and John McCain himself has called it “socialism,” which is a word designed to scare everybody who was not already scared by “share the wealth.” As one who is probably a little more conservative than most Obama supporters, I am one of those who might be concerned about the implications of socialism and Obama… if I believed it was true.

It is clear that Barack Obama does intend to increase the progressive nature of the federal income tax. Even if carried out to a limited extent, this can be construed as sharing the wealth. As far as I can tell, the top federal income tax rate (for taxpayers with incomes in excess of $250,000) would rise from 35% to 39.6%. Capital gains taxes would rise from 15% to 20%, and dividends would be taxed at 20% rather than at the higher ordinary income rates. In total, this would certainly represent a tax increase for high-income taxpayers, but not really a huge increase, and those who characterize it as socialism are either lying or they have no idea what that word means.

A point I have tried to make in some previous blog postings – and which I have not seen addressed by any candidate or journalist – is that the real collective tax burden on the American people is government spending, not current year government revenue collections. Regardless of how worthy the expenditures, or where they are being spent (wars, social programs, roads, pensions, interest on the debt, etc.), all these things have to be paid for, and the question is: who is expected to pay? Regarding who is expected to pay, the two main principles to consider are:

Who has the ability to pay?
Who is deriving the benefits?

The progressive federal income tax structure is based on the principle that people with high incomes can afford to pay a higher percentage of those incomes to fund the government programs. Regressive taxes, such as excise taxes (alcohol, cigarettes, gasoline, etc), are based on the principle that people pay based on the consumption of those products. There is nothing wrong with either kind of tax. Obviously, we would all like to pay less, rather than more, in taxes of all kinds.

However, government spending must be paid for, and if we do not pay for it now, we simply increase the burden to our children. What I found to be most objectionable about President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 “tax cuts” is that they were not accompanied by reduced government spending. In fact, government spending increased sharply, thanks in no small part to two wars. Mr. Bush’s “tax cuts” actually amounted to tax increases in the form of IOU’s to be paid for by our descendents.

Barack Obama has laid out some plans that will mean increased government spending. I have no doubt that most of these programs are worthy, but I am very skeptical about his assertions that these programs can be paid for – given the already huge deficit at present – with only modest tax increases for the wealthy and tax decreases for nearly everybody else. John McCain also has promised tax cuts, and he makes the completely implausible claim that he will balance the budget within the next few years. McCain says he would “freeze” spending, except for a few areas that already cover most government spending, and says he would eliminate the dreaded “earmarks,” as if that would solve the problem. I am all in favor of getting rid of the earmarks, but the implication that this would solve our budget problems is like having a weight-conscious person eating a lunch consisting of three huge cheeseburgers, super-sized French fries, a chocolate sundae… and a Diet Coke instead of regular Coke.

I want to be clear that I strongly support Barack Obama for president, and for many reasons. If he is elected, which seems likely, I think he has the potential to be a great president. I do not agree with him on every single issue, but he has many qualities that I admire, and I am confident that those of us who in some manner participated in his campaign will be glad that we did. Still, I cannot be very confident that Obama’s fiscal management will be sound, but then again, McCain would be even worse.

Election night - getting a good night's sleep

The Bard of Wilmette — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:25:35 EDT

A Canadian friend asked me last night about watching the election returns on the evening of November 4. When will we really know who won? When can I go to bed? I had not thought about it, but my response was basically the following:

Look for the results in four states in the Eastern Time Zone: Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. The polls in all four states should be closed before 8:00 PM (Eastern Time). The TV networks have a tendency to use exit polls to call the election winner, unless the exit polls are too close to call. If Obama wins at least two of those four states, I would feel very confident that he wins the overall election, even though voting is still going on in many other states. Actually, if he wins even one of those four states, I think his chances are good, but I would be a little concerned if he does not win at least two of those four.

Personally, I do not like exit polls, and if I was ever approached by a reporter after emerging from the polling location, I would lie about my vote, and I believe it would be a good thing if all Americans would do the same thing. Before exit polls, the networks used sample precincts: selected precincts that were believed to represent the state as a whole, with a high degree of accuracy. Those sample precincts were counted quickly, and often a "projected winner" of that state could quickly be announced. At least in those days, projected winners were based on some actual vote counts. With exit polls, a winner is often announced five seconds after the polls have supposedly closed, and of course, with no votes actually counted. Still, it appears that most people answer truthfully to reporters. We could have a strong indication of the election winner relatively early in the evening.

It appears to me that Obama's chances look very good in Virginia, and clearly better than 50/50 in both Ohio and Florida. North Carolina is more iffy, but still quite possible for Obama. Assuming that all the states now showing either Obama or McCain with a clear lead vote according to expectations, and even assuming that the remaining "toss up" states (e.g. Missouri) go with McCain, I am confident that it will be Obama and Biden who will be celebrating... as long as they can win two, and perhaps just one, of the states referred to above.

With the debates over, most voters have been able to make up their minds on who they prefer. We need strong voter turnout, and I think that Obama supporters are generally more enthusiastic than are McCain supporters. I see just two possibilities that might derail Obama's path to the White House. First, a major terrorist attack before the election, which would swing many voter concerns back to the area of McCain's supposed strength. Second, Obama doing something really outrageous, such as declaring that he is Napolean. I certainly hope that neither of these things happens.

Is this how McCain is "putting America first?"

The Bard of Wilmette — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:23:20 EDT

Yesterday’s (October 14) Globe and Mail, Canada’s leading national newspaper, contained an editorial that nicely sums up an outsider’s friendly but detached viewpoint regarding the recent tactics of the McCain campaign. It was printed on the day of national elections in Canada, but mindful of the importance of America’s election campaign to Canada and elsewhere, the Globe and Mail still figured that this was worthy of editorial space in their newspaper. Here is a link to that editorial:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081014.EMCCAIN14/TPStory/?query=mccain+editorial

Most of us – Democrats, independents, and moderate Republicans – who support Barack Obama’s efforts to become our next president probably were in agreement that of all the Republicans who were running for president at the beginning of this year, John McCain was the most respectable of the lot, and that he would at least be a significant improvement over President George W. Bush. So… would all of you still agree with that statement? Compared with the other GOP contenders who appeared in the early candidates’ debates, I suppose that McCain is still preferable to the others, but not by much. It says a lot more about the sorry lot of Republican contenders than it does about McCain’s merits. As for his being an improvement over Bush (in the event that McCain is elected), it is hard for me to imagine that he could be worse, but the John McCain I used to respect several years ago is long gone.

Had I been honestly advising the McCain campaign, I would have recommended that he take somebody such as Mitt Romney or Charlie Crist to be his running mate. I am no fan of either Romney or Crist, but both men at least project some level of competence, and probably would have made McCain more electable. From the cynical viewpoint of an Obama supporter, I am glad that McCain chose Sarah Palin for V-P… assuming that their ticket loses the election.

The Palin selection is an illustration of what kind of president John McCain will be, if he does become our next president. He ignores the best advice of those who are presumably his most trusted aides. Instead of a carefully planned process of trying to reach a decision of potentially great importance, McCain went with a gut feeling, choosing a running mate who was nearly a total stranger to him. If it works out, he looks like a genius; if not, he looks like a complete fool. In other words, he is the “decider,” and he is going to play his hunch. Doesn’t that sound like somebody we know all too well?

Sarah Palin was chosen for this role because of two assumptions. First, she would excite the Republican Party base of so-called social conservatives. Second, she might draw a lot of Hillary Clinton supporters who believed that Senator Clinton was “robbed” of the Democratic nomination. In both cases, the reason was that she would help McCain get elected. The notion that, after they take office in January, she would help McCain govern, or that she is qualified to serve as president in case later events make that necessary, clearly did not enter into McCain’s decision making. Does this sound like a candidate who truly puts “country first,” as the McCain campaign slogan would have us believe?

Lately, the McCain campaign has been trying to scare the American public into thinking that Barack Obama is on the side of the terrorists and against the American people. It is a desperate attempt to win the election by demonizing the opposition. The tactic often works, but I do not think it will work this time. We have an economy in crisis and two wars going on. In these circumstances, tying Obama with the actions committed 40 years ago (when Obama was a young child) by a former violent radical mainly serves to make McCain look ridiculous.

I will be satisfied with any kind of Obama victory on November 4, but I really hope that he wins by a double-digit margin in the popular vote, and a comfortable electoral vote margin that includes “blue” states in all sections of the country. If that happens, maybe the Republicans will reconsider what they really stand for. There are some respectable Republicans in positions of responsibility, but the candidate selection process seems to weed them out, or as in the case of Senator McCain, induces them to sell their souls.

McCain and Palin are bad for America

The Bard of Wilmette — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:46:40 EDT

Greetings from The Great White North. Yours truly is away for awhile, with almost no access to American television or radio, so I will be less in touch with the U.S. political campaign for the next two weeks. However, I did pick up a copy of a Montreal newspaper today (by the way, Obama is very popular in Canada), and read that Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin is sending out the message that Senator Barack Obama is "palling around with terrorists" and implying that Obama would gladly sell out America's interests in order to further his own career.

It seems to me that the people who truly weaken America are those who do everything they can to undermine its basic values. The people who mainly come to my mind on this subject are George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain, and Sarah Palin. I know, there are others, such as former Bush cabinet officials like Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales, but at this late date, I will not waste time on them. The main villains in this drama are the incumbent president and vice-president and their chosen would-be successors. They act in a variety of ways, and with a combination of motives.

The record on Bush and Cheney is clear. They will almost certainly go down in history as the most disastrous White House team in a very long time, even making Nixon and Agnew look downright honorable by comparison.

What about John McCain, war hero and all that? I do not deny that there are aspects of McCain's record that deserve our respect, but I do suggest that the positive elements in his background are of little relevance to the present day, or more importantly, to what kind of a president he would be. It is not just that he was wrong about all the major assumptions justifying the Iraq war. Not only was he wrong then, he has apparently learned nothing since then. Based on money already spent and known commitments for the future, the financial cost of this war will be far more than the "bail-out" or "rescue" of the banking and financial services industries. The war was completely unnecessary, based on completely phony pretenses, and has made America weaker militarily, diplomatically, and economically. McCain still does not get it. Ah yes, you might say, the war was wrong, but at least McCain backed it out of honest motives. Maybe that is true; I am not sure. If he is still so clueless about the damage done by this war on so many levels, and refuses to even consider the evidence, what does it matter if his motives were sincere or not?

I think that McCain is also no more respectful of the U.S. Constitution than is George W. Bush. McCain is eager to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who will turn a blind eye to abuses of power by the president. He has said that the case of Bournediene v. Bush, where the Court ruled that Guantanamo Bay is under de facto U.S. sovereignty, is the worst decision in the history of the Supreme Court. In effect, the Court ruled that there are some limits to the president's power to abuse the rights of people suspected of nasty deeds. Of course, it did not rule that any terror suspects had to be turned loose or tried in civilian courts. I hope that a lot of self-described conservatives out there find it ironic that it is a so-called "conservative" president who is arrogating to himself the extra-constitutional authority that should be anathema to conservatives who believe in small government.

Finally, regarding John McCain, this is the man whose campaign slogan is "country first." He has said explicitly that Barack Obama would rather lose a war than lose an election. In doing so, McCain is strongly suggesting that (in contrast to his own "country first" motto) Obama is so unpatriotic that he would never act in America's best interests unless it happened to coincide with his (Obama's) personal interests. And what was John McCain's first presidential decision? He selected as his running mate Sarah Palin, who might help McCain get elected, but who is by no stretch of the imagination the best qualified person to assume the presidency in the event that McCain got elected but was unable to complete his term of office. This is not putting the country first; this is putting McCain first, and the country at some much lower priority.

As far as I am concerned, the selection of Sarah Palin as the Republicans' V-P nominee is more of a negative reflection on McCain than it is on Palin. She may, or my not, be a good governor of Alaska, for all I know. Whether she is doing a good job or not in Alaska, it is quite obvious that she is way out of her depth for national politics. Up until now, I have given her the benefit of the doubt that she is just a pawn in McCain's cynical calculations that his choosing her - regardless of her lack of fitness for the job - would get him elected. Now, I cannot be so charitable. Her attack on Obama is so crazy that I have to put her in the same category with McCain (and Bush and Cheney). These people are so hungry for power that they will sell out America's values and principles in order to advance their own personal prospects. This is quite the opposite of "country first." If McCain and Palin want to attack Obama for his supposedly wrong-headed policies, I have no problem with that. In this case, they are practically accusing Obama of treason. This lowers the level of political debate in America, which in turn is likely to have the effect (if McCain and Palin are successful in this campaign) of making sure that good and honorable people will be turned off to public service in the future.

