It's Been a Bad, Bad Month for Obama
Republicans aren't stupid. Well, most of the time, at least. Have you noticed how the noise over Benghazi has quieted down? Sure, there are still Republicans repeating the talking points, but they are by and large beginning to realize what I have been saying for weeks - there is no real scandal there and the American people don't particularly care.
On the IRS scandal, which I believe to be real, the President is looking more and more out-of-control. He has claimed that he found out about the scandal from the press accounts, in spite of evidence that higher-ups in the Obama administration knew of the issue last year. The untenable nature of the President's position on this issue is clear to me - my greatest fear is not that he is lying and knew about the issue - my greatest fear is that he is telling the truth and that he is not in control of his administration. Either way, Democrats trying to defend the scandal as not that big a deal should exercise some caution - poo-pooing the use of the IRS to cause problems for political opponents is tantamount to walking away from being the party of civil liberties.
The most chilling issue of all, in my opinion, is the investigation of reporters over leaks of classified information. While I call this an issue and not a scandal, as it does not appear that there were any laws broken and the investigations were all conducted within the bounds of the law as it is understood, applying legal pressure to reporters for doing nothing other than listening to sources and reporting what they say is chilling. Let me be fair - there are definitely times where national security concerns compel the government to go after those who work in government and leak classified information. That is fair game. But investigating reporters and seizing their records and e-mail for doing nothing more than reporting what is leaked to them is essentially criminalizing journalism. There is good reason that all of the press, liberal, conservative and moderate are united against the Obama administration is simple - regardless of your political persuasion, if you are reporter, you don't like to see Freedom of the Press trampled upon.
The common thread between the IRS and AP/Fox News events is a disrespect for constitutional liberties - Freedom of Speech in the first case and Freedom of the Press in the second. President Obama has a horribly weak record on civil liberties - he has extended the Patriot Act, used drone strikes on US Citizens, kept GITMO open (in spite of his half-hearted protestations that Congress has stopped him from closing it, he hasn't even released prisoners that have been cleared) and now used the heavy hand of the government to attempt to intimidate political opponents and journalists.
The man who promised the most open, transparent administration ever and to change the way that Washington did business is a long way from living up to his promises.
On Immigration and Internet Taxes
Millions of people ignore a clearly written law in the United States. Everyone is in alignment that there needs to be reform of the law, but some protest that those who broke the law in the past shouldn't be given a pass or rewarded for their illegal activities.
Am I talking about immigration reform? No, I'm talking about order stuff from amazon.com.
Sales tax laws are clear in every state that has a sales tax (New Hampshire and Delaware residents, you are off the hook) - if you order from amazon.com, you must submit the sales tax that is owed on the out of state purchase to your local state government. You thought internet sales were tax-free? Wrong. The law only states that in states where it doesn't have a physical presence that Amazon itself does not have to collect the tax on behalf of the state government. You still owe it. So if you are among the millions who have ordered from Amazon and not sent in your tax payment, you are a criminal. You broke the law. Should we come and throw you in jail for your crimes?
I explain all of this to debunk the notion of illegal immigrants as criminals. Yes, in the technical sense, that word is true - entering the US illegally is a crime and a criminal, by definition is someone who commits a crime. But that definition applies equally well to Amazon.com customers. In fact, the reasons for breaking immigration laws are typically a lot more noble than the reasons for breaking our tax laws. In the case of immigration, most illegal immigrants are breaking the law to provide food and shelter for their families. in the case of Amazon, most people are breaking the law because they are too lazy or too cheap to pay an extra 5 or 6% on their purchase.
So let's get over this righteous indignation about illegal immigration and work on solving the problem. And the solution has to involve a legal, dignified path for the 11 million already here without their papers. Let's hope that conservative leaders like Marco Rubio, who has seen the light on this issue can convince enough Republicans to join him to make this effort happen - an effort that has the support of not just liberals and Democrats but Republicans like George W. Bush and John McCain.
It is time to bring people out of the shadows.
Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Why Can't the Third World Get It Together?, Why Calling Out Bigots Isn't Anti-Freedom, Is Obama a Lame Duck?
Why Do Some Nations Fail?
I apologize to my dear readers for the lack of recent writing. I have been sitting on the beach in Jamaica, enjoying the sunshine and pondering the issues of our world (okay, I didn't spend most of the time pondering, I probably spent more time swimming and drinking, but I did think enough to get the idea for this post.)
One of the things that always strikes me when I visit a place like Jamaica is the poverty there. The per capita GDP in Jamaica is just over $9,000 compared to close to $50,000 for the US and an average of $32,000 for the Euro-zone. Even second-world countries like Russia and Brazil have per capita GDP's in the $12,000 to $15,000 range. So, despite some wealthy land owners, Jamaica is poor, very poor.
But why? There are tremendous natural assets in the country. It has some of the most coveted beach-front property and nicest weather in the world, leading to a very robust tourism industry. It has natural resources with huge natural bauxite deposits that has led to a robust export-industry. It has a great climate for agriculture, leading to strong production of sugar, bananas and plantains. Yet it is very poor.
The answer is all about infrastructure. Education is a mess in the country, with only 73% of kids making it through primary school, with less than 50% graduating from high school and even fewer enrolling in college. The system of finance is poor, with a far less robust system for accumulating and effectively distributing capital than the first world.
A country realizing its economic potential always comes back to a few things, but I'll remind the reader, as these are the investments that should guide our government. What is required for economic success is:
(1) A robust system of property rights, including intellectual property (i.e. patent law)
(2) A complete end-to-end system of finance that effectively distributes capital to good ideas from venture capital to bond markets to banking, which includes credible financial controls (i.e. you can trust financial statements from potential investments)
(3) A solid system of physical infrastructure - roads, bridges, trains, ports, etc.
(4) An educational system that equips the workforce with needed skills
(5) Strong investment in basic scientific research
In the US, for all our issues, we still compare favorable to most of the world on these measures, although our physical infrastructure and investment in basic science could use some work.
Calling Broussard a Bigot Isn't Anti-Free Speech
People get confused about what free speech means sometimes. Our first amendment, which I hold very dear, ensures that people are able to express their points of view without interference from the federal government. Unlike, say, Germany, where you can be arrested for saying you support the Nazis, in the US, the government won't come arrest you for saying you like Adolf Hitler.
What free speech is NOT is a license to say things free from criticism.