I do not agree with Obama on every policy issue, but I am convinced that Obama and Biden are good people, with the intelligence, temperament, and judgment to make a good governing team. I am trying to do my part to help get them elected. In contrast, McCain and Palin do not have these same qualities, at least not in sufficient amounts. They want to continue this idiotic war indefinitely, they lack a basic understanding of the Constitution, and they seem to be unable to distinguish between dissent and treason. For a long time, I believed that McCain, for all his faults, would at least be an improvement over Bush. I am no longer confident that this is true.

Obama OK in 1st debate, but could have been better

The Bard of Wilmette — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 10:56:14 EDT

The polls following the first Obama-McCain debate suggest that Obama at least held his own against McCain in the debate, whose topic was arguably in McCain’s home ballpark. I am glad to see that, because frankly, I was disappointed in Obama’s performance.

This is not to say that McCain supporters have much cause to be proud of their candidate. I was reminded of the debates from eight years ago, when Al Gore, in spite of his obviously superior intellect and command of the issues, came out badly because of his Darth Vader-like breathing into the microphone whenever George W. Bush talked. Gore was perceived as being very dismissive of his opponent, and it cost him politically. On Friday evening, McCain refused to even look at his opponent, even though the candidates had been encouraged to address each other. McCain appeared so contemptuous of Obama that he (McCain) seemed annoyed at having to share the same stage with him. Besides his refusing to look at his campaign rival, or to address him directly, McCain said many times, “Senator Obama fails to understand…”

Obama did manage to get in a few zingers, but my disappointment with Obama’s performance is that for every “Senator Obama does not understand” from McCain, there was a “John is absolutely right” from Obama. It is okay for Senator Obama to acknowledge agreement with Senator McCain once or twice, but he went way overboard, especially after McCain displayed such contempt toward him. This is what I was waiting to hear from Obama during the debate:

“Senator McCain has said half a dozen times already: ‘Senator Obama does not understand this’ or ‘Senator Obama fails to understand that.’ (Then, turning to face McCain directly…) John, I do not need condescending lectures from you regarding the geo-politics of the Middle East, or on the distinction between strategy and tactics. Let’s be very clear on this. For all of your years in Washington and your military background, it is you – John McCain – who were wrong on the fundamental issues related to the war in Iraq. It was you, along with President George W. Bush, who falsely associated Iraq with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It was you, along with President Bush, who greatly exaggerated Iraq’s military capabilities and its threat to its neighbors. It was you, along with President Bush, who greatly underestimated the costs of the Iraq war – in terms of blood, dollars, time, and America’s prestige. This unnecessary war has also had the huge opportunity cost of not being able to deploy the same military resources to more valuable uses. You might argue that these mistakes all occurred five years ago, but earlier this year, you still were trying to make the case that Iran was financing Al Qaeda. This is not true, and it has never been true. America’s adversaries are not necessarily friends or allies of each other. Our president needs to understand these things.”

Catch a falling star

The Bard of Wilmette — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:11:41 EDT

When John McCain startled nearly everybody by selecting Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his vice-presidential running mate, my first reaction was that this was a poor choice, because she would fire up the Republican Party base but turn off too many others to be of much help to McCain. I figured that she would help solidify McCain’s position in the states that he should be able to win anyway, but make him less competitive in the “battleground” states such as Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Then, it appeared that the Palin selection was a brilliant move by Senator McCain, not only energizing the party base, but also appealing to the socially conservative Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton in the states noted above, and elsewhere. Maybe her star power would actually carry the ticket to victory.

That remains a possibility, of course, but the star now seems to be falling back to earth. Based on her limited press interviews since becoming the Republicans V-P nominee, it is becoming increasingly obvious that Sarah Palin is not up to the job. This is not meant as criticism of Ms. Palin as much as it is of Mr. McCain. For a presidential candidate whose campaign slogan is “Putting America first,” and who has put so much emphasis on his own long career in public service while disparaging the shorter resume of his election opponent, Senator McCain is sending out some confusing signals.

Senator McCain piously proclaimed that he would conduct his campaign in an honorable and respectful tone… and then put out ads slandering Barack Obama with outright lies about his (Obama’s) policy positions, and implying that Obama lacks patriotism. Senator McCain ridiculed Senator Obama’s celebrity status and supposedly limited experience… and then selected a running mate with far less relevant experience than that of Senator Obama, and whose main qualification is that she would add glamour to the ticket. Senator McCain put out a joint statement with Senator Obama about the need for a bi-partisan solution to the current financial and banking crisis… and then unilaterally announced that he wanted to delay the first presidential debate, so that he could focus on the financial crisis… and then his presence in Washington had the apparent effect of derailing the progress toward a bi-partisan agreement to solve the crisis.

I do not know whether or not Sarah Palin is doing a good job as Governor of Alaska, and I make no assumptions to the effect (as some have suggested) that she should have declined McCain’s V-P offer for personal or family reasons. However, it does seem to me that she is way out of her depth to be Vice-President of the United States – the proverbial heartbeat away from the presidency, especially for a septuagenarian president with a personal history of melanoma. The notion that she is the most qualified person to become president in case of McCain’s departure is not at all believable. The fact that McCain actually made this claim tells me that either he is lying or he is extremely naïve. Either way, McCain’s first “presidential” decision – the selection of his would-be successor – does him little credit. Senator McCain, who grandstands about putting America’s general interest ahead of his own personal ambition, selected a running mate based on the cynical calculation that her presence on his ticket would enhance his chances of winning the election. It reminds me of when President George W. Bush nominated Harriet Miers to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. Ms. Miers’s main qualification was her personal loyalty to Mr. Bush. Conservatives rebelled at the Miers nomination, and it was withdrawn. Nothing like that is likely to happen regarding the GOP vice-presidential nominee, but one widely read and respected conservative columnist, Kathleen Parker, has suggested that a “voluntary” withdrawal from the nomination by Governor Palin might be a good idea. Check out this link:

http://townhall.com/columnists/KathleenParker/2008/09/26/the_palin_problem

The questions that should be asked in the debates

The Bard of Wilmette — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:52:38 EDT

Candidates John McCain and Barack Obama will face off in their first presidential debate in a few days. The potential exists for the debates to be very informative to the American voters, and to provide them with a solid basis of who to vote for. Then again, if the debates are little more than a forum for each candidate to quote from his standard campaign speeches, there will be little value to them. In the context of the debates, I am not interested in highlighting some gaffe made by either candidate. For example, a would-be McCain presidency will not really rise or fall on his apparent momentary confusion over whether Spain is in Europe or in Latin America, or the supposed Iraq-Pakistan border. For that matter, I really do not give a rat’s ass about how many houses John and Cindy McCain own.

McCain’s assertions about (Shiite) Iran’s support for (Sunni) Al Qaeda are more disturbing, because it suggests a serious ignorance about a very serious challenge for our next president. It does not seem to occur to McCain that America can have two different adversaries that are enemies of each other. Still, it does not belong in the debates. The limited time in the debates will not shed any new light on McCain’s misstatement.

Following are some questions I would like to see asked of Senator McCain:

“Senator McCain, the long-standing key mantra of conservative intellectuals has been the belief in limited government, and an especially limited federal government. The Bill of Rights in the Constitution is basically a list of prohibitions against government interference against the freedom of individuals. Under the current administration, the president has authorized federal agents to spy on American citizens without getting a warrant as required by statutory law, overruled states which had voted to permit medical marijuana for patients with certain conditions, and made extensive use of “signing statements” when signing a bill into law, basically asserting the right to ignore the provisions of a law where he personally disagrees. Are any of these actions consistent with conservative principles?”

“Senator McCain, earlier this summer, the Supreme Court ruled (5-4) in the case of Bournediene v. Bush, that Guantanamo Bay was under de facto U.S. sovereignty, and that, accordingly, the captives there were entitled to the right of habeas corpus. You characterized that decision as one of the worst in the history of the Supreme Court. Can you explain why this was, as you say, one of the worst Court decisions ever?”

“Senator McCain, one of the most enduring legacies of our next president may well be the make-up of the U.S. Supreme Court for the next couple of decades. It seems very likely that the next president will fill at least two vacancies on the Court in the next few years, and of course, there will also be many appointments to the lower federal courts. I will ask you to avoid using cliché lines like “strict constructionist” or “legislating from the bench,” because those often-used phrases have become almost meaningless. With that in mind, what can you tell us what kind of judges President McCain would expect to appoint?”

“Senator McCain, in an interview with Reverend Rick Warren, he asked you in multiple- choice format about how to deal with evil. Presented with four alternative answers, you selected one and simply answered, “Defeat it.” Could you elaborate here? Is the decision to defeat evil – once it has been identified – subject to a cost-benefit analysis?”

“Senator McCain, you opposed President Bush’s tax cut legislation in 2001, when the federal government was still running a surplus, on the grounds that the government could not afford it. Now, in 2008, with the government running record deficits and the tax rate reductions scheduled to end in two years, you support making the 2001 tax cuts permanent. What made you change your mind?”

Senator McCain, some economists argue that it is government spending, rather than current year tax collections, that amount to the real tax burden on the American people. They also say that in this context, it makes no difference where the government is spending the money – defense, social programs, pensions, roads, etc. The real difference is whether the programs are paid for out of current revenues, or conversely, we borrow the money now, so that our children and future descendants can pay it later. Under the Bush “43” presidency, federal spending has increased dramatically, not only in nominal dollars but also as a percentage of GDP. Over the past 7 or 8 years, have the American people really had a tax cut or a tax increase?”

“Senator McCain, one of your campaign slogans is ‘Country first.’ On several occasions, you have claimed that Senator Obama would rather lose a war than lose an election. Do you actually believe that Senator Obama would gladly sacrifice America’s interests if it would improve his odds of personally winning an election? If that is not what you believe, could you please explain your statement?”

“Senator McCain, one of your campaign ads – one of those which ended with “I am John McCain, and I approved this message” – claims that Barack Obama’s one real “accomplishment” in education was legislation that would instruct kindergarteners in comprehensive sex education. Independent fact checking organizations have noted that the claims in your ad are false. Nobody would dispute that distorting a campaign opponent’s record is a routine part of politics, but many observers – not just Democrats and Obama supporters – have suggested that this particular campaign ad goes way beyond distortion. Do you still stand by the claims made in that ad?”

“Senator McCain, the U.S. is presently engaged in two wars, with no quick end in sight. Most Americans, no matter what their political preferences, agree that our troops have performed heroically but have also been overburdened with multiple tours of duty. Many enlistments are not being renewed, and new recruitment numbers are below goals. Is it a realistic possibility that the U.S. will have to resume a military draft in order to bring some relief to the current troops, while maintaining current and anticipated commitments? If you are confident that no draft will be necessary, what will you do to increase military enlistments?”

“Senator McCain, on the subject of whether or not abortions should be legally available, you and Governor Palin are ‘pro life,’ while Senators Obama and Biden are ‘pro choice.” It raises two questions. First, are you and Governor Palin in complete agreement regarding what circumstances, if any, abortions should be permitted? Second, some ‘pro choice’ advocates have suggested that if the real goal is reducing the actual occurrence of abortions to some small fraction of the present level, criminalizing the procedure is less effective than other measures to reduce unwanted pregnancies: improved sex education, greater availability of contraception, greater support for the pregnant woman during and after the pregnancy, etc. Do you agree?”

The above questions have been presented in no particular order, and they are not all appropriate in one specific debate. However, these questions are appropriate.