Following Jason Collins announcement that he is gay, a significant event in that he is the first man in a major team sport at the top level to come out of the closet in the US (albeit Collins future prospects in the NBA were unclear as he is at best, an aging sixth man without a contract), ESPN Analyst Chris Broussard stated:
"If you're openly living that type of lifestyle, the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that that's a sin. If you're openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, I believe that's walking in open rebellion to God and Jesus Christ."
Broussard is certainly entitled to his opinion. He is legally entitled to express it. But I'm not obligated to show him any respect. Nor is ESPN obligated to continue to employ him.
I apologize to my dear readers for the lack of recent writing. I have been sitting on the beach in Jamaica, enjoying the sunshine and pondering the issues of our world (okay, I didn't spend most of the time pondering, I probably spent more time swimming and drinking, but I did think enough to get the idea for this post.)
One of the things that always strikes me when I visit a place like Jamaica is the poverty there. The per capita GDP in Jamaica is just over $9,000 compared to close to $50,000 for the US and an average of $32,000 for the Euro-zone. Even second-world countries like Russia and Brazil have per capita GDP's in the $12,000 to $15,000 range. So, despite some wealthy land owners, Jamaica is poor, very poor.
But why? There are tremendous natural assets in the country. It has some of the most coveted beach-front property and nicest weather in the world, leading to a very robust tourism industry. It has natural resources with huge natural bauxite deposits that has led to a robust export-industry. It has a great climate for agriculture, leading to strong production of sugar, bananas and plantains. Yet it is very poor.
The answer is all about infrastructure. Education is a mess in the country, with only 73% of kids making it through primary school, with less than 50% graduating from high school and even fewer enrolling in college. The system of finance is poor, with a far less robust system for accumulating and effectively distributing capital than the first world.
A country realizing its economic potential always comes back to a few things, but I'll remind the reader, as these are the investments that should guide our government. What is required for economic success is:
(1) A robust system of property rights, including intellectual property (i.e. patent law)
(2) A complete end-to-end system of finance that effectively distributes capital to good ideas from venture capital to bond markets to banking, which includes credible financial controls (i.e. you can trust financial statements from potential investments)
(3) A solid system of physical infrastructure - roads, bridges, trains, ports, etc.
(4) An educational system that equips the workforce with needed skills
(5) Strong investment in basic scientific research
In the US, for all our issues, we still compare favorable to most of the world on these measures, although our physical infrastructure and investment in basic science could use some work.
Calling Broussard a Bigot Isn't Anti-Free Speech
People get confused about what free speech means sometimes. Our first amendment, which I hold very dear, ensures that people are able to express their points of view without interference from the federal government. Unlike, say, Germany, where you can be arrested for saying you support the Nazis, in the US, the government won't come arrest you for saying you like Adolf Hitler.
What free speech is NOT is a license to say things free from criticism.
Following Jason Collins announcement that he is gay, a significant event in that he is the first man in a major team sport at the top level to come out of the closet in the US (albeit Collins future prospects in the NBA were unclear as he is at best, an aging sixth man without a contract), ESPN Analyst Chris Broussard stated:
"If you're openly living that type of lifestyle, the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that that's a sin. If you're openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, I believe that's walking in open rebellion to God and Jesus Christ."
Broussard is certainly entitled to his opinion. He is legally entitled to express it. But I'm not obligated to show him any respect. Nor is ESPN obligated to continue to employ him.
Broussard is a bigot, and we should say it. It is not intolerance to shun the intolerant. Saying that we have to listen to Broussard's point of view and respect it is absurd. If an ESPN analyst said that the reason that there are far more white quarterbacks than black despite African-American's overall dominance in the NFL because black people are stupid, he would be fired and shunned, not congratulated on expressing his point of view.
You may not consider what Broussard said as equivalent to racism but I do. And calling bigots bigots is an important part of driving the social conditions that don't tolerate homophobia. If homophobia becomes as socially unacceptable as racism or Nazi-party membership, that will be progress. The bigots will have a right to speak but we will all ignore them.
By the way, kudos to Kobe Bryant for his strong statement of support for Collins. Kobe, for all his personal shortcomings, showed real leadership in his unequivocal support. He is still a major superstar and the rest of the NBA looks to the response of players like Bryant.
Lame Duck Already?
Presidential second terms tend to be more quiet because, almost by definition, Presidents are lame ducks from the day of their second inauguration. President Obama has seemed more lame than most in the start of year 5 of his Presidency.
Gun control? He couldn't even get a bill passed that was sponsored by 2 NRA members and supported by 90% of the Senate.
Immigration reform? We can hope, but don't bet on it.
Sequester replacement? He is nowhere.
Climate control? Is anyone even TALKING about it?
The President's lack of a relationship with congressional leadership is showing, including in his own party. It's an open question whether the President will get anything significant done in term number 2.
Blame the GOP all you want, but President Clinton had the same issue in the last 6 years of his Presidency, but got things done by tracking to the center.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Should We Calm Down or Panic?, Two Sides to Generational Theft, Defining Sexism in the Modern World
Is This a Bump on the Road or a Road to Recession?
The latest jobs reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics was a bit of a cold shower for those hoping that the economy was finally spinning fast enough to produce real growth. After a brutal recession, we have had a painfully slow jobs recovery and are, in fact, still 3 million jobs below peak employment, which all the way back in January 2008 (if you are a conservatie, insert favorite barb about President Obama here.)
While the unemployment rate edged down to 7.6% from 7.7%, the entire drop was due to more people dropping out of the workforce, with workforce participation reaching its lowest level since the Carter administration. Only 88,000 jobs were created, far below the 200,000 that economists had been expecting just a few days before the report was released.
Some view this as evidence that the economy is slipping back into recession, while others view it as merely a statistical anomaly, and point to the much more robust job growth in February, when 268,000 jobs were created as evidence.
I view things somewhere in between. There is no evidence to me that the economy is headed back into recession. There has been no shock to our financial system, real estate is slowly on the mend and, every one of the past 29 months have seen positive job growth, with that number increasing to 36 months if you exclude the outlier of large hiring for temporary census workers in 2010 that led to large job reductions when those temporary jobs expired. Over that time period 5.9 million jobs have been created.
The counterbalance to those optimistic sounding statistics is that 8.7 million jobs were lost during the recession, so we aren't close to back to "normal" yet. Growth in both GDP and jobs has lagged substantially in this recovery versus prior recessions. The 1990-1991 recession saw a mere 1.6 million jobs lost and jobs were back at parity in less than 2 years.
Even the brutal 81-81 recession saw only 2.8 million jobs lost and those were recovered within a year of job growth resuming.
So, what we are stuck with is an economy that still has a huge hole that is being filled painfully slowly. Economists say it is likely that this month's slowing numbers do not yet include much impact from sequester spending cuts, since those impacts are largely not felt until April and beyond. It does include the headwinds from the tax increases that took effect at the first of the year.
If I had to guess, I would say that we have neither achieved "escape velocity" or fallen back into recession - we are just continuing to muddle along painfully slowly.
What Is Generational Theft?
An increasingly popular notion among conservatives is that we are stealing from future generations with today's deficit spending. The thinking is fairly straightforward - we are spending more money than we have and borrowing the rest, leaving future generations to pay the tab.
Liberal economist Paul Krugman has written a strong rebuke to this point of view. Krugman states that the conservative thinking misunderstands fundamentally what deficits are - that we are loaning money to ourselves and therefore not stealing from anyone.
Sorry, Paul, but your logic falls short. Much of today's deficit is financed with debt either sold to other countries (money we will surely have to pay back in the future) or with bond-buying from the Federal Reserve's latest Quantitative Easing program which is unsustainable if (or more like when) inflation begins to resurge.
We have to deal with the deficit and can't continue to assume that we can outspend our tax collections and borrow money at near-zero interest rates to cover the difference. The greatest risk of our debt is a crisis of confidence in the government's ability to service the debt, which would suddenly and without much warning drive up borrowing costs and set off a major recession.
Where Krugman is correct is that investment in high return government programs is warranted. Investments in infrastructure, education and science pay back in many multiples over future generations and should be continued. But these are a very small percentage of federal expenditures. The vast majority of federal money is spend on Defense and Entitlements. These are the areas that we need to reign in.
Have We Gone PC Mad or Was President Obama Out of Line?
President Obama, in a speech last week, called California Attorney General Kamala Harris "by far the best-looking Attorney General", a statement that provoked anger from portions of the left as well as the right (a somewhat ironic juxtaposition of the usual conservative orthodoxy about political correctness.)
So was he out of line? And if so, why? What is appropriate in the modern world and what is sexist?
I've often wondered the same thing in my own professional life. A couple of years ago, a colleague of mine who had, just a few months prior, had triplets, mentioned to me that she had just celebrated her 40th birthday. Amazed, as this woman didn't look a day over 32 and was in impeccable physical condition, I said, without thinking much about the professional implications, "you are 40 and just had 3 babies? You look amazing - you'd look great for 35 and no kids!" Perhaps sensing that I might be stepping near a line somewhere, I quickly added, "I really hope that wasn't inappropriate to say."
She turned to me and smiled, saying, "I'm pretty sure it is never inappropriate to tell a woman she looks amazing. Thanks."
So, aside from being factually incorrect (Pam Bondi of Florida is clearly the best-looking Attorney General in my opinion), was there anything wrong with what President Obama said?
It's very close to a very gray line, in my opinion. I don't agree with my friend that it is never inappropriate to talk about how good a woman looks, but that doesn't necessarily make President Obama wrong either.
My conversation, detailed above, was a private one, with words exchanged among two people who had a friendly relationship if not a friendship.
Had I instead said: "it's really nice to see someone with big boobs join this department" in a department meeting, I would CLEARLY be out of line.
What President Obama did was somewhere in between the two. By all accounts, he is friends with Kamala Harris. But the setting was public and the Attorney General was in a professional setting. It was probably best left unsaid or said in a private conversation. But it isn't far over the line.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
What President Does Obama Remind You Of?, The Curious Case of the South Carolina Primary
Carter? W.? Try H-W.
Presidents are always compared to their predecessors. Republicans have been searching for the next Ronald Reagan since Reagan left office in January of 1989. Democrats have been searching for the next John F. Kennedy since Kennedy was shot in Dallas.
President Obama has been compared to a lot of former Presidents. During the campaign, he was widely compared to Kennedy in admiring circles, given his penchant (how soon we forget) for making inspiring, sweeping speeches on the campaign, his relative youth in seeking an office that has often been a home to old men and his ability to inspire young people, as none had done since Kennedy.
Since taking office, President Obama has been subject to some far less flattering comparisons. Republicans have compared him to Jimmy Carter, for his perceived weakness on the foreign stage, his perceived lack of support for the state of Israel and his relative inexperience in foreign policy matters. On both the left and the right, various commentators have likened him to George W. Bush, his immediate predecessor, for his policies in the still-unresolved conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So which of these comparisons make the most sense?
In my opinion, the President's style and approach does closely resemble one President of my lifetime, but none of the ones that are frequently mentioned. He reminds me greatly of President George Herbert-Walker Bush.
Their resumes could hardly be more different. The first President Bush was a fight pilot in World War 2 and an experienced executive, having run the CIA and served 8 years as President. President Obama is one of the least experienced Presidents in modern history, having a mere 4 years in Washington, and that time in a legislative capacity in the Senate, not in an executive position. His origins as a community organizer were the antithesis of the blue blood background of the Bush family. He had no military experience. He was a product of the eclectic blend of Indonesia, Hawaii, Kansas and Chicago versus the ritzy Maine backdrop that H.W. grew up in.
But on substance, they are far more similar than you would think.
H.W. was the most accomplished President since at least Lyndon Johnson in terms of breakthrough policy. Don't believe me? Consider this: the Civil Rights Act of 1991, The Clean Air Act, The Clean Water Act, The Americans with Disabilities Act and the current structure of the tax brackets all came to fruition under the first President Bush. A pragmatic moderate, Bush worked with the Democratically controlled congress to craft the legislation that created the original cap and trade system in this country (for sulfur emissions to eliminate acid rain, a massive success that is widely underreported), drafted our current affirmative action system and signed the legislation that provides the government with the teeth to force BP to pay the costs of the spill clean-up. His deal with the Democrats on a tax package to reduce the deficit, which many believe lead to his undoing in 1992 (I happen to disagree, but more on that later) in many ways set the stage of the balanced budgets in the 1990s. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, W., none can claim such a record of accomplishment.
Bush was also a pragmatist on foreign policy, surgically beating Iraq back from its invasion of Kuwait, but quickly exiting U.S. troops. He was also moderate in his appointments...although he appointed conservative hero Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, he also nominated the moderate-to-liberal David Souter.