"White privilege" or more general hypocrisy

The Bard of Wilmette — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:09:59 EDT

The following message was forwarded to my email address. In case anybody cares, it was sent to my white parents from a black friend of theirs. I do not agree 100% with its content, because many of the cited examples of hypocrisy are not really examples of “White Privilege” as much as double standards shown by many so-called “conservatives.” In many cases, the double standards are directed against liberals in general, regardless of race. Still, that is a minor disagreement. In general, it is worthy of reading and discussion. By the way, did Sarah Palin really say that she can see Russia from her house? I live nearly 300 miles from the Canadian border, and I would never claim to be able to see Canada from my house, but I live much closer to Canada than Ms. Palin does to Russia.

This is Your Nation on White Privilege
By Tim Wise
9/13/08

For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because 'every family has challenges,' even as black and Latino families with similar 'challenges' are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a 'f*ckin' redneck,' like Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll 'kick their f*ckin' *ss,' and talk about how you like to 'shoot shit' for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're 'untested.'

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance because 'if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me,' and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the 'under God' part wasn't added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.

White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.

White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was 'Alaska first,' and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she's being disrespectful.

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do – like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor – and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you' re somehow being mean, or even sexist.

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a 'second look.'

White privilege is being able to fire people who didn't support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.

White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God's punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you're just a good church-going Christian, but if you're black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you're an extremist who probably hates America.

White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a 'trick question,' while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a 'light' burden.

And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren't sure about that whole 'change' thing. Ya know, it's just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain.

White privilege is, in short, the problem.

Responding to "lipstick" charges

The Bard of Wilmette — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:21:29 EDT

On MSNBC’s Morning Joe program this morning (Sept. 10), Obama campaign spokeswoman Linda Douglass calmly announced that their campaign would not dignify the latest idiotic charges by the McCain campaign with a response. More specifically, the McCain campaign has two new attack ads against Obama. One claims that Obama’s use of the phrase “lipstick on a pig” is a blatantly sexist reference to Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, and the other implies that Obama favors sex education for five-year-old children that would be identical in content to sex education taught to teenagers. According to Ms. Douglass, the general public would never believe such nonsense, and the Obama campaign should not waste time refuting such ridiculous charges from the opposition.

The biggest reason why the Democrats lose most presidential elections is because their campaigns usually refuse to admit the obvious fact that negative politics works! It makes no difference at all that the charges are without merit. Always be on the attack, because most people only remember the allegations, not whether or not those allegations are true. For the most part, the American public will believe what they are told to believe. McCain’s campaign knows this all too well. McCain was the victim of outrageous slanders by the Bush campaign eight years ago, but he learned from it, and as the saying goes, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Maintaining one’s dignity in a political campaign, especially if the other side is constantly on the attack, is for losers. If Linda Douglass does not understand this, she should get out of the way, and let some unscrupulous attack dog (such as James Carville?) do the job.

One of Richard Nixon’s earliest political mentors was Murray Chotiner. Chotiner told Nixon that to win an election, always be on the attack. Suppose you are challenging an incumbent alderman or mayor, who has a record apparently free of scandal. Create a scandal. With heavy media coverage, you dramatically call for an end to the parking meter racket! This throws the opponent off guard. When he tries to say that there is no parking meter racket, you pounce on him again, and accuse him of covering up the parking meter racket. The McCain campaign, which is led by recycled veterans of George W. Bush’s campaigns, understands the value of always being on the attack. From what I have seen so far, the Obama campaign is clueless on how to deal with it.

Obama should not lose sight of the fact that McCain – not Palin – is the main opponent in this election. However, look at what has happened in recent days. It was Palin who made the snide insulting comments against Obama. Obama made the “lipstick on a pig” remark in reference to McCain’s claim to being the “change” candidate. Now, the McCain campaign is DEMANDING that Obama apologize for supposedly insulting Palin! I agree with Linda Douglass that the charge is ridiculous, but she is wrong to assume that ignoring the story will benefit anybody but McCain/Palin.

Unfortunately, Obama gave his opponents an opening when he used his “lipstick on a pig” metaphor. There is no doubt in my mind that it had nothing to do with Palin, but I am not the one who needs convincing. Obama should address the issue, and without further delay, because there are many people who actually believe that his remark was an insult directed at Sarah Palin. He can say something like this:

There has been a lot of uproar over my use the phrase “lipstick on a pig” in reference to Senator McCain’s efforts to brand himself as the “change” candidate. John McCain has used the same colloquial phrase during this campaign, and the meaning should be obvious. It has nothing to do with lipstick, or pigs. Senator McCain used the same phrase in reference to Hillary Clinton’s health care proposal… but nobody accused Senator McCain of being sexist! My own reference to this phrase was directed at John McCain, who has supported President Bush 90% of the time over the past eight years, and is now trying to call himself the “change” candidate. The McCain campaign knows very well that my use of that phrase was not sexist, or directed in any way against Governor Palin. They know this, but using the tactics perfected by Karl Rove, they believe they can get the public to believe something they know to be false. I have plenty of respect for Governor Palin. I have never said or implied anything negative about her personally, nor have I authorized anyone in my campaign to do so. It should not even be necessary to say this, but this story has gotten out of hand. The McCain campaign claims that I owe an apology to Governor Palin. I will not apologize for something I did not do. If anything, it is the McCain campaign who owes apologies to the American public for raising phony issues to distract from the real issues of concern to the American people.

Barack Obama and Bill Clinton are supposed to have a private meeting tomorrow. It is several weeks later than it should have been, but at least they are finally getting to it now. There is no better campaigner in the Democratic Party than Bill Clinton. He understands how to attack an opponent, while keeping a smile on his face. Perhaps Mr. Clinton can be used effectively by the Obama campaign as a sort of “truth squad” in dealing with the Republican attacks, and dishing out a bunch of attacks on behalf of the Democratic ticket. I don’t know if he wants to do this, but I think he should be asked.

John McCain - the real change?

The Bard of Wilmette — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:27:15 EDT

I have never been a big fan of the “change” message from Barack Obama, because at least so far, I have never seen or heard any meaningful definition of “change,” in the context of the 2008 presidential contest. Still, even if that word is practically meaningless to me, it has been overall very effective in getting Obama the Democratic presidential nomination, and I like Obama for many reasons. In fact, the message of “change” is so powerful that the McCain campaign is now using it to suggest that he (John McCain) is the “real” agent of change.

Since, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has really explained what “change” is supposed to mean, I am left to guess that it has the following two components:

Ending what Scott McClellan has called the “permanent campaign” in the White House.
Policies and priorities that significantly differ from those of George W. Bush.

I think it is reasonably possible that McCain might be able to achieve the first point. In that regard, McCain could be an improvement over Bush, although it is hard to imagine fainter praise for anybody. Even without regard to what I believe have been mostly wrong policies, the Bush administration has been a disgrace. Mr. Bush has operated with a view that the president can ignore any law (constitutional, treaty, or statutory) that he does not like or finds to be inconvenient. His contempt for the law, and his intense politicization of the Justice Department and scientific research are contributing factors in what I am almost sure will lead to his being judged by future historians as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. Mr. Bush did not operate that way as Governor of Texas, so his abuses of power as president came as at least a little bit of a surprise. In terms of respect for the law and the Constitution, would McCain be an improvement over Bush? The indicators are mixed; I can at best be very cautiously optimistic. In terms of the even-handed pursuit of justice, where federal prosecutors are supposed to operate without regard to party politics, would McCain be an improvement over Bush? He probably would. Again, he could hardly be worse. How about Mr. Bush’s efforts to skew scientific research to assure outcomes to his own liking? McCain’s selection of a running mate who believes that the Biblical story of Creation should be accepted as historical fact does not make me very hopeful on this score.

What about the second point noted above? Presumably, “change” means not just a change of tone but also a change of policies. Since Bush became president in 2001, McCain has voted with Bush on 90% of the time, in Senate roll call votes where McCain voted at all and Bush had announced a clear position to favor or oppose a particular bill. I know that it is easy to manipulate statistics, to make somebody look better or worse than deserved. So, let’s ignore the overall 90% figure, and instead look at just three of the most significant issues.

By far, the two most significant policy legacies of the George W. Bush presidency are the Iraq War and the 2001 tax cut legislation. In both cases, Mr. Bush demonstrated his political skills in pushing hard for something he believed in. Half-hearted lobbying by Mr. Bush would not have gotten him what he wanted. He went all out to make his case (first for the tax cuts, and later, the Authorization to Use Military Force against Iraq), and in both cases, he succeeded in getting almost exactly what he had asked for.

It is interesting that McCain originally opposed the tax cuts in 2001. This was at a time when the U.S. Government was in fiscal surplus, but McCain did not believe that major tax cuts (primarily benefiting the wealthy) was something the government could afford to do. The one concession that Bush had to make regarding the tax cuts was that they would expire in ten years. Presumably, by the end of that period we would find that we either could, or could not, afford to extend them. It is ironic that the 2001 roll call vote on the tax cuts is part of the 10% of roll call votes where McCain differed from Bush, because now McCain calls for those tax cuts to be made permanent. The government is now in record deficit territory, so according to McCain, we could not afford the tax cuts when the government was in record surplus, but we somehow can afford them when the government is in record deficit. If this is McCain’s idea of change, if anything he is changing in the wrong direction.

Regarding the Iraq War, this is probably the single biggest foreign policy disaster in the history of the United States. Many members of Congress voted to give Mr. Bush the authority to launch a war against Iraq. They were unwise to do so, but it was understandable, assuming that the president was telling them the truth about his reasons for the war. After it turned out that the major justifications for the war were false, and it became clear that the war was conducted with incompetence (not by the troops, but by the civilian leadership), many members of Congress admitted that the war was a huge mistake, but not Senator McCain. It makes no difference to him that all of the major assumptions were wrong, such as: Saddam Hussein had active ties to Al Qaeda, and implicitly was linked to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Saddam had a huge stockpile of chemical and biological weapons, and was close to having nuclear weapons. American forces would be greeted as liberators. A liberal democracy in Iraq would serve as an effective model for the rest of the Middle East. The war would be quick and easy.

McCain emphasizes his bragging rights to the success of the troop surge, but on the larger issue of the war itself, McCain was wrong, and unlike many others in both parties, he still refuses to see that he was wrong. Even the Iraqi government wants foreign (mainly American) troops out within less than two years, and McCain has not agreed to that. McCain is no change agent regarding Iraq.

An issue that gets too low a profile, in my opinion, is the fact that the next president will appoint all federal judges over the coming four years, almost certainly including at least two new Supreme Court justices. Four of the nine current Justices of the Supreme Court, including the three who are far younger than the others, are right-wingers who have smiled benignly at President Bush’s abuses of the power of his office. For the most part, these justices believe that the President of the United States, in his role as Commander-In-Chief, is not constrained by mere laws, nor is he to be held accountable for his actions, except in the sense that a first term president running for reelection is held accountable by the voters. John McCain has made clear that he wants to appoint judges who feel the same way. In the case of Bournediene v. Bush, the majority of the court (the four right-wingers all dissented) ruled that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay had the right to habeas corpus, because Guantanamo was regarded as under de facto U.S. sovereignty. That Court decision, of course, did not say the detainees had to be turned loose, nor did it preclude military tribunals (which would be much easier for the government to secure convictions than would civilian courts) for those detainees, nor would it even have closed the option of classifying the detainees as prisoners of war. Many true conservatives, concerned with the overreach and potential abuse of government power, agree with the Court’s decision. According to Senator McCain, however, this was one of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. McCain wants to make sure that does not happen again by appointing more justices like Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/Alito. From Bush to McCain, we would be exchanging one president ignorant of the Constitution for another. Not much change there. For more on McCain’s attitude about civil liberties, check out this link:

http://civilliberty.about.com/b/2008/06/18/john-mccain-on-habeas-corpus.htm

For other examples of McCain’s “change” rhetoric clashing with the facts, check out:

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/04-03-2008/0004786180&EDATE=

More on McCain character issues

The Bard of Wilmette — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:29:41 EDT

Did anybody tell you that John McCain is a war hero? I thought that I should mention it, because I am sure that modesty would restrain the Arizona senator from exploiting his long ago service as a warrior for political gain. He will make his big speech to the Republican convention in St. Paul this evening, and we will see if he consents to disclose this aspect of his background.

I have nothing against war heroes, of course, and all of our military personnel – past and present – deserve the gratitude of all Americans for their personal sacrifice on behalf of the rest of us. However, I fail to see what bearing the long ago military career of John McCain should have on Americans’ electing a president this year. It is an episode of McCain’s life, and perhaps tells us something about his personal character.