What Bush lacked was something that he one referred to as "the vision thing". He was not an inspirer. He did not come off well one-on-one. He struggled to express emotion, be it empathy or anger. When the economy headed south in 1990 and 1991, he was unable to connect with ordinary people or show, in a phrase that Bill Clinton made famous, that he "felt their pain". He was the snobby intellectual that couldn't connect with the unemployed truck driver. He famously ended a speech with the words "message: I care", a painful statement in part because it clarified to everybody that nobody could have discerned from the rest of his speech that he did.
President Obama has a similar record of legislative accomplishment. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is the single biggest shift in our economic policy since the Great Society, with huge investments in infrastructure and tax incentives over three years. Health care reform, while far more limited in scope than many (including myself) would have liked, is the biggest fundamental change in how we manage the health care sector since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid. He has also signed the biggest expansion of the SCHIP (children's health insurance) program in history, legislation which massively increases legal remedies for women who were victims of employment discrimination and legislation which fundamentally changes how the credit card industry operates.
On the foreign policy front, Obama has also been more H-W. than W. He is executing a slow, pragmatic exit from Iraq, taking the middle road in that country as H.W. did. He has ramped up presence in Afghanistan, but again with the promise of a definitive timeline and exit strategy, far from the all-in policies of W.
On the Supreme Court, President Obama has appointed on undoubted liberal (Sonia Sotomayor) and one probable moderate (Elena Kagan). He has moved slowly on social change, as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" remains in effect today, almost a year and a half into his Presidency. While theoretically supportive, he has made zero push for pro-union legislation such as the "Card Check" law.
And he has H-W's flaws as well. He has a big empathy gap. The pathetic assurance of Robert Gibbs that he had seen President Obama get angry was equally as sad as "message: I care" in that it was only necessary because we weren't sure he ever got angry, even when an oil rig was spewing thousands of gallons of oil every hour into our oceans. His statement that "I need to consult the experts so I know whose ass to kick" came off far more as geek playing tough guy than genuine angry man standing up for the people. He doesn't have that Clinton-thing in him.
So what does this mean electorally? Non-empathetic, accomplished intellectuals have a mixed record. LBJ was run out of office. Nixon won re-election in one of the biggest landslides in history. And, most recently, President Bush went down in flames, winning a sad 38% of the vote in his re-election bid. What I suspect will determine Obama's fate is the perceived state of the economy in 2012. When people are down and out, they need an empathizer, a fighter, a man that is not Obama. When people feel good about things, they want a smart guy to steer the ship, as they did in 1988 when they first elected H.W.
Unemployed Broke Charged-Felon Wins SC Democratic Primary
Every election cycle has its share of interesting stories. The strange rise of Ross Perot shocked the political establishment. Jesse Ventura's victory in Minnesota was an amazing story. The Florida recount captivated all of us and angered people of every political stripe at one point or another. The epic Obama v. Clinton Democratic fight in 2008 was a heck of a story. But this one might just take the cake.
The South Carolina Senate Democratic primary had received virtually no media coverage. First of all, incumbent Sen. Jim Demint (R) is believed by virtually everyone (myself included) to be at almost no risk of losing in November. South Carolina is probably the most conservative state in the south, it is not a favorable year to the Democrats and Demint is well-resourced. Secondly, there was no real race. Former State Assemblyman Vic Rawl was the appointed sacrificial lamb and had a modest but sufficient budget. He had signs up around the state, he knocked on some doors, he ran a few ads. And he had no real opponent. The only other Democrat who filed for the office was a guy named Alvin Greene, a man who was completely unknown in the state, ran no campaign, put up no signs, didn't even have a website.
Last Tuesday, by the official tally, Greene trounced Rawl with over 100,000 votes to Rawl's less than 70,000. And nobody knows how.
As I mentioned, Greene ran no campaign of any sort and was unknown. Since he won, it has been discovered that he is an accused felon that has taken the court-appointed lawyer for lack of funds. Nobody can even understand how he came up with the over $10,000 needed to file for his candidacy or how he got the requisite signatures to be on the ballot. He has had no press conferences, granted no interviews and has not even shown up for hearings about the issue.
And yet he won.
Theories about, from the mundane to the conspiratorial. Simple theories include the fact that Greene was at the top of the ballot and virtually no one was aware the race existed. Answer honestly, have you ever cast a ballot in a race in which you didn't know either candidate? I'm sure I've done that for the local water board or something. A second theory centers around the fact that Greene has a clearly African-American name in a Democratic Primary that was likely dominated by African-American voters (far more than half of Democrats in South Carolina are African-American.) Either of these theories seems to have some plausibility.
A third theory, that there was broad GOP cross-over (South Carolina has an open primary system) to support Greene does not appear plausible to me. First of all, the turnout numbers don't demonstrate a big GOP crossover with only 170,000 ballots cast and the GOP had lots of competitive down ballot races, with over 420,000 ballots case in the GOP contest (you can only get 1 of the 2 ballots in an open primary.) Secondly, how would you get the word out about a giant conspiracy like that given that nobody had heard about the race? Third, why would the GOP care enough to invest so many resources in the race, given that Demint is a likely shoo-in?
A fourth theory is the one that is most concerning...that voting machines failed either accidentally or intentionally to produce a result different from what the voters intended. Intentional fraud seems pretty far-fetched to me. As I said, the GOP had no reason to be concerned and risk such a dangerous and illegal activity. And Greene hardly seems like a character capable of pulling this off. If you are going to steal an election, you would at least put up a basic website for your campaign.
But accidental failure could happen. There is no evidence it did. But that is exactly the problem...South Carolina utilizes electronic voting machines that keep no paper record. So there is no way to verify if votes were properly recorded. Do I think the machines failed? It is less likely than the first two theories above. But it is not impossible.
This race should be a wake-up call for national voting reform, an issue that we were all suddenly made aware of after the Florida debacle in 2000. But little has been done around standards. An obvious national standard would be to get electronic machines in 100% of precincts to avoid the errors of a hand count, but for those machines to print a paper record of the vote, visible to the voter, prior to vote recording. This would give a paper trail against which electronic machines could be cross-checked in the event of any controversy, but would spare us the pain of detailed and imprecise hand counts. It is so simply and so expensive. We just spent almost $800B to stimulate the economy. Isn't our democracy worth the small fraction of that that it would cost to equip all precincts with the systems I described, which are broadly available.
How about some national leadership on this issue, President Obama?
Presidents are always compared to their predecessors. Republicans have been searching for the next Ronald Reagan since Reagan left office in January of 1989. Democrats have been searching for the next John F. Kennedy since Kennedy was shot in Dallas.
President Obama has been compared to a lot of former Presidents. During the campaign, he was widely compared to Kennedy in admiring circles, given his penchant (how soon we forget) for making inspiring, sweeping speeches on the campaign, his relative youth in seeking an office that has often been a home to old men and his ability to inspire young people, as none had done since Kennedy.
Since taking office, President Obama has been subject to some far less flattering comparisons. Republicans have compared him to Jimmy Carter, for his perceived weakness on the foreign stage, his perceived lack of support for the state of Israel and his relative inexperience in foreign policy matters. On both the left and the right, various commentators have likened him to George W. Bush, his immediate predecessor, for his policies in the still-unresolved conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So which of these comparisons make the most sense?
In my opinion, the President's style and approach does closely resemble one President of my lifetime, but none of the ones that are frequently mentioned. He reminds me greatly of President George Herbert-Walker Bush.
Their resumes could hardly be more different. The first President Bush was a fight pilot in World War 2 and an experienced executive, having run the CIA and served 8 years as President. President Obama is one of the least experienced Presidents in modern history, having a mere 4 years in Washington, and that time in a legislative capacity in the Senate, not in an executive position. His origins as a community organizer were the antithesis of the blue blood background of the Bush family. He had no military experience. He was a product of the eclectic blend of Indonesia, Hawaii, Kansas and Chicago versus the ritzy Maine backdrop that H.W. grew up in.
But on substance, they are far more similar than you would think.
H.W. was the most accomplished President since at least Lyndon Johnson in terms of breakthrough policy. Don't believe me? Consider this: the Civil Rights Act of 1991, The Clean Air Act, The Clean Water Act, The Americans with Disabilities Act and the current structure of the tax brackets all came to fruition under the first President Bush. A pragmatic moderate, Bush worked with the Democratically controlled congress to craft the legislation that created the original cap and trade system in this country (for sulfur emissions to eliminate acid rain, a massive success that is widely underreported), drafted our current affirmative action system and signed the legislation that provides the government with the teeth to force BP to pay the costs of the spill clean-up. His deal with the Democrats on a tax package to reduce the deficit, which many believe lead to his undoing in 1992 (I happen to disagree, but more on that later) in many ways set the stage of the balanced budgets in the 1990s. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, W., none can claim such a record of accomplishment.
Bush was also a pragmatist on foreign policy, surgically beating Iraq back from its invasion of Kuwait, but quickly exiting U.S. troops. He was also moderate in his appointments...although he appointed conservative hero Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, he also nominated the moderate-to-liberal David Souter.
What Bush lacked was something that he one referred to as "the vision thing". He was not an inspirer. He did not come off well one-on-one. He struggled to express emotion, be it empathy or anger. When the economy headed south in 1990 and 1991, he was unable to connect with ordinary people or show, in a phrase that Bill Clinton made famous, that he "felt their pain". He was the snobby intellectual that couldn't connect with the unemployed truck driver. He famously ended a speech with the words "message: I care", a painful statement in part because it clarified to everybody that nobody could have discerned from the rest of his speech that he did.
President Obama has a similar record of legislative accomplishment. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is the single biggest shift in our economic policy since the Great Society, with huge investments in infrastructure and tax incentives over three years. Health care reform, while far more limited in scope than many (including myself) would have liked, is the biggest fundamental change in how we manage the health care sector since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid. He has also signed the biggest expansion of the SCHIP (children's health insurance) program in history, legislation which massively increases legal remedies for women who were victims of employment discrimination and legislation which fundamentally changes how the credit card industry operates.
On the foreign policy front, Obama has also been more H-W. than W. He is executing a slow, pragmatic exit from Iraq, taking the middle road in that country as H.W. did. He has ramped up presence in Afghanistan, but again with the promise of a definitive timeline and exit strategy, far from the all-in policies of W.
On the Supreme Court, President Obama has appointed on undoubted liberal (Sonia Sotomayor) and one probable moderate (Elena Kagan). He has moved slowly on social change, as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" remains in effect today, almost a year and a half into his Presidency. While theoretically supportive, he has made zero push for pro-union legislation such as the "Card Check" law.
And he has H-W's flaws as well. He has a big empathy gap. The pathetic assurance of Robert Gibbs that he had seen President Obama get angry was equally as sad as "message: I care" in that it was only necessary because we weren't sure he ever got angry, even when an oil rig was spewing thousands of gallons of oil every hour into our oceans. His statement that "I need to consult the experts so I know whose ass to kick" came off far more as geek playing tough guy than genuine angry man standing up for the people. He doesn't have that Clinton-thing in him.
So what does this mean electorally? Non-empathetic, accomplished intellectuals have a mixed record. LBJ was run out of office. Nixon won re-election in one of the biggest landslides in history. And, most recently, President Bush went down in flames, winning a sad 38% of the vote in his re-election bid. What I suspect will determine Obama's fate is the perceived state of the economy in 2012. When people are down and out, they need an empathizer, a fighter, a man that is not Obama. When people feel good about things, they want a smart guy to steer the ship, as they did in 1988 when they first elected H.W.
Unemployed Broke Charged-Felon Wins SC Democratic Primary
Every election cycle has its share of interesting stories. The strange rise of Ross Perot shocked the political establishment. Jesse Ventura's victory in Minnesota was an amazing story. The Florida recount captivated all of us and angered people of every political stripe at one point or another. The epic Obama v. Clinton Democratic fight in 2008 was a heck of a story. But this one might just take the cake.
The South Carolina Senate Democratic primary had received virtually no media coverage. First of all, incumbent Sen. Jim Demint (R) is believed by virtually everyone (myself included) to be at almost no risk of losing in November. South Carolina is probably the most conservative state in the south, it is not a favorable year to the Democrats and Demint is well-resourced. Secondly, there was no real race. Former State Assemblyman Vic Rawl was the appointed sacrificial lamb and had a modest but sufficient budget. He had signs up around the state, he knocked on some doors, he ran a few ads. And he had no real opponent. The only other Democrat who filed for the office was a guy named Alvin Greene, a man who was completely unknown in the state, ran no campaign, put up no signs, didn't even have a website.
Last Tuesday, by the official tally, Greene trounced Rawl with over 100,000 votes to Rawl's less than 70,000. And nobody knows how.
As I mentioned, Greene ran no campaign of any sort and was unknown. Since he won, it has been discovered that he is an accused felon that has taken the court-appointed lawyer for lack of funds. Nobody can even understand how he came up with the over $10,000 needed to file for his candidacy or how he got the requisite signatures to be on the ballot. He has had no press conferences, granted no interviews and has not even shown up for hearings about the issue.