On the other hand, not long after McCain did return from Vietnam, he also ditched the wife who had loyally waited all those years for him. While still ostensibly together with his first wife, McCain carried on an affair with a woman who was younger, more beautiful, and far wealthier. McCain eventually divorced Carol and married Cindy. This is also an episode of McCain’s life, which happened long ago, and also tells us something about his personal character.

My point is not that McCain’s cheating on his first wife should be a basis for voting against him in the upcoming presidential election. I do suggest that these two long ago events in his personal record – one very flattering and one very unflattering to McCain – should be given equal weight, which in my mind is very little. The McCain campaign and it allies would have us believe that the hero stuff counts big time, and the messy ending of his first marriage should be dismissed. As far as I am concerned, neither has much relevance to what kind of a president John McCain would be, but if the war record is emphasized as a testament to his personal character, then everything else in his adult life is fair game.

This is especially appropriate because McCain never misses an opportunity to remind all of us that Barack Obama is a personal friend of a terrorist. The “terrorist” in question is Bill Ayers, who engaged in some politically motivated arson forty years ago, when Obama was a small child. I am not sure how close this friendship is, but they do know each other, and have served together on a not-for-profit board. Mr. Ayers has been a respected citizen since long before Obama ever knew him.

The real character issue regarding John McCain, as far as I am concerned, has nothing to do with his military background or family issues. What kind of American politician is it who campaigns for the presidency by suggesting that his political opponent actually wants to lose a war, or is a close personal friend of an active terrorist? There are good Americans across the political spectrum, but to me, anybody who impugns the patriotism of a political opponent based on policy differences is not a good American. McCain can make the case that Obama is wrong on a lot of issues, or that Obama is too inexperienced to be president at this time. He is saying these things, but he is also saying, in effect, that Obama is not just mistaken, but also motivated to act against the interests of his own country. Senator McCain, I respect your long career of public service to America, but based on your personal conduct this year, I can no longer regard you as a good American.

McCain and Palin conservatism needs explaining

The Bard of Wilmette — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:24:54 EDT

The word “conservative” has been used by many people in the media and in politics, and it clearly means different things to different people. George W. Bush has been called, by friends and foes alike, the “most conservative” president since Herbert Hoover. John McCain has been in substantial agreement with Mr. Bush on policy matters 90% of the time, and he is usually characterized as very conservative, but who differs from the party line occasionally and sometimes in surprising ways. Sarah Palin is said to be very conservative, and by all indications was chosen for VP because she would energize the conservatives in the Republican Party. I have had a hard time figuring out what a conservative is, especially since the word has been appropriated to mean things that I strongly doubt that the late conservative icon Barry Goldwater would recognize.

It had always been my impression, based on what my conservative friends used to tell me, that above all, conservatives believed in limited government. This meant that the federal government had certain exclusive powers (national defense, foreign relations, regulation of the money supply, and not much else), and that otherwise the federal government should defer to the states, and ideally, even the states should defer what it could to the local governments. Conservatives opposed federal civil rights legislation in the 1960’s, not because the goals were wrong, but because (they believed) those laws amounted to an improper intrusion of the federal government into what should have been state and local matters. The most important constitutional amendment was not the Second (the right to bear arms) but the Tenth (restricting the scope of federal authority). Naturally, conservatives believed in balanced budgets, with light taxes and government spending restricted to what was minimally necessary to run the government. Just as naturally, conservatives were adamant about the importance of individual freedom, which primarily meant freedom from government intrusions as much as possible. To the extent that the goals of individual freedom and social justice might clash, conservatives always argued that individual freedom was the more critical principle to protect. The Bill of Rights was basically a list of limitations of the power of the federal government. Regarding foreign relations, conservatism at least implied a wariness about military involvement in foreign countries, except when the U.S. was either directly attacked, or an attack was imminent.

President Bush has shown that the word “conservative” has been appropriated to mean some very different things from what it meant in 1964. He did cut taxes, but dramatically increased government spending, which effectively means increasing taxes. If we do not pay now for the increased spending, we borrow heavily so that our children can pay back the lenders in the future. Just what is it that we supposedly are conserving? Mr. Bush might complain about so-called pork barrel spending, much of it congressional earmarks near and dear to so-called conservative legislators, but he never vetoed a spending bill during his entire first term in office. On numerous occasions, Mr. Bush has overruled the state governments on matters that true conservatives should agree is way outside the proper range of federal authority.

Most alarming to yours truly, Mr. Bush has seen fit to ignore laws he does not like – statutes, treaties, and the Constitution itself – basically repudiating his oath of office, where he solemnly pledged to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. In signing laws passed by Congress, other presidents have occasionally made “signing statements” in which they express an opinion about the bill they are signing. Those signing statements are an expression of editorial comment by the president, and have no force of law. However, George W. Bush has uniquely tried to claim that his signing statements give him the right to ignore provisions of a law that he does not like. His politicization of the (under his administration, misnamed) Justice Department was carried out on a level that would even make Richard Nixon wince. Mr. Bush has sanctioned torture of suspected bad guys, whether carried out directly by U.S. personnel, or if that might be too embarrassing, by “friendly” countries which lack any moral qualms on matters such as torture. And just what conservative principle does it serve when, in reaction to attacks by mostly Saudi terrorists given safe haven by the rulers of Afghanistan… we invade Iraq?

One might ask, why bring up all this stuff about Bush, who will be out of office in a few months? Sure, Bush is a disgrace to the presidency AND to conservative principles, but what does it all have to do with the upcoming election? The point is this: John McCain has supported George W. Bush’s misdeeds 90% of the time. Senator McCain did insist on a prohibition of torture being included in a defense appropriations bill. When Mr. Bush made a signing statement, reserving the right to ignore the torture prohibition, what did the highly principled Senator McCain do? He wimped out. On an issue of supposedly great importance to McCain, he basically accepted Mr. Bush’s trampling on the Constitution, and he did so with his tail between his legs. McCain claims that he will be tougher than Mr. Bush has been regarding congressional earmarks, but so would almost any other man, woman or child in the U.S. On most of the other aspects of Mr. Bush violating the law and conservative principles, McCain has agreed with Bush.

Four of the nine sitting Supreme Court justices are right-wingers who are pretty much guaranteed to give Mr. Bush a blank check to abuse his authority in any manner that he wishes to do so. Of the remaining five, all of them are old, and almost certainly at least two of them will die or retire within the next four years. McCain has pledged to appoint judges who are similar to the right-wingers already on the Court. While it is possible that McCain would not abuse the power of the presidency to the same degree that Bush has, he obviously intends to gather that power for himself, whether or not he chooses to exercise it.

If I had the opportunity to ask Senator McCain a few questions on national television, I would not bother with softball bullshit questions like “Define ‘rich’” or “How do you deal with evil?” I would cite some of Mr. Bush’s controversial actions noted above, and ask McCain just how those actions are consistent with conservative principles. Sarah Palin has basically been unknown outside of Alaska until a few days ago, but as she is said to have outstanding conservative credentials, I would ask her the same thing. If my information is correct, Ms. Palin has also advocated criminalizing all abortions nationwide. Some of our most right-wing lawmakers have indicated that as much as they personally believe that abortion is wrong and should be against the law, they also believe that the issue should be left to each state. Not all right-wingers have forgotten their conservative principles. The election this coming November will be extremely important. The press cannot let our politicians off the hook by allowing them to answer questions simply by quoting their campaign speeches. This applies, of course, to the candidates in both parties. The candidates must be forced to explain their political philosophies, and how do they approach the inevitable trade-offs, such as individual freedom versus national security.

Candidate's judgment and the vice-presidency

The Bard of Wilmette — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:18:38 EDT

The first “presidential” decision by Senator Obama and Senator McCain was the selection of an intended vice-president. As we all know, the actual constitutional responsibilities of the vice-president are limited. He is the presiding officer of the U.S. Senate, and casts the tie-breaking vote on the few occasions when that is needed. Unofficially, the vice-president can be very powerful, if the president chooses to delegate such power to the V-P, as in the case of the current team of Bush and Cheney.

However, the most important aspect of the vice-presidency is the possibility that it may become necessary – maybe without advance notice – for the V-P to assume the office of president in case the current president either dies in office or is otherwise unable to serve as president. In every presidential campaign, after the nominations are set, each presidential candidate is asked: “Why did you select So-and-so to be your vice-presidential running mate?” The answer is always something like: “Because in the event that I cannot complete my term as president, So-and-so is absolutely the best person to assume the duties of the president.”

Barack Obama can sincerely make that statement about Joe Biden. I have been a fan of Senator Biden for a long time, and I was very pleased that he was chosen for V-P. If they are elected in November, I am fully confident in Biden’s ability to serve as president – as much as I hope it would not be necessary.

Undoubtedly, Senator McCain will also say of Governor Sarah Palin: “I selected her to be my running mate because if ‘something happens’ to me, she would be the most qualified person in the country to serve as president.” The only question is whether or not McCain is a good enough actor to make such a statement with a straight face. I mean no disrespect to Sarah Palin, and the Obama campaign would be very foolish to underestimate her. Had I been advising the McCain campaign, I would have recommended Mitt Romney for V-P. I don’t like Romney (and it appears that McCain does not, either), but he would have made a strong candidate. His presence on the ticket might have put Michigan and Ohio in the win column for McCain. I think that is very unlikely with Sarah Palin.

I had never heard of Sarah Palin until a few days ago. It appears to me that McCain selected her for the following reasons:

A true right-winger, she will fire up the party’s most loyal base.
As a woman, she will attract some disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters.
McCain was not thrilled with any of the better known V-P possibilities.
McCain likes to surprise people.

Firing up the Republican base of so-called “social conservatives” makes sense, although it probably comes at the expense of turning off some moderate Republicans. I hope that most Clinton supporters still not sold on Obama will feel insulted at the notion that they will be drawn to a ticket that includes a woman, even though that woman is (from what I understand) politically a polar opposite of Hillary Clinton. There are some Republican women who are more politically moderate, and with higher public profiles, than Governor Palin. Any of them (Senator Snowe from Maine, for example) might have attracted a lot more Clinton supporters than Governor Palin is likely to, but that would probably turn off those social conservatives. As for McCain’s desire to surprise the experts, and his lack of enthusiasm for everybody presumed to have been on his “short list,” I guess that is part of McCain’s basic character.

McCain has put so much emphasis in recent weeks on Obama’s supposed questionable judgment and lack of experience, especially on foreign affairs and national security matters. I believe that Obama addressed the subject very well in Denver last Thursday. In addition, what does it say about McCain’s own judgment, given his emphasis on foreign affairs and national security, when he chooses a running mate who has zero experience on these critical issues? John McCain is 72 years old, with a history of health problems, and if he is elected president, he would begin his presidency at an older age than all previous presidents – except for Ronald Reagan – were at the end of their presidencies. There is more reason than usual to be concerned with the Republicans’ choice for vice-president this year.

Maybe Sarah Palin has an appealing personal story. Maybe she looks a little bit like actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus. Maybe she is doing a fine job as Governor of Alaska, where she is in her second year on the job. Maybe, but I certainly do not feel comfortable with the idea of her being the proverbial heartbeat away from the presidency. For the moment, suppose that Barack Obama had selected a running mate with credentials identical to those of Sarah Palin. McCain’s reaction would be something like the following: “Senator Obama obviously cares more about winning the election than he does about the well being of our country. In a cynical effort to hang on to the 18 million who voted for Senator Hillary Clinton during the primaries, Senator Obama has selected a woman with very weak – almost non-existent – qualifications for national office. This shows very poor judgment on his part, and raises serious doubts about whether he even cares about anything other than the upcoming election itself. I am John McCain, and I approved this message.”

Now back to reality. It is Barack Obama who made an outstanding pick for vice-president. It is John McCain who picked somebody with very limited credentials, but who might help his chances of winning the election. It is John McCain who deserves a harsh judgment for putting personal politics ahead of the national interest.