And yet he won.
Theories about, from the mundane to the conspiratorial. Simple theories include the fact that Greene was at the top of the ballot and virtually no one was aware the race existed. Answer honestly, have you ever cast a ballot in a race in which you didn't know either candidate? I'm sure I've done that for the local water board or something. A second theory centers around the fact that Greene has a clearly African-American name in a Democratic Primary that was likely dominated by African-American voters (far more than half of Democrats in South Carolina are African-American.) Either of these theories seems to have some plausibility.
A third theory, that there was broad GOP cross-over (South Carolina has an open primary system) to support Greene does not appear plausible to me. First of all, the turnout numbers don't demonstrate a big GOP crossover with only 170,000 ballots cast and the GOP had lots of competitive down ballot races, with over 420,000 ballots case in the GOP contest (you can only get 1 of the 2 ballots in an open primary.) Secondly, how would you get the word out about a giant conspiracy like that given that nobody had heard about the race? Third, why would the GOP care enough to invest so many resources in the race, given that Demint is a likely shoo-in?
A fourth theory is the one that is most concerning...that voting machines failed either accidentally or intentionally to produce a result different from what the voters intended. Intentional fraud seems pretty far-fetched to me. As I said, the GOP had no reason to be concerned and risk such a dangerous and illegal activity. And Greene hardly seems like a character capable of pulling this off. If you are going to steal an election, you would at least put up a basic website for your campaign.
But accidental failure could happen. There is no evidence it did. But that is exactly the problem...South Carolina utilizes electronic voting machines that keep no paper record. So there is no way to verify if votes were properly recorded. Do I think the machines failed? It is less likely than the first two theories above. But it is not impossible.
This race should be a wake-up call for national voting reform, an issue that we were all suddenly made aware of after the Florida debacle in 2000. But little has been done around standards. An obvious national standard would be to get electronic machines in 100% of precincts to avoid the errors of a hand count, but for those machines to print a paper record of the vote, visible to the voter, prior to vote recording. This would give a paper trail against which electronic machines could be cross-checked in the event of any controversy, but would spare us the pain of detailed and imprecise hand counts. It is so simply and so expensive. We just spent almost $800B to stimulate the economy. Isn't our democracy worth the small fraction of that that it would cost to equip all precincts with the systems I described, which are broadly available.
How about some national leadership on this issue, President Obama?
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Why the President Doesn't Have Much Time, 2010 Projection Update, The Bizarre World of NY-23, Hate Crimes Take 2
The Clock is Already Winding Down
President Obama has precious little time left if he is going to get major legislative accomplishments in his term.
That seems an odd statement to make just looking at a calendar in the abstract. Today is only day 279 of the Obama Presidency, a mere 19% of his term having expired. But, let's think about how the calendar shapes up.
Enough to make one wonder if he can really get health care and energy policy done, isn't it?
Intrade (the internet gambling site), rates the odds against health reform with a public option at 2.8 to 1 (it does not have a separate bet for whether health reform without a public option will pass.) The odds on cap and trade? 1.2 to 1 against.
Still breathing, but the deck is against the President getting both of his stated policy priorities done.
The 2010 Mid-Terms
(1) The Senate
Major changes in ratings from the polling of the past month:
Nevada -- the last 3 polls have shown Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) trailing by very small margins, but consistently trailing. This one, at least for now, moves from toss-up to Lean GOP Pick-up.
California -- Barbara Boxer is comfortably up by double digits in a couple of recent polls, despite the high profile run of Carly Fiorina. This one moves from Lean Dem Hold to Likely DEM Hold.
Louisiana -- Vitter still leads comfortably, but two polls that put the lead at around 10% indicate that he is not 100% safe. This seat moves from Safe GOP Hold to Likely GOP Hold.
New Hampshire -- New polls are split and the aggregate is right around the zero line, therefore this one moves back from Lean DEM Pick-up to Toss-up.
Ohio -- the Democrats have been slipping in the rust belt the last month and this one is no different. Recent polls show small GOP leads...not quite enough to move this one back in the GOP column, but certainly enough to take it from a Lean DEM Pick-up to Toss-up.
So where does this leave us?
Safe DEM Holds (7)
Hawaii, Maryland, New York (Schumer), Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin
Likely DEM Holds (4)
California, Indiana, North Dakota, Massachussetts*
Lean DEM Holds (2)
Arkansas, New York (Gillebrand)
Lean DEM Pick-ups (1)
Missouri
Toss-up -- DEM Controlled (2)
Illinois, Pennsylvania
Toss-up GOP Controlled (2)
New Hampshire, Ohio
Lean GOP Pick-ups (4)
Colorado, Delaware, Connecticut, Nevada
Lean GOP Holds (3)
Kentucky, North Carolina, Georgia
Likely GOP Holds (6)
Alaska, Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, South Dakota, Louisiana
Safe GOP Holds (6)
Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah
Current Senate: 58 Democrats, 2 Independents, 40 Republicans
* Special election to be held in January, not November
Projection: GOP +3-7 Seats, central projection of GOP +5 Seats
2010 Senate with all toss-ups to GOP: 51 Democrats, 2 Independents, 47 Republicans
2010 Senate with all toss-ups to DEM: 55 Democrats, 2 Independents, 43 Republicans
2010 Senate with all LEANERS to GOP: 48 Democrats, 2 Independents, 50 Republicans
2010 Senate with all LEANERS to DEM: 62 Democrats, 2 Independents, 36 Republicans
Still no path to GOP control (even in the all leaners to GOP case, Lieberman and Sanders caucus with the DEM's and Joe Biden breaks the tie to retain Democratic control), but the most favorable reading on 2010 yet for the GOP.
(2) The House
The generic polling has as wide a range as I've ever seen it. Rasmussen shows GOP +5%, whereas CBS News has DEM +13%. That's an 18% spread between non-partisan polls (although some might question the partisanship of both the organizations mentioned there), an extremely rare circumstance.
My aggregation of all the polls puts the average at DEM +1%.
This puts my projection at GOP +17-22 seats.
If you believe the Rasmussen poll, that would imply a GOP pick-up of approximately 34 to 41 seats, enough to nearly seize control of the House. I don't see that yet.
So, in total, the GOP stands to gain in the mid-terms, but control of either body still looks unlikely.
Many have looked for a repeat of the Gingrich revolution of 1994. At this point, the structure of the election looks unfavorable to such a large swing for several reasons:
The 23rd district in New York is a moderately pro-GOP district (approximately 4% more Republican than the nation as a whole, based on the Presidential election results in November.) The President's popularity is down significantly. The GOP nominated a moderate for the seat. The GOP should be in good shape to retain this seat in the upcoming special election to fill the seat vacated by Army Secretary John McHugh, right?