On Day 3, the convention became a success

The Bard of Wilmette — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:50:07 EDT

At the end of the second day of the Democratic National Convention, my feeling was that the convention was going OK, but that I thought they were giving John McCain close to a free pass. Right after this convention is over, McCain will announce his choice for vice-president, and then all attention will be focused on the Republicans. I expect the Republicans to conduct a four-day-long hatefest directed at Barack Obama. Based on the first two days of the Democrats’ convention, I was a little disappointed.

On the first evening, Michelle Obama gave an excellent speech, which, I hope, effectively countered the image of her portrayed by political opponents, to the effect that she was angry, radical, bigoted, and elitist. She came across as a loving wife, mother, sister, and daughter – and as a product of working class South Side of Chicago (note to the rest of the country: in case you wonder why “South Side” gets so much emphasis, most of Chicago’s “elite” neighborhoods are on the North Side). Personally, I would have preferred that she avoided beginning so many sentences with “You see…” On the other hand, if Michelle Obama had witnessed my feeble attempts to tell jokes at my niece’s wedding a few years ago, she would know that I am the last person in the world to be giving her advice on how to make a speech.

The highlight of the second day, of course, was the speech by Hillary Clinton. It was a good speech, and she made a very credible effort to tell her supporters that, while they may be disappointed that the Democratic nominee is Obama rather than herself, they should now support Obama, whose policy agenda is very similar to hers. I am not sure whether her support for Obama is genuine, or conversely, that she is mainly concerned with appearing to be supportive of her party’s nominee, so that she cannot be blamed if he loses the election in November. She sounded more supportive of the Democratic nominee than of Obama as an individual. Still, overall it was a good speech.

After two nights, however, I had the feeling that there was only limited mention of Senator McCain. Making the case for Obama is important, but so is making the case against McCain. The theme of McCain’s campaign has been that Obama is unpatriotic, too inexperienced, lacking in judgment, and generally unfit for the job of president. The Republican candidate, who stated that he would run a high class campaign based on policy differences, has instead run a campaign based on the same kind of sleaze that the Bush campaign used against McCain eight years ago. Why? Because it usually works. After two days of the four day long convention, I was concerned that the Democrats were squandering their only opportunity in the national spotlight to knock the halo off John McCain’s undeserving head.

This was finally remedied on the third evening of the convention. I have had some harsh words for former President Bill Clinton over the past several months, but he gave an outstanding speech last night. As a political speaker, Bill Clinton has no equal, although Barack Obama comes close. Whatever hostility that may have existed between President Clinton and Senator Obama, Mr. Clinton made a convincing case that those problems are behind them. If the Clintons are now genuine supporters of Obama’s candidacy, they should be a huge asset in the remaining weeks of the campaign.

Senator Joe Biden also made an excellent speech last night. He does not have Bill Clinton’s eloquence, but he made an effective case against John McCain. Senator John Kerry also had a good speech, although I don’t know if many people saw it. Both Biden and Kerry linked McCain to the unpopular President Bush, and in Biden’s case, noted a handful of areas where Obama showed the correct judgment, and where at the same time McCain was wrong. This is what I had been waiting for. McCain has been going around saying things like, “I am not questioning Barack Obama’s patriotism (which is a lie, of course); I am questioning his judgment.” It seems to me that it is McCain who has shown poor judgment over and over again. The Democrats need to hammer away at this, and they are finally starting to do exactly that.

This evening, the Democrats’ convention ends, and the attention will shift to the Republicans for the coming week. Obama and Biden can win this election, but they will need to do everything right between now and Election Day. Identify eligible voters who are inclined to favor our side. Make sure they are registered to vote. Make sure that they do vote. Of the 18 million people who voted for Senator Clinton during the primaries, get at least 17 million of them to vote for Obama in the general election. Exciting speeches and clever TV ads do not win elections. High voter turnout does. In addition, McCain cannot be allowed to get away with his Swift Boat-like ads against Obama. We need constant emphasis that McCain is practically the same as Bush, and how, for all of his claims of superior experience, McCain has been wrong on too many of the important issues.

Obama should not avoid defining human life

The Bard of Wilmette — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:08:52 EDT

Recently on television, Rev. Rick Warren asked Senator Obama a series of questions in front of a live audience of evangelical Christians, and then separately asked Senator McCain the same questions. I thought that Obama exhibited far more intelligence and insight than did McCain, who basically answered most of the questions by quoting from his campaign speeches. The format of the program made that easy for McCain to do, especially if the rumors are correct that McCain was able to hear the questions first being put to Obama. However, my subject for today concerns Obama, not McCain. When Obama was asked early in the session about when human life begins, he dodged the question with a line about that matter being above his pay grade. He proceeded to address the abortion issue with an excellent point to the effect that “pro choice” and “pro life” can be compatible. Government policy can be “pro choice” regarding the legality of abortions but still take effective measures to reduce the actual occurrence of abortions. By reducing both unwanted pregnancies and the perceived need by many pregnant women to terminate their pregnancies, these measures (improved sex education and availability of contraceptives, day care or adoption after the live birth, etc.) will do far more to reduce the occurrence of abortions than will simply criminalizing the procedure.

However, I was bothered by Senator Obama’s remark about the philosophical issue being above his pay grade. Very few of us are experts on the subject of when human life begins, and some who claim – implicitly or otherwise – to be authorities on the subject should be regarded with suspicion. Still, this is an important issue to many Americans, and a would-be president should be able to answer the question to the best of his ability. Obama dropped the ball in this case, and he should address the issue, which has obvious implications regarding how an Obama presidency would handle the subjects of abortion and stem cell research.

Personally, I have no expertise regarding philosophical or scientific matters, but I have an opinion, so here goes… Because abortion involves the destruction of a human fetus, and embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of a human embryo, there is a legitimate moral debate on this issue. I do not agree with most of the conclusions by the “right to life” politicians, but their concerns should not be dismissed without any consideration. When does human life begin? I try to take a common sense approach to philosophical issues, without a preset inclination to reach a “liberal” or “conservative” conclusion.

My impression is that the end of human life is usually defined as the ceasing of measurable brain activity, rather than the death of the last cell in the body. To me, it seems reasonable to define the beginning of human life in a similar manner. As I understand it, measurable brain activity generally occurs around the third month of a pregnancy. Prior to that time, the willful termination of a pregnancy is the halting of a potential – not already existing – human life.

After the arrival of brain activity, it is at least arguable that an abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. In my opinion, abortions in the early stage of a pregnancy (prior to brain activity in the fetus) should be permitted without restriction. If this definition of the beginning of human life is even close to making sense, it logically follows that embryonic stem cell research does not violate the principle that “human life is sacred,” because the embryo is destroyed long before it can take on “human” qualities, except by potential.

I am aware that many people believe, encouraged by church doctrine, that the newly fertilized egg is a “human” life, and that the willful termination of such a life is murder. Apparently, to these people, there is no moral difference between destroying a day old embryo, a third trimester fetus, or a five-year-old child; each action would be equally reprehensible. Many of the pro-choice advocates also seem to assume that there is no difference between destroying a day old embryo and a third trimester fetus; both should be available without constraints. Both sides are wrong, in my opinion, even if both sides can correctly agree that killing a five-year-old child is out of bounds. It is disturbing to me that both major political parties seem to have their own party orthodoxies on this issue. Either you must commit to “protect the life of the unborn” (in the case of Republicans), or you must commit to a “woman’s right to choose (in the case of Democrats), and in either case without exception. Not everybody in Congress is so extreme in either direction, but the extremists on both sides have control over the debate. I am glad to see that, with Obama’s influence, the Democrats are moving away from the most extreme “pro choice” doctrine.

In general, public policy should try to assure that if abortions are going to be done at all, they should be done at an early stage of the pregnancy. Except for the extremists on both sides, most people would agree that an early stage abortion is more acceptable than a late stage abortion. I am sure that an early stage abortion is also less risky to the health of the mother than a later stage abortion. Of course, it should also be generally agreed that prevention of an unwanted pregnancy is far preferable to any abortion. This implies that condoms and “morning after” pills should be easily available. Maybe that is a side issue, but I believe it is hypocritical for some “pro-life” politicians to grandstand about the evils of abortion and at the same time try to block or restrict the availability of measures that could prevent an unwanted pregnancy from getting started. Sex education in the schools is also important. I hope that none of our lawmakers still believes that if sex is not discussed with America’s teenagers, maybe they will not become interested in it. Abstinence is good, but as a practical matter, preaching abstinence-only does not work very well.

The Supreme Court, in its famous 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, tried to reach a sensible solution to the abortion issue. This will not endear me to most of my fellow Obama supporters, but personally, I believe that the decision was a mistake, although I am not rooting for that decision to be overturned. If the guidelines of that decision were established by statute, I would endorse it. The guidelines are sensible public policy, but the courts are not supposed to be in the business of setting policy. That is the responsibility of the elected branches of government. For better or worse, if that decision is overruled, it will force the other branches of the government to deal with the issue. Maybe the result will be a statute with similar guidelines to what was set in Roe vs. Wade. A reversal of Roe vs. Wade by the Court would create some problems, however. One problem, assuming that Congress would not step in and set some nationwide rules regarding the permissibility of abortions, is that the availability of abortions would vary greatly among the different states. It is not hard to imagine, for example, that Illinois (home state of Barack Obama and yours truly) and neighboring Indiana would have radically different sets of rules. The effect of state-by-state rules would be highly discriminatory, both by geographical and economic circumstances. Therefore, while I have doubts about the legal correctness of the 45-year-old decision of the Court, I would prefer not to have it reversed.

Barack Obama is a constitutional expert, and he can articulate the merits of Roe vs. Wade far better than I can (that is definitely not above his pay grade). As to what constitutes a “human” life, with independent rights, Obama may not be a true expert, but he should be able to make a credible case for what he believes, and I think he should do so.

McCain and his simple view of the world

The Bard of Wilmette — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 22:42:39 EDT

I saw Barack Obama and John McCain on TV last night with Rev. Warren at his Saddleback Church. It was an interesting program, and I was glad to see Senator Obama appearing before an audience, most of whose members presumably will vote against him. It shows that Obama does not want to write off segments of the population where he might not be popular, and that he plans on being the president of all the American people. Of course, all new presidents make that claim, but most (George W. Bush being the most obvious example) don’t mean it.

As far as I am concerned, Obama performed very well last night. His answers to Rev. Warren’s questions were thoughtful, and reflected his understanding of the complexity of the issues. When he was questioned about the legal availability of abortions, Obama said that he was pro-choice, although he believes that states can legitimately prohibit the availability of late term abortions, as long as exceptions are allowed if the health of the mother is at stake. He further added that the real goal should be to make abortions rare, and this involves taking steps to prevent unwanted pregnancies from occurring in the first place, along with improving the support system after a live birth. Good answer, right?

To the same question, McCain simply answered that he is pro life. In most of the interview with McCain, he basically answered the questions by quoting his stump speeches. John McCain is a very simple-minded politician. I am trying to be precise with that word. McCain is not stupid, but simple-minded in the sense that even the most complicated questions are subject to simple answers. If he sees evil in the world, his mission is to defeat it. It is that simple. We must lower the taxes for all Americans. It is that simple. We must do whatever it takes to win the war in Iraq. It is that simple. The notion that resources (things like money, time, military manpower, etc.) are limited seems like an alien concept to Senator McCain. So is the fact that there are inherent contradictions in some policies, where a single action might advance one worthy goal but work to the detriment of another.

Is the real objective in being “pro life” to punish the patients and doctors who are involved in an abortion procedure, or is it to reduce the actual number of abortions taking place? I get the feeling that Senator McCain has absolutely no idea that there is a difference. Simply outlawing the procedure is not very pro life in any practical sense. Far more effective in reducing the occurrence of abortions is making sure that teenagers have proper sex education and access to contraception (is anybody still naïve enough to believe that if we keep them ignorant on the subject, they won’t be interested?), and that day care/healthcare or adoption is available after the baby is born, so that pregnant girls or women can be confident that having the baby does not have to mean destroying their school or work plans.