Not so fast.
A splinter in the GOP has led to an indepedent / conservative party candidate that is receiving the endorsement of major national GOP figures such as Sarah Palin, splitting the GOP vote and creating a scenario where a Democratic win seems likely.
Congressional district level polling is a dicey exercise with limited accuracy, but two different independent polls show the same story -- Doug Hoffman (C) is stealing support from Dede Scozzafava (R), leading to a 4 to 5 point lead for Bill Owens (D).
This is close enough to shift, but Hoffman, currently in third by a fairly wide margin, is picking up money and endorsements, all of which probably plays into Owens' hands.
More an exception case than a bellweather because of the strange circumstances, it looks like the DEM's might be poised to add another seat to their House majority.
Hate Crimes Follow-up
Sometimes I write things that provoke a lot of repsonse. My posting on my opposition to hate crimes laws certainly was one of those times.
A lot of the feedback I found uncompelling. Yes, I'm aware that the historical reason for these laws was white juries in the South in the civil rights era that would not convict white of attacking blacks. Yes, this is a noble reason for wanting such a law. No, it does not change my view that this is the wrong solution to a real problem.
One piece of feedback that gave me pause though, was a point made by a reader. "You state that what is in a person's mind shouldn't be the basis for the severity of punishment. But isn't that exactly the difference between a first degree and second degree murder? An interpretation of a person's intent?" I must admit, this is a very strong point. We do use this distinction, based not inherently on the act itself, but based on evidence on what someone was thinking as a basis for the severity of punishment for murder. There is a legitimate parallel between that and a hate crimes law.
I still fear hate crime laws are a slippery slope towards thought policing and open the door to a more restrictive view of free speech. But I am not as confident in my opposition as I was 24 hours ago.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
President Obama has precious little time left if he is going to get major legislative accomplishments in his term.
That seems an odd statement to make just looking at a calendar in the abstract. Today is only day 279 of the Obama Presidency, a mere 19% of his term having expired. But, let's think about how the calendar shapes up.
- In 2010, the focus will shift to the mid-term elections. If you think Blue Dog Democrats in the House and at-risk Democrats in the Senate are nervous now about making major legislative change, this will increase exponentially as the mid-terms near. The White House has as much as admitted that major accomplishments won't happen in the 2010 congressional sessions.
- The congress that convenes in 2011 and 2012 will likely be significantly less favorable to bold policy changes. It will almost certainly be more Republican (more on that later) and a narrowly controlled Democratic-majority congress isn't likely to be willing to make big waves.
- In what is left of 2009, congress still has to deal with a fair amount of routine appropriations legislation (as covered here), in addition to debating the President's proposals. There are also several holidays -- Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's to work around.
Enough to make one wonder if he can really get health care and energy policy done, isn't it?
Intrade (the internet gambling site), rates the odds against health reform with a public option at 2.8 to 1 (it does not have a separate bet for whether health reform without a public option will pass.) The odds on cap and trade? 1.2 to 1 against.
Still breathing, but the deck is against the President getting both of his stated policy priorities done.
The 2010 Mid-Terms
(1) The Senate
Major changes in ratings from the polling of the past month:
Nevada -- the last 3 polls have shown Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) trailing by very small margins, but consistently trailing. This one, at least for now, moves from toss-up to Lean GOP Pick-up.
California -- Barbara Boxer is comfortably up by double digits in a couple of recent polls, despite the high profile run of Carly Fiorina. This one moves from Lean Dem Hold to Likely DEM Hold.
Louisiana -- Vitter still leads comfortably, but two polls that put the lead at around 10% indicate that he is not 100% safe. This seat moves from Safe GOP Hold to Likely GOP Hold.
New Hampshire -- New polls are split and the aggregate is right around the zero line, therefore this one moves back from Lean DEM Pick-up to Toss-up.
Ohio -- the Democrats have been slipping in the rust belt the last month and this one is no different. Recent polls show small GOP leads...not quite enough to move this one back in the GOP column, but certainly enough to take it from a Lean DEM Pick-up to Toss-up.
So where does this leave us?
Safe DEM Holds (7)
Hawaii, Maryland, New York (Schumer), Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin
Likely DEM Holds (4)
California, Indiana, North Dakota, Massachussetts*
Lean DEM Holds (2)
Arkansas, New York (Gillebrand)
Lean DEM Pick-ups (1)
Missouri
Toss-up -- DEM Controlled (2)
Illinois, Pennsylvania
Toss-up GOP Controlled (2)
New Hampshire, Ohio
Lean GOP Pick-ups (4)
Colorado, Delaware, Connecticut, Nevada
Lean GOP Holds (3)
Kentucky, North Carolina, Georgia
Likely GOP Holds (6)
Alaska, Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, South Dakota, Louisiana
Safe GOP Holds (6)
Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah
Current Senate: 58 Democrats, 2 Independents, 40 Republicans
* Special election to be held in January, not November
Projection: GOP +3-7 Seats, central projection of GOP +5 Seats
2010 Senate with all toss-ups to GOP: 51 Democrats, 2 Independents, 47 Republicans
2010 Senate with all toss-ups to DEM: 55 Democrats, 2 Independents, 43 Republicans
2010 Senate with all LEANERS to GOP: 48 Democrats, 2 Independents, 50 Republicans
2010 Senate with all LEANERS to DEM: 62 Democrats, 2 Independents, 36 Republicans
Still no path to GOP control (even in the all leaners to GOP case, Lieberman and Sanders caucus with the DEM's and Joe Biden breaks the tie to retain Democratic control), but the most favorable reading on 2010 yet for the GOP.
(2) The House
The generic polling has as wide a range as I've ever seen it. Rasmussen shows GOP +5%, whereas CBS News has DEM +13%. That's an 18% spread between non-partisan polls (although some might question the partisanship of both the organizations mentioned there), an extremely rare circumstance.
My aggregation of all the polls puts the average at DEM +1%.
This puts my projection at GOP +17-22 seats.
If you believe the Rasmussen poll, that would imply a GOP pick-up of approximately 34 to 41 seats, enough to nearly seize control of the House. I don't see that yet.
So, in total, the GOP stands to gain in the mid-terms, but control of either body still looks unlikely.
Many have looked for a repeat of the Gingrich revolution of 1994. At this point, the structure of the election looks unfavorable to such a large swing for several reasons:
- Democratic majorities are much more sizeable, particularly in the Senate
- The rotation of Senate seats that are up in 2010 is unfavorable to the GOP, unlike in 1994. 2012 will be a much better map for potential GOP pick-ups than 2010.
- There are far less projected House vacancies in 2010, a key opportunity the GOP seized in 1994.
The 23rd district in New York is a moderately pro-GOP district (approximately 4% more Republican than the nation as a whole, based on the Presidential election results in November.) The President's popularity is down significantly. The GOP nominated a moderate for the seat. The GOP should be in good shape to retain this seat in the upcoming special election to fill the seat vacated by Army Secretary John McHugh, right?
Not so fast.
A splinter in the GOP has led to an indepedent / conservative party candidate that is receiving the endorsement of major national GOP figures such as Sarah Palin, splitting the GOP vote and creating a scenario where a Democratic win seems likely.
Congressional district level polling is a dicey exercise with limited accuracy, but two different independent polls show the same story -- Doug Hoffman (C) is stealing support from Dede Scozzafava (R), leading to a 4 to 5 point lead for Bill Owens (D).
This is close enough to shift, but Hoffman, currently in third by a fairly wide margin, is picking up money and endorsements, all of which probably plays into Owens' hands.
More an exception case than a bellweather because of the strange circumstances, it looks like the DEM's might be poised to add another seat to their House majority.
Hate Crimes Follow-up
Sometimes I write things that provoke a lot of repsonse. My posting on my opposition to hate crimes laws certainly was one of those times.
A lot of the feedback I found uncompelling. Yes, I'm aware that the historical reason for these laws was white juries in the South in the civil rights era that would not convict white of attacking blacks. Yes, this is a noble reason for wanting such a law. No, it does not change my view that this is the wrong solution to a real problem.
One piece of feedback that gave me pause though, was a point made by a reader. "You state that what is in a person's mind shouldn't be the basis for the severity of punishment. But isn't that exactly the difference between a first degree and second degree murder? An interpretation of a person's intent?" I must admit, this is a very strong point. We do use this distinction, based not inherently on the act itself, but based on evidence on what someone was thinking as a basis for the severity of punishment for murder. There is a legitimate parallel between that and a hate crimes law.
I still fear hate crime laws are a slippery slope towards thought policing and open the door to a more restrictive view of free speech. But I am not as confident in my opposition as I was 24 hours ago.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Is This Year 1 of the Clinton Administration Again?
Today is day 188 of the Obama Administration. He has served 12.9% of his elected term. As health care languishes and his poll numbers have started (continued?) to drop off, it begs the question -- is this a replay of the Clinton Administration?
Health Care
Health Care reform is stalled in congress, no two ways about it. The possibility of passage of a bill prior to the August recess looks to be essentially nil. Blue Dogs in the House and moderates in the Senate are concerned about re-election and worried about the cost. The insurance industry is running wall-to-wall commercials opposing reform. Poll numbers on the subject are not particularly encouraging. Feel a little like 1993?
Polls
I will update the charts when I return from Australia but there is no doubt that President Obama's numbers have continued to fall during the month of July. Perhaps most significantly, July 24th marked the first poll release by a non-partisan organization that showed the President with disapproves that exceeded his approves -- the Rasmussen poll had him at -2% (49% approve, 51% disapprove). While this is only one data point and the Rasmussen poll has fairly consistently shown his numbers lower than other major polls, it is still significant in that it opens at least the possibility for opposing politicans that opposing the President may be the popular thing to do. Feeling like 1993 yet?
Stepping In It
President Obama has been rapidly trying to walk back this past week a statement he made that police had "acted stupidly" in arresting Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., which has reopened national wounds around the interreleated of race, profiling and police conduct. President Obama's words were ironically self-describing and it is the most significant verbal gaffe he has mdae since coming on the national stage. Gays in the military, 1993, anyone?
What's Different
The President HAS signed into law one major piece of legislation, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act -- President Clinton failed to get his much more modest stimulus. The President has also signed significant legislation expanding children's health care, changing pay discrimination law and protecting consumer holders of credit cards. The bulk of the economic recovery is likely to come and that should improve the President's numbers, particularly if people associate the recovery with the stimulus bill.
Still, it isn't hard for me to see a scenario where Health Care fails, unemployment stays high and the GOP wins huge gains in 2010 (although I still can't conceive of a scenario where they could retake the Senate.) President Obama isn't looking much like a new kind of politician these days. Those transformational speeches are a distant memory. The time for leadership is now.
Thanks for reading -- if you like this site, tell your friends.
Health Care
Health Care reform is stalled in congress, no two ways about it. The possibility of passage of a bill prior to the August recess looks to be essentially nil. Blue Dogs in the House and moderates in the Senate are concerned about re-election and worried about the cost. The insurance industry is running wall-to-wall commercials opposing reform. Poll numbers on the subject are not particularly encouraging. Feel a little like 1993?
Polls
I will update the charts when I return from Australia but there is no doubt that President Obama's numbers have continued to fall during the month of July. Perhaps most significantly, July 24th marked the first poll release by a non-partisan organization that showed the President with disapproves that exceeded his approves -- the Rasmussen poll had him at -2% (49% approve, 51% disapprove). While this is only one data point and the Rasmussen poll has fairly consistently shown his numbers lower than other major polls, it is still significant in that it opens at least the possibility for opposing politicans that opposing the President may be the popular thing to do. Feeling like 1993 yet?
Stepping In It
President Obama has been rapidly trying to walk back this past week a statement he made that police had "acted stupidly" in arresting Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., which has reopened national wounds around the interreleated of race, profiling and police conduct. President Obama's words were ironically self-describing and it is the most significant verbal gaffe he has mdae since coming on the national stage. Gays in the military, 1993, anyone?
What's Different
The President HAS signed into law one major piece of legislation, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act -- President Clinton failed to get his much more modest stimulus. The President has also signed significant legislation expanding children's health care, changing pay discrimination law and protecting consumer holders of credit cards. The bulk of the economic recovery is likely to come and that should improve the President's numbers, particularly if people associate the recovery with the stimulus bill.
Still, it isn't hard for me to see a scenario where Health Care fails, unemployment stays high and the GOP wins huge gains in 2010 (although I still can't conceive of a scenario where they could retake the Senate.) President Obama isn't looking much like a new kind of politician these days. Those transformational speeches are a distant memory. The time for leadership is now.
Thanks for reading -- if you like this site, tell your friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