Senator McCain also wants to dramatically lower taxes for Americans at all income levels. However, defeating evil wherever you find it is not cheap. The U.S. is already engaged in two wars, and if McCain gets his way, neither war is likely to end soon. By far the more expensive of these two wars was completely unnecessary. Sometimes, it is better to contain evil than to defeat it, especially if containment is relatively cheap and defeating it is very expensive. McCain also hints that he is ready to add a third war involving the squabbling parties in the former Soviet Union. If the U.S. under President McCain is really going to take on the responsibility of policeman to the rest of the world, this will require raising taxes, now lowering them, and very likely also resuming a military draft. It is either that, or continue the current administration’s policy of dramatically increasing the U.S. government’s commitments, while reducing revenue collections, sending a huge I.O.U. to our children – along with unconscionable stressing out of our current military personnel and their families even beyond the current level, which I think is already unacceptable. If McCain is so concerned about Georgia, and wants to do something to keep Russia out of there, I wonder if it has occurred to him that the reason why the U.S. can do so little about Georgia is that most of its military resources are already engaged in that idiotic war in Iraq.

I really believe that Senator McCain is clueless regarding the challenges of the presidency. In last night’s setting, Rev. Warren asked McCain (and Obama) a series of friendly questions, which the candidates could easily answer with excerpts from their stump speeches. I don’t mind there being such a program, but it will be much more illuminating if the candidates are forced by follow-up questions into explaining how they will deal with their own inconsistencies. John McCain filled his portion of the evening with very simplistic claptrap. It is as if he assumes (maybe correctly, but I hope not) that most of America’s voting public is only interested in the simple answers.

McCain's wisdom and experience regarding Iraq

The Bard of Wilmette — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:44:26 EDT

On July 24 – less than three weeks ago – I posted an essay for the blog, in which I stated that Senator Obama ought to publicly concede that the troop surge in Iraq has been at least a qualified success, and then note the qualifications (other improving conditions not directly related to the surge: the Anbar Awakening, increased competence of the Iraqi Army and the Maliki Government). Some people view Senator Obama as arrogant, and suggest that he is out of touch with ordinary Americans. I do not personally agree with that characterization, or at least no more so than if the same thing is said of Senator McCain and most other political leaders. Unfortunately, the perception is widely accepted, and it could cost Obama the election. There is a lot of talk that Obama is incapable of admitting that he has ever been wrong on anything. I still think it makes sense for him to make a qualified concession regarding the surge.

Throughout the past few weeks, McCain has repeatedly demanded the bragging rights to the surge, and in the name of increasing Obama’s “regular guy” appeal, I think he should concede those bragging rights to Senator McCain. After paying proper tribute to the Arizona senator’s brilliant insight regarding the surge, Obama could then recite some of McCain’s other prognostications regarding Iraq:

“The Iraqi people will greet us as liberators.”
“[The war] will not be nearly as difficult as some allege.”
“[The war] will be one of the best things that’s happened to America and the world in a long time ‘cause it’ll reverberate throughout the Middle East.”
“There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between the Sunnis and Shiahs.”
Iraq’s vast oil reserves were going to pay the cost of the war and reconstruction.

For references on these and other gems, check out:

http://www.mccainsource.com/security?id=0003.

Senator McCain has repeatedly said that he is the candidate with the wisdom and experience needed by our next president, and he has strongly implied that Obama is so lacking in these essential qualities that it would be a tragedy if Obama gets elected. So, McCain wants to tell us all about his superior wisdom and experience? If we are going to give him credit for the surge, let’s not forget his overall record regarding this war. He claimed that the war would be easy, quick, inexpensive (both in terms of dollars and lives), and would raise America’s standing in the world to new heights.

More recently, McCain has said that he would keep troops in Iraq indefinitely, even though the so-called “sovereign” country’s leaders have said that they want foreign troops out no later than 2010. If Iraq really is a sovereign country, shouldn’t we abide by their requests to end our occupation in that country? If not, what does “sovereign” mean?

McCain, like Bush, also refuses to pay for this very expensive war. If the indefinite U.S. occupation of Iraq really is a good thing, it should at least be paid for. Instead, we have record federal budget deficits, and Bush and McCain want to extend tax cuts (mostly benefiting the wealthy) while increasing federal spending. The troops are seriously over-extended. If the war is such a good thing, we need to explicitly raise taxes and probably also return to a military draft. Would the man behind the Straight Talking Express care to admit it? I don’t think so.

Politicians trying to keep personal secrets

The Bard of Wilmette — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 11:43:11 EDT

I cannot remember who posted it, but a couple of weeks ago, somebody posted an item in my.barackobama.com titled something like, “Yes, I am quoting the National Enquirer,” and then provided the link to the Enquirer story about the John Edwards affair. I responded with a message to the effect that I did not know whether the story about Mr. Edwards’ alleged affair was true or false, but that I certainly did not accept it as truth just because it was published in the Enquirer. I have never been a fan of Mr. Edwards, but I thought he deserved the benefit of the doubt regarding claims by celebrity trash magazines. Many of their supposed “scoops” are false. Well, I guess we now have to score one for the Enquirer.

John Edwards is hardly the first or last prominent politician to be caught, or otherwise forced to admit, engaging in an extramarital affair or other private misconduct. We know that John McCain’s personal history is not exactly scandal-free. And there was some recent president… I forget his name. In a way, John Edwards has done Barack Obama a favor, by confessing his private misdeeds publicly now, rather than later. He probably would have had a high profile role at the Democratic Convention later this month. Many people have advocated a major role – possibly even the vice-presidency – for Edwards in an Obama led administration. We will now be spared of these things.

I am not a prude. It is none of my business if my friends or neighbors or political leaders fool around. The problem for political leaders is when they try to keep secrets. Long time FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover thrived on his ability to use personal blackmail to influence political decisions. I do not want to have anybody in a political position of high responsibility who will do almost anything to avoid exposure of an embarrassing secret. A public official such as Rep. Barney Frank – the only openly gay member of Congress – is not subject to blackmail because he is not trying to protect a personal secret. The same would apply to a public official who makes no secret of his past or present affairs of any kind. The days when political leaders could realistically expect their philandering to be kept secret are long gone.

McCain has no ethics, or respect for Obama

The Bard of Wilmette — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:32:54 EDT

I don’t know how long this can last, but John McCain is a conservative Republican who for many years was respected by most Democrats and independents. His Senate votes have usually been the so-called “conservative” position, but there have been some interesting exceptions (campaign finance, torture in the military, etc.). Eight years ago, we all watched as Senator McCain ran an admirable campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. The favorite of the GOP establishment was Texas Governor George W. Bush. McCain scored an early success, with a big win in the New Hampshire primary. Bush needed to win in South Carolina to reclaim the momentum, and his campaign figured out how to do it. The Bush campaign cut loose with a really savage smear campaign against McCain, among other things suggesting that McCain had fathered a black child outside his marriage. In racially conscious South Carolina, this worked like a charm. Bush won South Carolina, and soon afterward the McCain presidential run in 2000 was history.

I don’t know whether or not McCain is much of a student of history in general, but he certainly learned something from his personal history, specifically his presidential campaign in 2000. DIRTY POLITICS WORKS! Well, that’s the short answer. Another way to put it – without having to resort to value loaded words – is that in a political campaign, the candidate who is willing to do absolutely anything to win has a big advantage over a candidate who feels constrained by considerations such as maintaining one’s dignity or public image. McCain kept his dignity and public image intact in 2000… and then lost out to an opponent who cared nothing about such quaint principles. What did McCain conclude from that experience? If he was ever to get another shot at the presidency, he would not be handicapped again by a personal sense of ethics.

The dilemma for Senator McCain entering the general election campaign: should he risk losing the support of the right wing Republican base by reinforcing his generally favorable image with independents and conservative Democrats? Or, conversely, should he reinforce the party faithful at the expense of alienating the centrists? Clearly, he has chosen the latter, which is the smarter choice. He would not have won over many of the centrists from Obama anyway, and he correctly calculated that getting a strong voter turnout from his party’s base is the best way for him to win the election.

McCain’s other problem: 2008 figures to be a bad year for Republicans in general. The president – fellow Republican Bush – is very unpopular, and most Americans are apprehensive about the economy. It seems nearly certain that the Democrats will strengthen their presently very narrow control in Congress. The Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, has only been on the national stage for a relatively short time, but he is a great public speaker and has an interesting personal biography. If McCain is to win the presidential election under these circumstances, he has to tear down his opponent. McCain may not be able to raise his own popularity in any significant way, but he can still get elected if he is successful in sharply reducing Obama’s popularity.

Several weeks ago, when there was still at least some doubt about whether Senator Obama or Senator Clinton would be the Democratic nominee, Senator McCain publicly stated that he intended to run a high-minded general election campaign, focusing on just the real issues that the next president will have to address. I am in no position to say whether McCain sincerely meant what he said at that time, or if he was simply lying to keep the opposition off guard. At any rate, McCain soon enough remembered the lesson of his 2000 campaign. Always attack your opponent, and drag him down. If he responds in kind, accuse HIM of negative campaigning. If he doesn’t, you then imply that he is a wimp for letting you get away with your trash talk. It does not matter if your charges are gross distortions or outright lies. The relatively few people who notice those things were not going to vote for you anyway.

McCain ran an ad attacking Obama’s overseas trip (the one McCain had urged Obama to make), made some false statements about Obama and the troops, and snidely noted that Obama canceled a planned visit to wounded soldiers in Germany. The statement about the canceled visit was technically true, but it also strongly implied (which McCain knows is false) that the only reason for the cancellation was that Obama would only visit the troops if he could bring his campaign staff with cameras. Basically, McCain’s ad was full of lies and distortions, and the strong implication (which McCain also knows is false) that Obama is unpatriotic. It has also been reported (I don’t know for a fact that this is true, but I think it is likely) that IF Obama had made the visit to the troops in Germany, McCain had another ad prepared attacking Obama for making a troop visit an electioneering stunt.

McCain has also run an ad mocking Obama’s popular celebrity status, showing images of Obama mixed with images of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. My impression is that Ms. Hilton and Ms. Spears are both McCain supporters, and in any case there is absolutely no connection between Obama and either of them. I interpreted the ad as trying to show that Obama is all style and no substance. Some others have suggested a more sinister message: something having to do with juxtaposing a middle-aged black man with two young white sex symbols.

These ads are sleazy on a level that I never would have suspected of McCain, but at least in the short term, they seem to be working. Nobody is talking about substantive issues these days. It is all about the name-calling and innuendo. Obama is in the position of reacting to this trash, and the effect is to pull him down in the minds of many voters.

The Obama campaign should understand a few realities regarding John McCain.

McCain knows from experience that his best chance to win – and he will do absolutely anything to maximize his chances of winning – is to attack Obama with everything possible, and all the time. For McCain, this can include lies, innuendo, and appealing to people’s subconscious racial fears.
Similarly, McCain has calculated that his own public image will not rise or fall very much, no matter what he does. However, his best chance of winning depends on tearing down Obama.
John McCain regards Barack Obama with utter contempt. His condescending attitude toward Obama is a constant theme. Why else would McCain actually say that he is "proud of" his trashy ads? I think that the main reason for his attitude is his belief that Obama needs to pay his dues in the Senate for awhile longer before running for president, but the reason matters less than the fact.

It is possible that McCain will overstep his attacks, crossing a line that alienates even many of his supporters, but I think it is unlikely. His most offensive remark so far is that Obama would rather lose a war than an election. That comes pretty close to suggesting Obama is guilty of treason, and McCain has not had to pay a political price for that. Obama and his campaign must realize what kind of a person John McCain really is, and deal with it accordingly.

Joe Biden for vice-president

The Bard of Wilmette — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:03:57 EDT

A few times in the past on these pages, I have expressed my preference for Senator Joe Biden to be Barack Obama’s vice-presidential candidate this year. Just in case Senator Obama reads my blog (and I am not holding my breath for a confirmation that he does), I would like to make a final pitch here for my candidate, Joe Biden.

The main things a vice-presidential candidate is supposed to do are:

Help the ticket get elected.
After the election victory, help the new president to govern effectively.
Be ready to step in as president, in case circumstances make that necessary.

I think that the first point usually gets too much emphasis, relative to the other two. It is first in chronology, but last in real importance. Elections are seldom won because of a vice-presidential choice. 1960 (Kennedy-Johnson) was probably the most recent year where the VP pick was actually decisive. The names of many candidates have been floated this year, and several of them would probably be good choices. Biden is not the only good choice available, but I think he is the best.

He would help elect the ticket. It is arguable that some others might be a bigger help on this score, but Biden would reliably be a positive factor here. He is a Catholic with working class roots, representing a couple of demographic groups where Obama has not established as strong a connection as he would like. While his home state of Delaware is not a “battleground” state in the upcoming election, Biden’s spot on the ticket would probably solidify Pennsylvania. Biden is a long standing Washington fixture. Obama’s big campaign theme is “change.” Biden has been in the U.S. Senate since Obama was about 11 years old, so one might suggest that Biden-as-VP is inconsistent with the “change” message. I would turn that around and say that Obama represents plenty of change by himself. I think that Obama has extraordinary potential, but many people also believe that he is too young and/or inexperienced, and that while he has some appealing qualities, he is too much of an unknown quantity for a vague message of “change” to make them comfortable. Biden represents the idea that change and experience are compatible. Polls have shown that voters widely regard Obama as a more “risky” candidate than Senator McCain. They may like his upside potential but are apprehensive about his being so new to the national stage. Biden would be a comforting presence to those voters.

Biden would help Obama govern. He has been chairman of two major Senate committees. He has worked effectively with Republican senators, as well as fellow Democrats. He is the senior senator under age 70, and he knows how Capitol Hill operates as well as anybody. This is not to suggest that Obama could not have a different vice-president and still work well with Congress, but Biden would be a valuable presence. He stayed out of the fratricidal conflicts between Obama and Clinton backers while those two were battling for the nomination, so he has not alienated any of the factions.

My personal opinion is that Joe Biden is the person I would most want to have step in as president, in the event that President Obama is temporarily or permanently unable to continue to serve as president for any reason. I admit that this is highly subjective, and others could make an easily plausible case for their favorite VP choice. On this subject, I can only say that a good president needs to be a good politician and understand the workings in Washington. Biden’s qualifications in this regard are not unique, but they are solid.

His political philosophy is not identical to Obama’s, but is reasonably compatible. He is forthright, and he will tell Obama privately if he believes that Obama’s decision is wrong, but he also understands the system well enough that, having registered his private misgivings, he can also support the president publicly.

Finally, there is the matter I usually prefer to avoid, but it still gets a lot of attention. We hear a lot of stuff like:

He (Obama) should have a woman, or a Latino, for VP.

He needs to take a VP who previously supported Hillary Clinton.

He should have a VP with great military credentials.

He should have somebody who reinforces the “change” image.

As far as I am concerned, Obama himself is change enough. I recommend that he take an older white guy who is a veteran of Washington politics. My second choice is New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. Ideally, I would like to see Biden as vice-president and Richardson as Secretary of State, but the reversal of those two roles would not be too bad. I just cannot help wondering if having both a black and a Latino on the same ticket is too much change at once, in the minds of many voters.

Anyway, Obama will soon make his choice for running mate, and I expect to support his choice, whoever it may be… but I hope it is Joe Biden.

Character issues do not favor McCain

The Bard of Wilmette — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 10:58:04 EDT

There was a time, and it was not long ago at all, when I had a lot of respect for Senator John McCain. I was rooting for him to win the Republican nomination in 2000, and I remember thinking that (if he had won the nomination) we would have had two classy choices for president that year. Even at the beginning of this year, I thought that McCain was by far the best of the Republican presidential hopefuls. Maybe he was, but that is not saying much. In my posts and comments for my.barackobama.com, I try to maintain at least the forms of respect. I have avoided the direct insults, such as referring to Senator McCain as “McSame” or “McBush” or similar names. I do not suggest that he is too old for the presidency, nor do I entertain tabloid gossip regarding his personal life (with one exception, discussed below). Like nearly all Americans, I admire McCain’s courageous endurance as a prisoner of war in Vietnam roughly forty years ago. At certain times during his Senate career, McCain has shown some appealing independence from the Republican Party line. Almost nobody would dispute that McCain deserves a lot of respect for devoting most of his adult life to public service, first in the military and then in public office.

Then, he became the Republican nominee for president. When it became clear that he was the Republican nominee-apparent, Senator McCain made the predictable, but believable at the time, statement that he intended to conduct a high-minded campaign. He would treat the Democratic nominee (which at that time could have been either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton) with respect. They would intelligently debate policy issues. He would not engage in personal attacks or insults. This was to be a presidential campaign that would be conducted in a classy manner. He may have sincerely meant all those things at the time that he said them. If he ever meant it at all, it did not last long.

It is a well-known reality of politics that candidates usually have to engage in some distortion – inflating one’s own accomplishments or minimizing the weaknesses, while doing the opposite regarding the opponent – in order to win an election. I have no problem with that. If I am Senator McCain, I would over-emphasize the success of the troop surge in Iraq, Senator Obama’s limited experience, and anything in Senator Obama’s Senate record that can be used to embarrass him. That is all fair enough in American politics.

If Senator McCain believed that he had a good chance to win the election by pointing out their differences on policy issues, he might have preferred to take that route. Instead, it seems clear that he became persuaded that he will lose the election unless he takes the low road. So… low road it is.

Some months ago, Michelle Obama used a poorly worded sentence that was taken by some people to mean that she was never proud to be an American until quite recently, when her husband’s campaign was showing signs of success. Many Republicans jumped on this incident to suggest that Michelle Obama is unpatriotic. There were some admirable exceptions, including First Lady Laura Bush, who publicly defended Michelle Obama, saying that her remarks were misconstrued. I have no recollection of John McCain directly commenting at all on the subject, but Cindy McCain joined in the parade of those bashing Michelle Obama, emphasizing that she (Cindy) has ALWAYS been proud of her country. Given John McCain’s silence on the matter, it clearly amounts to an implied approval of his wife’s trash talking.

The McCain campaign has directly emphasized the alleged flip-flops on the part of Senator Obama. I believe that most of the claims on this subject are inaccurate, or at least exaggerated. The two most cited examples regarding Obama are campaign financing and the recent FISA bill. Obama’s “promise” to accept public financing was accompanied by conditions that were not met, so there is no inconsistency as far as I am concerned. In any case, the issue pertains to campaign strategy, not public policy. As for FISA, Obama had promised (unwisely, in my view) to support a filibuster against the inclusion of civil immunity for the telecoms companies that cooperate with the government in illegal spying on U.S. citizens. He then changed his mind and supported the bill, after trying unsuccessfully to get that provision removed. Not exactly Obama’s finest moment, but also not the big deal Obama’s critics make it out to be.

The flip-flop charge was used with great effect against Senator Kerry four years ago, so it is understandable that the Republicans would bring it back for an encore performance, this time against Senator Obama. Who is leading the flip-flop charge? Why, it’s Senator McCain. This is the man who eloquently insisted (against the objections of President Bush) that a prohibition on the use of torture be included in a defense appropriations bill… but year, he voted against a similar prohibition of torture as part of an intelligence bill. This is the man who opposed the Bush tax cuts back in 2001 (when the federal government was still in surplus), because that would have been fiscally irresponsible… but now supports making those same tax cuts permanent (despite the federal government now being in record, or near-record, deficit).

Changing one’s mind as new information becomes available is understandable. In this case, however, it looks like McCain’s changes are due solely due to political expediency. Leaving aside that factor, there either was no new information (regarding torture), or the new information argued for the opposite decision (regarding tax cuts). For McCain to call Obama a flip-flopper is hypocritical, to say the least.

McCain also basically taunted Obama into making an overseas trip. Obama may well have made the trip anyway, but McCain’s “encouragement” made it a certainty. The trip went very well, and McCain was visibly irritated. He complained about the generally favorable press coverage of the Obama trip, and he complained about the fact that Obama was even making the trip at all – the trip he had publicly suggested that Obama should make. McCain’s friend and economic advisor, former Texas Senator Phil Gramm, said recently that America has become “a nation of whiners.” Lately, it seems that Senator McCain has become America’s Whiner-in-Chief.

Finally, while Obama was out of the country this past week, McCain impugned Obama’s patriotism. Discussing their differences regarding the war in Iraq, McCain said on several occasions this week that Obama would rather lose a war than lose an election. By sharp contrast, McCain alleges that he would rather lose an election than a war. Would the good senator from Arizona like to explain his remarks? In the first place, this is no slip of the tongue. He said this several times during this past week. According to Senator McCain, Senator Obama is so lacking in patriotism that he would actually prefer that America lose the war, and presumably a lot of lives, as long as somebody else can get blamed for it. That is clearly the implication of what Senator McCain said. Obama supposedly wants his country to leave Iraq in humiliating defeat, with many thousands of brave American men and women killed or maimed. If this is what Senator McCain really believes, he should confirm it. If that is not what he means, he should clarify his remarks, because he comes very close to accusing his election opponent of treason.

So, this is the “highly principled” Senator John McCain, who promised to keep a respectful tone in his campaign for President. I have been very disappointed by his conduct in this campaign, which has been deplorable.

There are many genuine and legitimate differences of policy and political philosophy between the two major candidates for president. A few examples: Should the U.S. insist on environmental and worker safety and minimum wage level conditions as part of trade agreements? To what degree does the federal (or a state) government have the right to limit a woman’s choices regarding her own pregnancy? Are school voucher programs a good idea? What kinds of gun control measures, if any, are both constitutional and appropriate as public policy? These are matters most Americans care about, and where Senators McCain and Obama have different views. Good and respectable people can argue their different positions regarding these questions. However, instead of addressing these kinds of policy questions, Senator McCain has decided that it would be more to his political advantage to brand Senator Obama as unpatriotic, and let his wife do the same thing regarding the wife of Senator Obama.

Ah, yes, you might say, but isn’t character important? Sure, it is. John McCain is a legitimate war hero, and Barack Obama has consistently given him credit for that. In my opinion, Obama deserves similar moral credit for turning down the opportunity for an instantly high paying job as a lawyer, and instead taking a very low paying job as a community organizer.

There is one character issue that separates McCain and Obama. Again, it probably is not much of an indication of how they would perform as president. I would not mention it, except that both the McCains opened the door by taking cheap shots at both the Obamas. McCain’s first wife, Carol, became disfigured in an accident. After John McCain finally got home after his POW release in Vietnam, finding that Carol was no longer young and beautiful, John carried on an affair with a young and attractive heiress to a beer distribution fortune. Although he later claimed that he separated from Carol before dating Cindy, this was not true. This is a matter of factual record, and amounts to pretty sleazy personal conduct, as far as I am concerned. I have heard other unflattering gossip about McCain, but I pay no attention to gossip that is (as far as I know) unsubstantiated. In contrast, Barack Obama has consistently been, by all available evidence, a very devoted husband and father, a very solid family man. I don’t want to make a big deal out of the personal lives of either candidate, but if McCain wants to make personal character a campaign issue, then his past personal behavior is relevant.

Should Obama acknowledge the success of the surge?

The Bard of Wilmette — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:18:35 EDT

The TV commentators are spending a lot of time these days discussing The Surge – the significant increase in U.S. combat troops in Iraq, which began in 2007 – and its apparent success in reducing the violence levels in Iraq. The big question: should Barack Obama, who opposed the surge, concede that it has worked? So far, Senator Obama has not explicitly admitted that the surge has been a success. He has not denied it, either. The only question that (as far as I can tell) he has answered directly on the subject is that, knowing what he knows now, he still would not have voted to authorize the troop level increase in Iraq.

I may be in the minority among Obama supporters, but I believe that it would be good politics for Senator Obama to be more forthright regarding the merits of the troop surge. Obama is an outstanding public speaker, and somebody helps him compose some beautiful speeches. I do not presume to write speeches for Senator Obama, but I would like to suggest that he say something like the following:

Many journalists and others have lately been trying to get me to answer, as a simple yes or no, the question of whether I would concede that the surge has “worked.” Either a simple “yes” or a simple “no” would be misleading, in my opinion, but let me now try to address the question. As most people know, I voted against the surge when the question came up in the U.S. Senate. Given the track record of the Bush administration’s false claims, erroneous assumptions, and general incompetence regarding nearly all aspects of the war in Iraq, I think that my vote against the surge was entirely appropriate at that time. It meant using resources in Iraq that, it seemed, could have been put to more productive use elsewhere.

Fortunately, the military and security situation in Iraq has substantially improved over the past year. I am very pleased that this has happened, as all Americans should be. This improvement has been due to several factors: the Anbar Awakening (which preceded the surge), the gradual improvement in the Iraqi Army, increased competence and self-confidence by the Government of Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki – and yes, the surge. The surge is not the only factor, but it has certainly helped make the other factors sustainable. I want to be clear that I believe that General Petraeus has done an outstanding job over there. The main purpose of the surge, in addition to reducing the level of violence in Iraq, is to enable a reconciliation and workable political solution between the conflicting factions in Iraq. It is too early to pronounce the surge to be a complete success, because that political solution has yet to take place. However, the violence is unquestionably down, and the improved conditions make the political solution a more realistic possibility than what appeared to be the case a year ago. In summary, while it may be premature to make a final conclusion, I can certainly at this point say that the surge has been far more effective than I had expected it to be. For that, I am very grateful. Our men and women in uniform – officers and enlisted personnel at all ranks – continue to perform their duties heroically, and they deserve a high degree of respect and gratitude from all Americans.

Some of my domestic political opponents have suggested that I would rather lose a war than admit to having been wrong about anything. These same people have generally refused to admit that they were wrong to support invading Iraq in the first place, but maybe it is time to put those past arguments behind us. If I underestimated the effectiveness of the troop surge in Iraq, I could not be happier about it. No responsible American official should ever make a grim prediction – that some given action will result in disaster – and then be more interested in being proven right than in having a more favorable result. I never operate that way, nor would I ever accuse my political opponents of behaving in that manner.

The reason why I think it is in Senator Obama’s political interest to say something along these lines is that there is a sizeable perception that Obama refuses to concede that he might be wrong about something once in awhile. If too many voters perceive him to be arrogant, he can easily lose the upcoming election. Recall that many people respected Al Gore’s intellect and good intentions, but still voted for George W. Bush because he seemed to be one of them, whoever they are. I am not trying to debate the actual merits of the surge. The situation in Iraq has clearly improved, but how much credit for the improvement goes to the surge, and how much to other factors? Is the improvement just temporary, or more long lasting? I don’t know the answer to either question.

What I do know is that I want Barack Obama to win the election. He will get most of the votes of the liberal intellectuals and the black Americans of all social classes. He will need a lot of votes outside those two groups, and I think that a partial admission that the surge has been a success (or at least much more of a success than seemed likely last year) will give Obama more “regular guy” appeal than he has shown so far. My suggestion is not based on factual accuracy, but on political calculation. Right after Obama makes this qualified concession about the merits of the surge, it becomes yesterday’s news.

Is Barack too young to be president?

The Bard of Wilmette — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:02:42 EDT

Today’s (July 22) Chicago Tribune has an op-ed column by Seven Calabresi, who is a professor at Northwestern University’s Law School, a founding member of the Federalist Society, and a veteran of the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. He asserts that Barack Obama is too young to be president. I thought his column was so asinine that it called for a response. For understandable reasons of space limitations, the Tribune publishes only a small fraction of the letters submitted to the editor, and they are not likely to publish this one. In case anybody is interested, here is the link:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0722youthjul22,0,6673380.story

Here is the letter I wrote to the Tribune:

As a Northwestern University law professor, Steven Calabresi must be a smart guy, but his guest column in the July 22 Tribune is one of the stupidest essays I have ever seen. He argues that Barack Obama is too young for the job of President of the United States. He gives two main reasons to support his claim.

First, the constitutional minimum age requirement of 35 came at a time when the average lifespan was only slightly over half of what it is today. Mr. Calabresi admits that the courts should not use that fact to decree a higher minimum age (which he obnoxiously suggests, without evidence, is the kind of thing the dreaded “liberal” Supreme Court justices would do), but he implies that a 47-year-old man such as Obama is equivalent to a 25-year-old in 1789… as if Senator Obama is still getting used to wearing long pants.

Second, he cites the three men who became president at a younger age than Obama would be next January – Teddy Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Clinton – as examples to be avoided. Teddy Roosevelt’s image is on Mt. Rushmore, and he is usually regarded as a great, or near great, president by both Republicans and Democrats. Kennedy is favorably remembered by most Americans. Clinton, of course, is a very fresh memory and still controversial, but who I believe will be judged favorably by most future historians.

Of course, Mr. Calabresi also notes the usual claptrap about Obama’s supposed flip flops and associations with a few controversial people, without acknowledging that the same charges apply equally to Senator McCain, and many other political leaders. Mr. Calabresi can make the case that Barack Obama is on the wrong side of too many issues, but his “too young to be President” argument is both false and poorly supported.

The culture of deception

The Bard of Wilmette — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:08:04 EDT

I just finished Scott McClellan’s book What Happened. It is surprisingly good, or at least it was surprising to me. This was not, as some had suggested the week the book was released, a book to whitewash his own record, or to settle scores. It is the thoughtful reflections of a White House insider, who likes and respects George W. Bush, but who also believes that Mr. Bush unwittingly became captive of the “permanent campaign” mentality that led to some destructive consequences. This included the selling of the Iraq war to the public. McClellan suggests that the primary motivation behind Bush’s decision to invade Iraq was eliminating a ruthless dictator and establishing a democracy that would serve as an inspiring example to Iraq’s Arab and Muslim neighbors. Since the American public was not likely to endorse launching a war for the purpose of bringing democracy to the Middle East, he emphasized and embellished the WMD and the supposed imminent threat to the U.S. and its allies by Saddam Hussein. Bush and other administration officials were not lying – in the sense of knowingly making false statements of fact. Instead, they unconsciously cherry picked (as the saying goes) the intelligence, overplaying tidbits of information (without questioning the reliability of that information) that reinforced what they wanted to believe, while downplaying any information that conflicted with their assumptions. Unfortunately for Mr. Bush, his main justification proved to be false, after he had staked his credibility on the WMD premise.

The final chapter of the book sums up the problems of the Bush presidency well. Here is the opening paragraph of that chapter:

When George W. Bush arrived at the White House, I believed he offered a real opportunity to move beyond the hyperpartisanship and excessive politicking that have come to characterize Washington. But it was not to be. The permanent campaign approach we publicly denounced and distanced ourselves from in the 2000 campaign was vigorously embraced after Election Day. The massive Bush campaign machine was integrally woven into his White House governance, without adequate controls or corresponding checks and balances. Ultimately, that machine worked not only to spin the media and defeat our opponents but to spin and defeat ourselves.

Anyway, I thought the book was well written, and I appreciate the tone of it. McClellan is sympathetic to Bush, but he also acknowledges that as the president, Bush is ultimately responsible for all the mistakes made by any members of his administration.

Obama is more consistent than some people suggest

The Bard of Wilmette — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:39:59 EDT

As I have noted in a couple of previous blog postings, one of my favorite newspaper columnists is Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune. Chapman is what I would call a libertarian conservative, who almost certainly favors Republicans for high public office more often than Democrats. While he favors many of the conservative goals, he is even-handed at identifying examples of hypocrisy. I really do not know whether he intends to vote for Obama or McCain in the upcoming election. He has written critically of both candidates. Chapman is a member of the Tribune’s editorial board. This is a newspaper that has endorsed the Republican candidate for president at least since 1872.

In his July 17 column, Chapman addresses the “flip flop” issue as it has been aimed at Senator Obama. I have felt all along that the “flip flop” charge against Obama has been highly exaggerated. The charge was used four years ago with great effect against Senator John Kerry, so I guess it is only natural that the Republicans would assume it should work against Senator Obama. Obama is not completely innocent of that allegation, and of course, neither is Senator John McCain. Still, most of the claims on this issue directed at Obama are for changes in tone more than substance. For example, he wears the flag pin more often than he did before. That is a change in personal style, not public policy. I think that the campaign finance issue is also bogus. Obama indicated that he would accept public financing and its limits, if certain conditions were in place. Those conditions were not present, so Obama (correctly, in my opinion) opted out of the public financing. His only mistake was to have ever implied that he even might accept the public financing, given the fact that the conditions (control over the 527 attack ads, etc.) involved would almost certainly not be met.

Anyway, here is Steve Chapman’s column:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0717chapmanjul17,0,5532953.column

Misreading public opinion surveys

The Bard of Wilmette — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:27:32 EDT

I was watching Morning Joe on MSNBC this morning. Joe Scarborough discussed the latest New York Times/CBS News opinion poll, which asked their polling sample a lot of questions, mainly about racial attitudes. In particular, one question asked: “Is your opinion of John McCain favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven’t you heard enough about John McCain yet to have an opinion?” The same question was asked regarding the respondents’ attitudes toward Barack Obama.

To the question about McCain, just 5% of black respondents reported a favorable opinion of John McCain, with 57% unfavorable, with the others undecided or not yet having enough information to have an opinion. Mr. Scarborough jumped on this statistic to say express his feeling of what a shame it was that only 5% of black Americans have a favorable view of Senator McCain. He then went on about McCain’s great courage as a prisoner of war, the sacrifices he endured for several years in the service of his country, and yet… incredibly, according to Mr. Scarborough, 95% of black Americans view John McCain unfavorably.

Perhaps the majority of Obama bloggers would not agree with me, but Joe Scarborough comes across to me as somebody I would like if I knew him personally. His political views and mine are different more often than they are similar, but he does not take political differences personally, and neither do I. On his Morning Joe TV program, he interviews his guests in a friendly manner, and it does not change whether the guest is a political ally or not. He conveys an impression to me that he believes that most Americans, however liberal or conservative, are basically good people.

Okay, having said some nice things about Joe Scarborough, I have to add that he is completely off base in his interpretations of the New York Times/CBS News poll.

First, and most obviously, there was no indication at all that 95% of black Americans view John McCain unfavorably. According to the survey, it was 5% favorable, 57% unfavorable, and the other 38% either neutral or no opinion. There is no basis to suggest that the 38% neutral/no opinion response is equivalent to unfavorable.

Second, nearly all of us are aware of McCain’s background as a war hero. That was 40 years ago! It is hardly the sole, or even primary, basis to evaluate him today. With perhaps rare exceptions, nearly everybody who would now express an unfavorable opinion of Senator McCain would still acknowledge his heroics of long ago. Had I been one of the poll’s sample respondents (I am white, by the way), I would also report a generally unfavorable view of John McCain. This does not mean that I have no respect for him at all, nor would I deny that McCain has some favorable qualities. However, the current context for rendering an opinion on John McCain is mainly that he is one of two people with a realistic chance of being elected President of the United States later this year. My own belief is that McCain would probably not make a good president at this time, and with that in mind I would report having an unfavorable view of him. To cite another example, if asked, I would report viewing George W. Bush in very unfavorable terms. By all available evidence, Mr. Bush is a good husband and father, and I certainly respect that. However, my favorable or unfavorable opinion of the president has nothing, or almost nothing, to do with my perception of what kind of a family man he is. The private life of Mr. Bush may be admirable, but my opinion of him is based on George W. Bush, the president and politician.

Third, the polled sample included a total of just 297 black respondents. Converting these percentages into raw numbers, it appears that of the total polled, 15 black respondents reported a favorable view of McCain, with 169 unfavorable, and 113 undecided or no opinion. That is a large sampling error. Sampling error in these polls is usually expressed as something like “plus or minus 3 percentage points,” meaning that (assuming that the survey was very well designed) the researchers can be 95% confident that the sample response rate is within 3 percentage points of the true collective opinions of the whole population that the sample is supposed to represent. However, that sampling error (plus or minus 3 percentage points) is for the total survey. The sampling error for a subgroup (297 respondents, from a total of around 1,800) is much larger. It is much harder to generalize a nationwide attitude based on a survey of about 300 people than it is with a survey of around 1,800.

I know that there are much bigger problems around than TV news-chat show hosts misinterpreting public opinion surveys. Still, it is a distortion, whether conscious or not, and Mr. Scarborough conveyed a very erroneous message to the effect that 95% of black Americans completely disregard all positive attributes of Senator McCain. That kind of commentary tends to harden people’s attitudes in a variety of ways, and it makes it more difficult for the next president – whether Obama or McCain – to persuade the supporters of the losing candidate that he intends to serve as president for all Americans.